• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Discussing Solutions for Nuclear Waste

    The Obama administration’s rhetoric on nuclear energy has been promising.  Unfortunately, actions speak louder than words and his decision to attempt to kill the waste repository program at Yucca Mountain without a workable replacement speaks volumes. Not only has the nation spent nearly $10 billion on the project, but no technical or scientific justifications were provided.  The president and his administration excuse their decision by simply stating that it is “unworkable.”

    To develop a replacement program for Yucca, the President appointed the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to analyze the current state of nuclear waste disposal and put forth recommendations for consideration by 2012.  Yet the past failure of the government to prevent the current situation raises doubt about the ability of the Commission to solve the problem effectively.  How much will legislative red tape slow the process?  And will the next administration once again prove the devastating unpredictability of politics by sending researchers scurrying in an entirely new direction?  In order to discuss the Blue Ribbon Commission and the state of the nuclear renaissance, The Heritage Foundation held two panels of nuclear experts on June 9th.

    The day began with a presentation by Tim Frazier of the Blue Ribbon Commission who recognized that the current nuclear waste disposal process cannot last indefinitely.  Frazier explained, “The question is; while we handle figuring out where the new geological repository is going to be, is there a better way to handle spent nuclear fuel?” The current storage dilemma was explained in detail by Panelist John Kessler. For now, the radioactive waste is stored at various facilities owned by nuclear companies.  Each plant is equipped with a used fuel storage pool where the fuel is kept once it is used in the reactor.  As the waste undergoes its natural radioactivity cycle and the original wet storage pools fill, the used fuel is shifted from wet storage to dry storage.  However, spent fuel pools are filling up quickly. Most storage facilities were designed to hold only enough waste to allow for the finding of and planning for a geological repository.  As Kessler explained, “the industry…assumed that within five years the used fuel that was going to sit in their spent fuel pools was going to be removed and moved on to reprocessing; hence a lot of the early power plants only had the capability to store about five years of fuel.”

    Frazier emphasized that, even if no new nuclear plants are constructed, the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that there will still be more than 100,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuel by 2050.

    With no disposal options remaining open under the current regime, the Blue Ribbon Commission has a difficult task ahead of it.  Dan Stout, Senior Manager of Government Affairs and Fuel Projects (Tennessee Valley Authority) stated that “The biggest challenge that the Blue Ribbon Commission will face is to put in place a stable policy, the kind that will endure”.  However, can a policy that is on one hand subject to sudden political transitions, and on the other tied up in legislative complications, be created with the perfect mixture of adaptability and consistency that will allow a solution to be uncovered?

    This is why Stout as well as other guests emphasized the importance of defining a process.  Regardless of technology, most panelists agreed that the greatest contribution that the Commission could make is to recommend a bureaucratic infrastructure that would allow a waste management regime to emerge that is flexible, resilient, and sustainable.

    Unfortunately, putting together a proposal is not the only challenge the Blue Ribbon Commission will face.  Another concern is public receptiveness to the Commission’s plan. Iain Murray, vice president of strategy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who submitted comments but was unable to attend the panel, suggested that holding forums and round-table discussions would be essential in legitimizing the Commission’s proposals in the public eye.  He cited a similar situation already encountered by the British Committee on Radioactive Waste Management; “Citizens panels and school projects where previously uninformed individuals were able to learn about the issues in depth came to different conclusions about geological disposal than the so-called stakeholder groups, made up of special interest groups.  The citizens’ panels, schools projects and discussion guide users all came to strong majority views that geological disposal should form part of the overall strategy.”

    When asked if the Blue Ribbon Commission had any plans to educate the public, Tim Frazier stated; “That would be a pretty tall order…It’s not in the charter that there will be any sort of education program.”  A small investment in public education could help solidify the Commission’s ultimate recommendations.

    Unfortunately, public perceptions are important for public issues and it may be time to transition waste management out of the public sphere altogether. Indeed, there was a general consensus that regardless of how nuclear waste is handled, the injection of some market forces could be valuable in guiding the process.

    Jack Spencer, the Nuclear Energy Policy Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation offered a market solution based on privatization for nuclear waste management:

    The basic fact of the matter is that the waste producers should have the economic interest to come up with a solution.  They also have the know-how to do it.  Yet they are not responsible for it.  That, to me, is a fundamental flaw in how we do nuclear waste today,” he stated. “We’re building business models around only 2/3 of the fuel cycle.

    Panelist Gary Wolfram agreed, and indicated that with “clear rules to the game”—a consistent legal process—the free market could come up with a solution.  Putting the nuclear industry in charge of its own waste management is a step towards reaching the best balance of different disposal options.

    Others, such as Dan Stout offered a different solution.  He believes that a public-private partnership in the form of a federal corporation shows promise.  Such an approach would have the benefit of alleviating the Department of Energy of its waste management responsibilities.  While not espoused by Stout one way or the other, it would also offer a good intermediate step towards full privatization.

    With privatization, entrepreneurs would have a greater incentive than the Blue Ribbon Commission to quickly discover other means of waste disposal—solutions that are less costly and more efficient—because they would be rewarded directly on the basis of merit.  The quality of their discoveries would be driven by competition and could be measured through profit and loss, a market phenomenon to which the Blue Ribbon Commission would not be subjected.

    Both panel sessions are available here.

    Kelsey Huber is currently a member of the Young Leaders Program at the Heritage Foundation. For more information on interning at Heritage, please visit: http://www.heritage.org/about/departments/ylp.cfm

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to Discussing Solutions for Nuclear Waste

    1. William Morrison Rin says:

      Obama's loyalty to Harry Reid for passing Obamacare led to the stopping of construction of the Yucca Mountain Repository. After November, when Reid loses his re-election bid, maybe Obama will reconsider.

    2. William Morrison Rin says:

      Obama's decision to kill Yucca Mountain was because Harry Reid was faithful to run through Obamacare through the senate. After Reid loses his re-election bid in November, maybe Obama will reconsider.

    3. Andy Sterm says:

      You did not think that I would leave the Unions for nothing did you. You need to understand we don't do something for no reason. Did you think that simply leaving SCIU was simply a permanent vacation?

      Just like computer viruses, those who solve the viruses are the same ones creating the viruses.

      To ward off a chemical attack you will need to purchase our antidote. Now the punchline: If you want to get the antivirus or antidote, you will need to get it through the new Healthcare, and through SIGA. And by the way, we will make the profit, while the US Government decides WHO gets the antidote.

    4. Giggle Test says:

      "Better is the enemy of good enough" That phrase expresses the Adminstration's attitude toward many things that it does not want to pursue, but does not have the integrity to declare openly for fear of the backlash. Witness the cancellation of the NASA moon program because commercial enterprise will do it better (now, given the Administraion's love of big government this policy is incongrous to say he least). Or consider the Phase Adaptive Approach (PAA) for missile defense in Euope. Sounds enticing, but those ten GBI silos would have been constructed and filled by next year, while PAA will take years of study — with no deployment. And so, the Administraion declares it is in favor of nuclear power, but says we need a better disposal site (now, we will study that to death, all the while not building any more nuclear powerplants because there is no waste facility.

    5. Drew Page, IL says:

      It seems to me that our nuclear physicists could come up with some kind of an answer to the question of disposing of nuclear waste. Spent fuel rods are still radioactive. Why can't that radioactivity (energy) be put to some kind of positive use, such as heating water to steam, to power turbines?

      I am sure if the answer were easy, a solution would have been found and implemented by this time. But then again, I never studied nuclear energy. Talk about putting American ingenuity to use, this would be the perfect place to do it.

    6. don Texas says:

      Why no discussion of recycling and the higher efficiency reactor cycle?

    7. Wendell Hobbs, DeFuniak Springs, Fl says:

      Is it possible and feasible to load this stuff on rockets and fire them into the sun?Might be a pretty good incinerator if it’s not to costly.

    8. J. C. Brakensiek, Ca says:

      Sirs, Nuclear/atomic energy one of THE best current ways to produce large amounts of power with no carbon footprint, but as you noted there is the waste issue. The attached article from the Wall Street Journal notes the efforts of General Atomics to produce a small reactor that can use the fuel rods of exisiting power plants to provide power. Sounds like a promising arrangement and one that should be encouraged and funded. The article is to be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703

    9. David says:

      One of the best ways to deal with "Waste" is to recover the very valuable unique metals in it and to burn the other in a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) where all of the heavy metals can be converted into other elements. The amazing thing about Nuclear Fission is that it can actually change elements! Throwing it away down a hole is a huge waste of a valuable resource.


      Look at the short videos giving an introduction.


    10. RadWasteEngineer, Lo says:

      @ Drew Page:

      Physicists had indeed pondered this question a good bit. But your idea of using the heat from the spent (new term: used) nuclear fuel to boil water is exactly what they have done as fuel, and are no good at doing any more> Hence the adjective "spent". There is still much usable fuel in them, but the fission products must be cleaned out and the fuel refabricated. This makes a new waste stream of the fission products–a waste stream that is far more voluminous than the original used fuel rods, despite claims to the contrary pushed by the reprocessing (new term: recycling) proponents. There is no making any of this "go away". Recognizing that it will find its way back into the environment one way or another, since we can make no permanent containment, we have to design "disposal" to allow a very slow release into the environment. Unfortunately, no one wants to say this in public.

      @ don Texas:

      There is lots of discussion in the nuclear community about reprocessing and more efficient reactors. I'm all for better reactors (what ever happened to the breeder program?) but am leery of reprocessing until we manage to get the problem of what to do with THAT waste solved. DOE did a lot of reprocessing at one time, at the Hanford Site and the Savannah River Site, and both of these sites have many huge tanks full of waste resulting from the process. The most troublesome radionuclides (IMO) in these tanks are technetium-99 and iodine-129 — both very long lived (long enough to outlast any containment scheme we may imagine — millions of years), both very mobile in the environment, and both with pretty powerful human health impacts. Until we figure out what to do with these wastes, reprocessing should remain off the table, as it will only add to the unsolved problem. Of course, these same rads exist in the used nuclear fuel, too, and leaving them there is only marginally better than removing them. So, nuclear power produces these fission products as a matter of physics. Therein lies a serious problem that has not entered the debate.

      @ Wendell Hobbs:

      Rockets to transport waste to the sun have long been considered. But there are twoproblems: 1) It is indeed VERY expensive (100,000 tonnes is a LOT of mass to launch), and 2) Once in awhile, these rockets fail. Nobody wants to have to deal with an exploded canister of radioactive waste raining back down on us.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.