Filed under : Scitizen >> Technology >> Future Energies >> "Cancelling the Yucca Mountain repository will throw the entire nuclear waste management program into doubt"
"Cancelling the Yucca Mountain repository will throw the entire nuclear waste management program into doubt"
15 Jun, 2009 09:33 pm
Enlarge text
Reduce text sizeFollowing the Obama administration's decision to end the planning for Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the final repository for high-level radioactive material from all of the nation's nuclear power plants, a panel of nuclear power experts met in May at MIT to discuss how to address nuclear waste recycling or disposal, which many analysts consider the biggest obstacle to building a new generation of nuclear power plants across America. Dr. Matthew Bunn, who took part in the debate, answers Scitizen's questions.
 |
No, I think that was a mistake. Yucca Mountain, if properly designed and operated, could provide a safe place for permament disposal of nuclear waste. Cancelling it will throw the entire nuclear waste management program into doubt, and it is likely to be decades before the United States can settle on another site.
In your testimony, you declared that using today's reprocessing technologies presents greater risks for nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Do you include new reprocessing technologies that are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products?
Those are not today’s technologies. None of them will be ready for commercial deployment for something like 20 years, if not more. Moreover, I have not yet seen a convincing end-to-end systems analysis that would indicate that these technologies, judged overall (including cost, waste management, safety, security against terrorism, proliferation risks, public acceptance, and use of resources) are superior to the once-through approaches that are likely to be available several decades hence.
What are your recommendations regarding America's next generation of nuclear power plants?
For better or for worse, the next generation of nuclear power plants in the United States will be the designs already on offer from the major reactor vendors. Whether they will be built in any substantial numbers will depend in substantial part on whether they end up being economically competitive with other low-carbon alternatives. The costs of nuclear power plants have skyrocketed in recent years, but the costs of coal and gas plants have risen substantially as well. The costs of sources such as wind and solar depends in part on what allowance is made for their intermittent nature. The outcome of the competition is not yet clear. I believe the U.S. government should move forward with a carefully structured program of loan guarantees for the first few nuclear power plants —and with similar guarantees for other new low-carbon energy sources— but should structure the effort with the explicit goal of getting to a situation after the first few plants where they no longer need government support.
Interview by Clementine Fullias
Matthew Bunn is an Associate Professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. His research interests include nuclear theft and terrorism; nuclear proliferation and measures to control it; and the future of nuclear energy and its fuel cycle.
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to Newsvine-
02/02/10
Is Hydrogen Research Driven by Fantasy?
-
25/01/10
UK: using woodlands to cut emissions
-
25/01/10
Prices of Various Energy Sources
-
25/01/10
The Renewable Power Rebellion
-
25/01/10
Venezuela May Yield Twice as Much Oil as was Thought.
| [1] | Comment by James Aach
- 16 Jun, 2009 12:54 am I have no idea if Dr. Bunn's comments on reprocessing techologies is true, but I still found his comment that puts it years in the future for commerical deployment to be refreshing. We've had too much commentary recently that assumes having something on the drawing board is the practically the same as having it in wide-scale production. I'm an engineer working in nuclear energy. If experience is any guide, nothing in this area is quickly turned commericial. One of the problems with thinking about nuclear power is that most people have no real world experience to go on - just academic papers, propaganda from both sides, and really bad TV movies. But a longtime insider's account of the US nuclear industry, a novel called "Rad Decision" is available free online at RadDecision.blogspot.com . No advertisting, no sponsors, no $$ for the author - just the real world of nuclear, good and bad. "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - STEWART BRAND, author of "Environmental Heresies" in MIT Technology Review and founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog". |
Alert Moderator
| |
| [2] | Comment by Chris Matt Realsit - 8 Jul, 2009 04:39 pm There was no problem with yucca if the idiots would just let the transports go through they would be near you for less than an hour. Its just everyone thinks its like a bomb traveling through your backyard. Its not. And the thing about earthquakes at yucca is not a problem. |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
| [3] | Comment by Bill Rodgers - 11 Jul, 2009 09:10 pm We have spent years and billions of dollars at Yucca on a political solution not a true technical solution to the spent fuel issues as Dr. Bunn is well aware. Yucca still had many technical as well as political issues to resolve. Such as how and where to repackage the fuel that is already contained in NUHOMS and HOLTEC canisters into the smaller DOE TAD canisters. Such as the fact that Yucca was already oversubscribed, even before the first shipment of commercial fuel arrived. Both of which Dr. Bunn should be well aware of in his research on this issue No commercial fuel would have moved to Yucca for at least another 10-20 years at best even if Yucca received its license in 2018 as proposed because of those technical issues as well as the regulatory issues. Every governor of the states proposed to be used as a travel route would actively work to stop the trains carrying the nuclear material whether it was from federal sources or commercial sources. Now with Yucca stopped maybe we can finally work on real solutions instead of constant mind-numbing, non-stop tax dollar draining “research and analysis” on a once through approach to storing our nuclear material inventory. The fuel is safe in on-site storage for many decades so we have time to put together a true technical solution that addresses the political and non-proliferation issues as well. We have Gen IV technology that was designed, built and tested but was shut down in the mid-90's. It is ready to go to full scale prototype testing. GE just presented their plan to the House Science Committee based on the PRISM plan as has been discussed for the past several years by Dr. Eric Loewen. A real question to Dr. Bunn would have been worded something like why does he not feel the PRISM plan is workable. Not the open-ended question about new reprocessing technologies which did not define what constitutes “new” reprocessing technology. All I have seen are new plans using variants of the same reprocessing technology that has been used for years. Dr. Bunn and his group focus on nonproliferation issues not power generation or grid management issues. We need that nonproliferation knowledge and expertise but the proliferation issues of nuclear material is one factor in many to consider on how we store and recycle our nuclear material inventory while generating reliable 24/7 power. Also we will be left behind technologically from the rest of the world if we continue to pursue a once through mindset while the rest of the world pursues reprocessing/recycling technologies which could then ultimately affect our long term national security. |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
| [4] | Comment by GAURAV KURANJEKAR - 18 Sep, 2009 04:28 pm It's not right that we diposit all the waste into this mountain one day will come when it'll mix with ground water & it will enter our natural cycle or through any other natural calamity will occur & at that time if we don't have any preventive measures against it then we will have to pay for it or get ready for it. |
|
Alert Moderator
| |
