Vol. 4, No. 11
.jpg)
April 1, 2007
Nevada's Online State News Journal
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||||||
 |
Find Out
More About Our Wonderful State. |
COPYWRITING
|
|
Feature Story:
Nuclear Waste Problem
Easily Solved
Think Costs Of Yucca,
Costs Of Leaving On Site
In the midst of all the controversy and hyperbole regarding the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, a recently-completed report comparing the cost of building the repository with simply storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites where it currently resides, has the potential to end the failing Yucca Mountain project and formalize what is taking place at nearly every nuclear power plant.
Nevada commissioned Dr. Michael C. Thorne, an internationally known expert on complex cost studies, to use DOE’s own cost figures to evaluate the cost of proceeding with the Yucca Mountain Project versus the cost of continuing to store spent fuel in dry casks at 100 U.S. reactor sites. The study found that the at-reactor storage costs would be around $13.8 billion, compared to over $100 billion to move the waste to Yucca Mountain and store it there.
The results of the study have breathed new life into legislation introduced by Nevada’s Senators Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and John Ensign, a high-ranking Republican, that would force the federal government to "take title" to the high-level nuclear waste currently stored at more than 100 nuclear reactor sites in more than 30 states and pay for indefinite on-site storage using funds that have already been paid into a special nuclear waste fund.
By taking this approach and dumping the long-delayed Yucca Mountain Project, utility ratepayers and taxpayers nationwide would save billions of dollars, while eliminating the need for dangerous and costly transportation of deadly nuclear waste through cities and communities across the nation.
The logic behind the bill is simple, according to Robert Loux, executive director of Nevada’s Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Why should ratepayers across the country continue paying for DOE’s mistakes when billions can be saved by the simple expedient of doing what most nuclear utility companies are doing right now anyway – moving spent fuel into safe and efficient dry storage installations?"
Loux pointed to widely reported comments made in a recent speech by Edward Sproat, who directs DOE’s Office of Civilian Waste Management, as added support for just such an approach. Sproat said that by 2017, the federal government’s liability to utilities for breach of contract, or failing to take possession of nuclear waste by 1998 as it promised the utilities, will be about $7 billion, plus an additional $500 million per year until Yucca Mountain opens (something that an increasing number of experts in and beyond Nevada believe will never happen anyway).
Utility ratepayers in areas that utilize nuclear power have been paying into a nuclear waste fund for decades. About $19.5 billion has collected in this waste fund, which is financed by a fee on each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by nuclear reactors.
"If the ‘take title’ bill passes, it stops the hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars immediately," he said. "And given the $19 billion in the fund, there is more than enough money already collected to pay for storing the waste at reactor sites in perpetuity."
Under the bill proposed by Nevada’s senators, Loux said an amendment could be included that would stop ratepayers from continuing to pay into the fund immediately. Loux said ratepayers would "no longer be taxed to help fund the failing Yucca Mountain Project." At the same time, he said the federal government would stop amassing debt and cap its mounting legal liabilities.
"Everyone wins, taxpayers, ratepayers, Nevadans, everyone," he said. "You will have solved the problem, especially since Yucca Mountain isn’t going forward anyway."
(This feature article courtesy of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, Bob Loux, director)•••
______________________________________________________________________________________