Comments on: Where is the Real Dr. Chu, Mr. President? (Climate alarmism – nuclear = not much on the supply side)

By: Donald Hertzmark

Donald Hertzmark — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:02:43 +0000

Dear Rod,
Your points are well taken. I guess that the question is whether one believes that this administration is actually dealing in good faith on the nuclear issue. Surely, without affirmative support from the government, and this includes GNEP, investors in nuclear power at any stage of the fuel cycle are going to suspect that the end result will be no permits to operate resulting in an expensive hunk of junk. Would that we could de-politicize the energy business and make it less of a “what does mommy want me to do” industry, but this is the hand we are dealt at present.

By: Rod Adams

Rod Adams — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:13:28 +0000

Don:

Though I agree that the current administration has issued some conflicting statements about the future use of nuclear power, your assertion that canceling the funding for Yucca Mountain will prevent new nuclear plant construction ignores the longstanding “waste confidence ruling” first issued by the NRC in the early 1980′s. It has recently gone through a lengthy review process with the following conclusion: “. . .if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental impacts for at least 60 years beyond the licensed life for operation (which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor in a combination of storage in its spent fuel storage basin or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs).” (http://tinyurl.com/mecm6t)

I also see no issue with regard to fuel recycling because of a decision to stop funding the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a decision that does not preclude private investment in appropriate facilities.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

By: Donald Hertzmark

Donald Hertzmark — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:03:05 +0000

Jim, Andrew,
In the case of waste storage (Yucca Mountain) there is not an issue of federal monies. The ratepayers have paid for the storage and the feds have confiscated the money because they can.

With regard to fuel recycling the scale of such an activity in the US would certainly give rise to reasonable economies of operation and construction were such economies possible. Under the current prohibitions we may never know.

If the feds do some of the seed work and then private investors take over the implementation stage, then this is no different from government support for medical research and can be justified on similar grounds. If the private investors are unwilling to invest then Jim’s open question has been answered.

At present the industry is hostage to prohibition of any spent fuel solutions and is consequently not viable from either a regulatory or financial standpoint. The feds are now in a position of saying “hey, you guys cannot do anything with the spent fuel except store it on site and we will not give you and operation permit to do that with a new plant.” This hardly makes the case that investors are unwilling to go forward with solutions to the spent fuel issue. Like a patient on oxygen, the nuclear industry can only breathe if we get our feet off the air hose. It does not guarantee success, but may permit it.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:08:18 +0000

Jim-things happen without subsidies when they are profitable. So a good question is, when, if ever, will nuclear fuel recycling become economically viable?

I don’t agree with the philosophy that one can speed innovation by throwing money at something, so I too think perhaps for the moment one shouldn’t expect nuclear to thrive.

By: Jim Clarkson

Jim Clarkson — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:51:30 +0000

Don,
Do you think there will be no recycling unless there are federal subsidies? What about the willing investors, shouldn’t we count on the market to develop ways to handle nuclear waste? If there is no market solution then maybe there should be no nuclear power.