The closure of nuclear power plants — seven at last count —
and the role of nuclear power in a low carbon world has received a fair
amount of media coverage,
including a piece in The Hill.
What hasn't, however, is what to do about the nuclear waste stored at
these plants and which will continue to be stored at these abandoned
facilities for many decades to come. While the topic has become a
political hot potato, some in Congress, like Illinois Rep. John Shimkus
(R), a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
recognize its importance and the need to address it in short order.
First,
it's important to understand the reasons for the trend toward closures.
The U.S. nuclear fleet is old. While many licenses to operate have been
extended, required upgrades are expensive and regulatory oversight is
extensive. Compounding the problem is the availability of reliable and
cost-effective alternative power sources: shale production in the United
States has contributed to a significant drop in gas prices and made
natural gas-generated electricity comparatively cheap; also, increased
accessibility to lower-cost renewable energy due to declining costs and
supportive policies for investment has squeezed the profitability of
nuclear generation. Finally, demand for electricity has declined due to a
combination of efficiency improvements and manufacturing shifts.As one analyst described the plight of nuclear energy: You cannot roll back the rules of economics.
Second,
it's useful to have some historical context. In 1987, Congress amended
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and designated Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as the exclusive site for the study of a nuclear waste storage
facility. In 2002, the decision to go forward was signed by the
then-secretary of Energy and approved with overwhelming bipartisan
support in both houses of Congress. In 2008, on the heels of a completed
study and the declaration of Yucca Mountain as an appropriate storage
for spent nuclear fuel, the U.S. Department of Energy filed for a
license to begin construction. Shortly thereafter, however, activity in
and around the site rapidly ground to a halt due to opposition from the
administration and some of Nevada's politicians. According to the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), by 2020, the resulting cost to industry
will be almost $20 billion.
Not surprisingly, the
government inactivity has led to a shift in the conversation away from
plants producing electricity and creating waste to plants being
decommissioned and the waste being stranded on site. If Yucca Mountain
is taken off the table as a permanent storage site, every nuclear power
plant that has been storing nuclear waste on an interim basis could
become its own version of Yucca Mountain. The Maine Yankee Plant, closed
in 1997, is still home to 60 nuclear casks and 550 metric tons of
waste. As well, the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts recently announced it
is to be closing and is estimated to have 3,000 radioactive rods in
storage that will be stored on-site indefinitely.
Utilities
owning a nuclear plant are now caught in real bind. According to press
reports, every dismantling decision has been accompanied by a request to
divert reserved funds to also cover costs for long-term fuel storage.
In the case of Vermont Yankee, this is a double-whammy. Not only are its
reserve funds insufficient, forcing the utility to mothball the plant
for 60 years until the dismantlement fund is adequate, the utility is
pursuing an additional line of credit of $145 million to build a storage
facility and estimates that it will take an additional $225 million for
storage operation and security.
Stranded nuclear waste
is precisely what Congress was trying to avoid. It is why Shimkus and
others are now working to determine a responsible path forward on
nuclear waste storage — a path that is based on science, not politics.
To that end, he has called on his colleagues in the Senate, who have
repeatedly blocked consideration and funding, to allow the licensing
process to move forward.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/262407-the-politics-of-nuclear-waste-disposal
