Nuclear Energy's Presence

Nuclear Energy's Presence

January 9, 2008

The nuclear sector's prospects got a little brighter over the holidays. Congress passed legislation to provide loan guarantees to lenders of up to $18.5 billion to facilitate the development of next generation nuclear plants. But the thorny issue of where to store the spent fuel remains unresolved, leaving nuclear operators no option but to store that radioactive material on site.
Ken Silverstein
EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief
Read Ken's Blog

Respond to the editor.

With the world focused on lessening the level of greenhouse gas emissions, the subject of nuclear energy is gaining increasing attention. Both proponents and opponents of the $18.5 billion earmark reacted to the news, with the former saying it would go a long way toward ushering in a new era of electricity generation while the latter saying it diverts valuable resources away from cleaner and safer forms of energy.

There are 104 nuclear power reactors operating in the United States, generating approximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity. Most of these reactors have 40-year operating licenses, but several have recently received extensions for another 20 years. Even with extensions, the first plants will retire in 2029 and nearly all will retire by 2050. Currently 17 utility companies have plans to build 31 new reactors.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an expansion of nuclear power capacity in the United States could help reduce the threats posed by global warming. But it could also increase threats to public safety and national security in the form of radiation releases or terrorist attacks.

It adds that the disposal of highly radioactive waste contained in nuclear reactors' used, or spent, fuel rods poses another serious problem. The waste, it says, needs to be isolated and ultimately stored in a permanent underground storage facility such as Yucca Mountain -- that may never get licensed. Until then, the scientists say that the waste can be placed safely underground in dry casks for the next 50 years.

"Unless the industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the federal government adopt the common-sense recommendations in our report, building a new fleet of nuclear power plants will create serious safety and security risks," says Lisbeth Gronlund, co-director of the group's Global Security Program in a report on the future of nuclear power. The group also questions the loan guarantees, saying that the amount won't go far as the price tag associated with one plant could equal as much as $12 billion.

Nuclear advocates point out that loan guarantees are not taxpayer handouts; rather, they serve to boost investor confidence and help move forward worthy projects on reasonable financial terms. That view is shared by Constellation Energy, which is trying to build a third nuclear reactor at a cost of $4 billion in Maryland. The Baltimore-based company has begun the licensing process associated with the plant and says that it could begin operating as early as 2015.

"The availability of loan guarantees to facilitate debt financing...will help reduce uncertainties surrounding these capital-intensive projects," says Skip Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Divisions Persist

Beside loan guarantees, Congress also provided funding to developed advanced technologies to recycle spent fuel. That process would have the potential of reclaiming nearly 90 percent of the energy contained in the used fuel while also reducing the volume of waste by-products. In the long run, however, the nation still needs a permanent disposal facility for used fuel and defense waste, says the nuclear institute.

But the Yucca Mountain funding reduction stands in the way of that goal. Congress allocated about $386 million for the permanent storage facility in fiscal 2008. That's $108 million less than what the Bush administration has proposed. If an application arrives, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it will begin reviewing it on June 30, 2008 that is the target date for submitting such paperwork.

For its part, the U.S. Department of Energy says that it will have its application ready then, calling Yucca Mountain "critical to the nation's current and future energy and national security needs." It adds that the full funding of President Bush's $494.5 million request is also "critical to advancing the opening of the nation's first geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel."

The Energy Department goes on to say that the earliest time Yucca could open would be 2017 with a total price tag of $77 billion. The repository has been designed to hold 77,000 tons of radioactive waste, all transported from multiple sites around the country. But the department now says that the location should be structured to hold 150,000 tons, noting that nuclear plants will only become more productive.

That proclamation serves to strengthen the resolve of opponents to Yucca Mountain, who include Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada who is in control of the legislative process on the Senate floor. Until there's a resolution, the nation's nuclear operators are committed to storing the spent fuel on site in giant dry casks that are encased in concrete.

That's the case with Entergy, which is preparing for such a move at its Indian Point 2 nuclear plant in New York State. The utility has begun removing the radioactive material from unit's spent fuel pool and placing it in the casks, all to make room for added nuclear production and additional spent fuel. Entergy has applied for new licenses to allow Indian Point 2 and 3 to remain in operation until 2030 -- a move that is under challenge from the state's governor and some environmental organizations.

Divisions persist, keeping the fate of any the nuclear revival at bay. While nuclear power would minimize greenhouse gas emissions and help the nation meet its growing energy needs, some groups say that it creates too many national security concerns. To move the cause forward, Congress has stepped up with new incentives.