|
Meet the Experts |
Simon Lobdell, State College, Pennsylvania: How would the members of the forum respond to the latest developments in the nuclear industry concerning Yucca Mountain? Is Yucca a government subsidy for the nuclear industry or a subsidy for a national prerogative? Secondly, if new nuclear plants are built and prove to be assets, would they approve of the idea of mass production of hydrogen using nuclear plants? Carl Pope responds: Yucca Mountain is a political solution
to a scientific problem. There is ample evidence that it poses
a major risk of leaking radiation long before the wastes stored
beneath its surface have lost their toxicity. It was picked
by Congress because Nevada was small and relatively powerless
to fight back, and other states didn't want the waste to end
up within their boundaries. Given that we still have no idea
how to safely and permanently store nuclear waste, we shouldn't
build new nuclear power plants -- that would be simply irresponsible. Kurt Yeager responds: Yucca Mountain is certainly a matter of national prerogative. The funding of the research to determine the suitability, licensing, construction and operation of the site is paid for by the nuclear power plant owner/operators. They pay a flat rate of $1 per megawatt-hour produced to cover the costs. The government has collected roughly $16 billion so far, and about half of that has been spent on evaluating the site for suitability as a spent-fuel and high-level waste repository. This is one of the few examples of environmental costs being internalized in the cost of the product. Only the producers pay. Mass production of hydrogen by nuclear plants is being considered. Several designs under development have characteristics that are amenable to hydrogen generation through the thermal/chemical splitting of water. The designs will require certification by the regulators to assure that they protect the health and safety of the public. It is very likely that these designs will be able to produce additional products, such as electricity and desalinated water (for saltwater locations). An added benefit is that the hydrogen produced in this manner will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Albert Nunez, Tacoma Park, MD: Nuclear power produces high-level radioactive waste that remains toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. How is it possible to suggest that it is moral to foist safeguarding this most toxic material on future generations without their consent? To me this amounts to a condition worse than slavery. We won't even mention the potential threat from terrorist attack. Simon Lobdell, State College, PA: I concur on the analysis concerning the decision to originally site Yucca Mountain by the 1987 NWPA Amendment. Moreover, the design of the facility is to isolate the material for 10,000 years -- not until the actual heavy metals decay away. That sort of timescale holds no purpose. The highly radioactive material is gone in about 300 to 1000 years, according to your choice of metrics. After that, it becomes a lot like Oklo in Africa, just a big vein of plutonium and uranium. My question though is more about the decision to bury the entirety of the spent fuel in Yucca. Does that really help the industry, as a lot of people are saying? Or, is it more just the nation making a decision based on national prerogative not to reprocess and to discontinue the active pursuit of the closed nuclear fuel cycle? The second question still stands as well. From my sources, it seems likely new plants will be in the workings by 2008, and by late 2007 TVA may be reopening old plants. Maybe this is an old wound in the environmental community, but it must be honestly addressed if there is to be some sort of national dialogue. Carl Pope responds: We can make electricity -- lots,
all we need, more than we need -- using demonstrated wind, solar,
and other renewable capacity, once we get the waste out of our
economy. The cost per BTU may be more, but if we combine these
with efficiency, our actual electricity bills per unit of economic
product or personal comfort will go down. So why should we even
consider reopening new nuclear plants? Someone may see a chance
to make profit or create an industry doing so, but there is
no compelling need or public benefit. That leaves us with our
existing waste. Why rush forward in haste, as we did at Hanford,
to our great sorrow? Up to Top |
