By Alan
Caruba
“The
American people have spent 30 years and $15 billion to determine whether Yucca
Mountain would be a safe repository for our nation’s civilian and
defense-related nuclear waste.” That’s a quote of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
reported in the April issue of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News.
Compare
that with the one year and 45 days it took to build the Empire State Building
or the five years it took to build the Hoover Dam in the depths of the Great
Depression. In the first half of the last century, Americans knew how to get
things done, but the rise of environmentalism in the latter half, starting
around the 1970s, has increased the cost and time of any construction anywhere in the
U.S. In the case of Yucca Mountain it has raised issues about
nuclear waste that is currently stored is less secure conditions.
As
reported by CNS News in January, “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
released the final two volumes of a five-volume safety report that concludes that Nevada’s Yucca
Mountain meets all of its technical and safety requirements for the disposal of
highly radioactive nuclear waste.” Five volumes!
So why the
delay? The NRC says the Department of
Energy “‘has not met certain land and water rights requirements’ and that other
environmental and regulatory hurdles remain.”
A Wall
Street Journal editorial on March 30 asserted that It is not about
environmental and regulatory hurdles. It is about a deal that Nevada Senator
Harry Reid, the former Senate Majority Leader, cut with President Obama to keep
Yucca Mountain from ever opening for use. In return, Reid blocked nearly all
amendments to legislation to shield Obama from having to veto bills. He
virtually nullified the Senate as a functioning element of our government.
“Since
there is no permanent disposal facility, spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear
reactors—‘enough to fill a football field 17 meters deep’ according to a 2012
Government Accountability Office report—is currently being stored at dozens of
above-ground sites. The GAO expects the amount of radioactive waste to double
to 140,000 by 2055 when all of the currently operating nuclear reactors are
retired.”
The United
States where the development of nuclear fission and its use to generate
electrical energy occurred is now well behind other nations that have built
nuclear facilities and are adding new ones. As Donn Dear, an energy expert with
Power For USA, points out “there are only four new nuclear power plants under
construction, all by Toshiba-Westinghouse LLC. One other plant, Watts Bar 2,
whose construction was held up for several years, is being completed by TVA.”
Meanwhile,
as Dear notes, “South Korea is building four nuclear reactors in the United
Arab Emirates. The Russian company, Rosatom, is building power plants in
Turkey, Belarus, Vietnam, and elsewhere. The China National Nuclear Corporation
is scheduled to build over twenty nuclear power plants.”
These
represent jobs and orders for equipment that are not occurring in the United
States, along with the failure to utilize nuclear energy to provide the growing
need for electricity here. The same environmental organizations opposing
construction here are the same ones supporting the Environmental Protection
Agency’s attack on coal-fired electrical plants. The irony is, of course, that
nuclear plants do not produce carbon dioxide emissions that the Greens blame
for the non-existent “global warming”, not called “climate change.”
A cynical
and false propaganda campaign has been waged against nuclear energy in the
U.S., mostly notably with the Hollywood film, “The China Syndrome” about a
reactor meltdown. If you want to worry about radiation, worry about the Sun. It
is a major source. Three incidents, Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in
1986, added to the fears, but no one was harmed by the Three Mile Island event
and Chernobyl was an avoidable accident.
More recent was the March 11, 2011 shutdown
of the Fukushima reactor in Japan as the result of an earthquake and subsequent
tsunami. Three of its cores melted in the first three days, but there have
been no deaths or radiation sickness attributed to this event. That’s the part
you’re not told about.
In the end,
all it takes is one ignorant President to set progress back for decades. In this
case it was President Jimmy Carter for not allowing reprocessing of nuclear
waste, a standard practice in France where only one-fifth of spent fuel
requires storage. In the 1980s there were three U.S. corporations leading the
way on the introduction and use of nuclear energy to produce electrical power;
General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, and Babcock & Wilcox. Today only
Babcock-Wilcox continues as a fully owned American company.
Thanks to
President Obama, we have lost another six years on the Yucca Mountain project.
That fits with his refusal to permit the Keystone XL pipeline. No energy
project that might actually benefit America will ever see his signature.
Some are
arguing that America is a nation in decline and they can surely point to the
near destruction of our nuclear energy industry as one example. That decline
can begin to end in 2017 with the inauguration of a new President.
© Alan
Caruba, 2015
4 comments:
Nuclear energy works, the waste it generates is another matter though... But before it was enriched uranium came from the ground, it only seems right that DEEP in it earth it should return...
It's that *half life* thing that makes me a bit nervous... 10K years from now archaeologists will find some HOT waste and wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?"
"In the 1980s there were three U.S. corporations leading the way on the introduction and use of nuclear energy to produce electrical power; General Electric, Westinghouse Electric, and Babcock & Wilcox. Today only Babcock-Wilcox continues as a fully owned American company."
But the portion of the company that built the electricity-producing reactors in the 1980s is no longer part of the Babcock & Wilcox company. It was purchased entirely by the French in the early 1990's.
It was Gerald Ford that halted any progress towards commercial reprocessing.
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Ford merely delayed commercialization of reprocessing activities in the United States. He left open the possibility to "pursue reprocessing and recycling in the future ... if they are found to be consistent with our international objectives."
It was President Carter who chose to "defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium produced in the U.S. nuclear power programs." He also took the additional step to close Barnwell by ending all federal encouragement and funding, which was pretty much the nail in the coffin.
Even after Reagan lifted the indefinite ban on commercial reprocessing activities in 1981, the damage done to Barnwell through years of no funding throughout Carter's term meant that the project still collapsed and was halted.
If anyone should be blamed, it's Carter.
Post a Comment