| Home Page | Blog | Social Security | Healthcare | Energy | Education |
| Taxes | Budget Discipline | Outreach | References | Links | Join Us |
SAFE’s “hit nail on head” blog
(Please direct feedback to ww3@atlanticbb.net)
3/8/10 – If coal power is too “dirty,” how about nuclear? Read Replies
The president recently announced plans for a nuclear resurgence, as was noted in our global warming/ energy policy microblog:
2/17/10, A11, "Obama pushes nuclear resurgence," Aaron Nathans – Hallelujah! Maybe we won't suffer an electricity shortage after all. The government is planning to provide $8 billion in loan guarantees for “the first new reactor in the United States in about three decades.” This support will go to the Southern Company for two nuclear power plants in Burke County, Georgia. Breaking the logjam is important, but there is an obvious question: How about nuclear waste? As the article says, “a long-planned nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada” has been scuttled and a blue ribbon commission will be asked to “find another solution.” * * *
http://www.s-a-f-e.org/global_warming.htm
But is the new study likely to resolve the longstanding nuclear waste issue? Our assessment follows.
Premises: If coal-fired power plants are to be phased out, nuclear power plants would probably be the most economical replacement – provided the industry is not hobbled with needlessly stringent regulations that inflate costs and create investment uncertainty.
We do not believe that nuclear plants should be subsidized. The ideal approach is to establish a level playing field for alternative power sources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, wind and solar, and then allow the choices to be determined by the operation of a free market. Nuclear power: building for the future and hold the subsidies, 8/18/08.
If the level playing field principle was adhered to (as we think it should be), there is some question whether more nuclear power plants would be built. Some analysts see relatively “clean” natural gas power plants as economically superior, and they could be proven right – unless, perhaps, ways were found to reduce the cost of nuclear power, such as fuel recycling or building smaller reactors that do not require multi-billion dollar upfront investments. Cato Scholars Comment on the Obama Administration Supporting Two New Nuclear Reactors in Georgia, Jerry Taylor; Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, 2/17/10.
http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php?display=ncomments&id=324
Note that the existence of government subsidies for investments structured in a defined way can impede innovation. Thus, two bills meant to promote small and modular nuclear power development might well “have the opposite impact.” Senate Attempts to Promote Small Nuclear Reactors Fall Short, Jack Spencer, Heritage Foundation, 12/14/09.
Funding not needed – government involvement in manufacturing & construction techniques would slow things down – standardized design would stifle innovation – “public workshops” would play into anti-nuclear agenda – etc.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2733.cfm
Are we preaching economic anarchy? No, the government can and should establish appropriate environmental and safety requirements for the various modes of generating power. But it is inappropriate to go overboard in this regard, as by (1) mandating reductions in carbon emissions that will supposedly prevent global warming (a nonexistent problem), (2) imposing limits on real pollutants from fossil fuel plants that are far stricter than is necessary to protect the public, or (3) obsessing about marginal increases in natural radiation levels near nuclear power plants. Moreover, wind and solar power facilities have environmental drawbacks too, notably the use of a lot of space, and these drawbacks should not be ignored.
The plan: In the State of the Union Address, the president called for “building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Fine, but his subsequent announcement of loan guarantees for the Georgia nuclear plants was troubling. Why do the politicians keep subsidizing favored energy projects, thereby trying to choose winners and losers, instead of letting free markets work?
Then there is a practical obstacle to building more nuclear plants, even with subsidies, namely the longstanding controversy about the disposition of radioactive waste. The use of geological repositories was envisioned during the Carter era, and Yucca Mountain, Nevada was identified as the preferred site in the 1980s. But there was fierce resistance to this proposal, and in 2009 – after spending some $11 billion for preliminary studies and site preparation – construction was yet to begin.
Last year the Obama Administration pulled the plug on Yucca Mountain, probably more for political than technical reasons, without offering an alternative. Carbon showdown on multiple fronts, 10/5/09.
Unless and until the nuclear waste treatment or disposal issue is resolved, investors would be foolish to undertake multi-billion dollar nuclear plants that they might not be able to operate. The president’s announcement of federal loan guarantees did not alter this reality, although a “blue ribbon” commission has now been created to study the issue.
The Commission: On January 29, the president directed the energy secretary to create a Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The purpose of the Commission was specified in the president’s memorandum. An interim report within 18 months (circa 7/29/11) was called for, which was to be followed by publication of the Commission’s recommendations for public comment and a final report within 24 months (circa 1/29/12).
Also on January 29 (obviously the details had been worked out in advance) the Secretary of Energy announced the creation of the Commission and appointment of its 15 members. Simply put, the purpose of the Commission is to propose alternatives to the Yucca Mountain repository:
In light of the Administration’s decision not to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, President Obama has directed Secretary Chu to establish the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission will provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.
The co-chairs: Lee Hamilton (former Congressman, Vice-Chair for the 9/11 Commission, now holds several positions in academia); Brent Scowcroft (former Army officer and national security advisor, now heads an international business advisory firm).
The membership of the 15-member commission is said to provide a range of expertise and experience:
The Commission is made up of 15 members who have a range of expertise and experience in nuclear issues, including scientists, industry representatives, and respected former elected officials. The Commission’s co-chairs have a record of tackling tough challenges in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner and building consensus among an array of interests.
However, there is only one nuclear power industry representative (John Rowe, the chairman of Exelon) on the Commission and no one appears to have financial or economic expertise. Most of the members are politicians or from academia.
http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm
The outlook: We don’t mean to be killjoys, but there are several reasons to be pessimistic about the Commission’s likely contributions.
First, neither the president nor his advisors have a track record of supporting nuclear power. At best, they may see nuclear power as a bargaining chip that could potentially be used in undermining resistance to carbon emission limits. Beware greens bearing gifts, Steve Milloy, Washington Times, 1/7/10.
Lip service by Senate Democrats in favor of expanded nuclear power and domestic drilling aside, Republicans should remember that Mr. Obama, so-called "environmentalists," and the rest of the American left are all dead set against more nuclear power and domestic drilling. Despite his campaign rhetoric, Mr. Obama has done what he can to curtail both.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/07/beware-greens-bearing-gifts/
As for any hope that Energy Secretary Steven Chu might steer matters in a constructive direction, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist appears to be a babe in the woods (and therefore likely to do what he is told) when it comes to politics. Skating on thin ice for climate change, Washington Times, 3/1/10.
Second, it seems doubtful that “all options” are really on the table. For example, the decision to pull the plug on Yucca Mountain will apparently not be reviewed. Has Obama Moved Center on Nuclear Power? Mona Charen, Townhall.com, 2/2/10.
And why are we forming yet another blue ribbon commission to study a matter that has already been studied to death? The commission is empowered to study "all options" except the one that has already been chosen by the United States government. So much for the previous blue ribbon commission that had settled on the Yucca Mountain site.
We do not necessarily support the idea of a repository for nuclear waste as opposed to recycling that would extract more fuel content from nuclear waste and reduce the volume of material to be stored on a long-term basis. Indeed, some powerful arguments have been made in favor of recycling, which is being done in other countries. Consider these comments from the 1/25/10 microblog entry.
http://www.s-a-f-e.org/global_warming.htm
Spent nuclear materials are stored in water pools for months. Then, after a large decrease in radiation intensity, they are placed in caskets, inside concrete where they could be kept onsite for 50 to 100 years. However, we should be recycling nuclear materials, as is done by France, Britain, Russia and Canada. After recycling and re-use, the leftover materials in France can be stored in one room.
Recycling was prohibited during the Carter administration for fear enemies could get bomb-making materials. This is not a problem, because spent nuclear material contains four plutonium isotopes and only one is useful for bombs. Separation would be prohibitively difficult.
In summary, the U.S. should join the rest of the world in recycling spent nuclear materials, and make whatever changes are needed so that nuclear power plants can be built in a reasonable amount of time. Terrestrial Energy, William Tucker, Bartleby Press (2008).
http://www.s-a-f-e.org/terrestial_energy.htm
But there was no mention of recycling in the drop Yucca Mountain announcement; it remains to be seen whether recycling will be proposed as a new solution or characterized as “too radical” and pushed under the carpet again.
Third, prior nuclear studies have not led to consensus and action. Thus, Susan Eisenhower, one of the members of the new Commission, participated in a 2004-05 study that produced a report entitled “Moving Forward with Nuclear Power: Issues and Key Factors.” She visited the Yucca Mountain site in 2004, among other things, and now the plug has been pulled on that project and the waste disposal discussion is starting from ground zero. So why should a quick and final answer be expected this time?
http://www.susaneisenhower.com/aboutpg2/
Fourth, there are diverse opinions on the desirability and feasibility of nuclear power – and it is unlikely that all concerned will embrace the Commission’s recommendations (whatever they may be).
Some power company executives are apparently inclined to support restoration of the Yucca Mountain approach, which at least involved a known strategic direction. Democrats Revolt Over Energy, Rebecca Smith & Stephen Power, Wall Street Journal, 3/5/10.
Michael Morris, chief executive of American Electric Power Co. [primarily coal power, but some nuclear plants], said on Thursday that "there has to be a reaction," because Yucca is the only site that's been vetted and deemed capable of storing waste from the nation's 104 operating power reactors. Speaking at a Wall Street Journal conference, he blasted the "idiocy of Yucca Mountain" being terminated as a repository, and said the government will have wasted $10 billion on the project if it doesn't proceed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704187204575101741972210942.html
Anti-nuclear activists are not just opposed to new nuclear power plants; they would like to see existing ones shut down. The driving force is emotional dislike of the idea of nuclear power, not economics or even safety. Consider, for example, the lopsided vote (26-4) in the Vermont Senate to block renewal of the operating license for a nuclear plant that produces 1/3 of the state’s electricity. Vermont Senate Votes to Close Nuclear Plant, Matthew Wald, New York Times, 2/24/10.
While it is unclear how Vermont Yankee’s fate could influence the future of nuclear power nationally, the reactor’s recent troubles are viewed by some as a challenge to arguments that such plants are clean, well run and worth building. [Also note picture of nuclear opponents celebrating the vote.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25nuke.html?scp=8&sq=nuclear power &st=cse
Conclusions: A nuclear power resurgence is far from assured, even if the Administration’s professed support is sincere, and the current study will not necessarily bring it about (any more than prior studies did). The best way to assure wise decisions about the sources for the power that this country needs is to level the playing field between fossil fuels, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. and allow the free market to decide.
Next week: (1) The healthcare battle has been proceeding along predictable lines since the 2/25/10 “summit,” with the outcome still in doubt. (2) If the Fiscal Commission is supposed to accomplish anything constructive, the presidential member picks (including Andy Stern of the SEIU) seem uninspired. (3) CBO has projected even bigger deficits ($9.7T by 2020) than were reflected in the president’s budget proposal ($8.5T). Look for an update that weaves these elements together into “the big picture.”
Additional Blogs below:
3/1/10 – Should government be held to a higher standard?
We are indebted to SAFE member Harry Thompson in Tucson, Arizona for suggesting this week’s topic: government practices that would not be tolerated in the private sector.
2/22/10 – Here goes nothing: some thoughts about the Fiscal Commission Read a Reply
It has been suggested that presidents appoint commissions when they don’t want to do anything about something, while giving the illusion that they do.
2/15/10 – Don’t just stand there, do something constructive.
We reviewed the president’s budget last week, and ended by suggesting that Congress should “bin it.”
2/8/10 – Sorry, but the budget was dead on arrival. Read Replies
This week’s entry will review the president’s budget proposal, which was transmitted to Congress on February 1.
2/1/10 – Washington is not working so let’s take another helping.
SAFE’s prediction about the State of the Union (“SOTU”) address was not fully borne out.
1/25/10 – A setback for GovCare, now what?
Just before Christmas, when a 60-vote supermajority was mustered to cut off debate on the Senate version of the healthcare plan (GovCare), it seemed that some version of this plan was inevitable and would be enacted early in 2010.
1/18/10 – Hey, this deck is stacked!
As readers of this blog are surely aware, SAFE is a big believer in smaller, more focused, less costly government.
1/11/10 – A case for demanding better results Read Replies
Last week’s entry predicted that, in the upcoming State of the Union (SOTU) address, the president will call for improved “debt management,” to be achieved on a bipartisan basis based on a review by an independent commission or task force.
1/4/10 – The wrong way to defuse the debt bomb. Read Replies
Happy New Year! With Congress mercifully in recess, there is not much happening in the public policy arena.
More in our "Archives"