http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21thu2.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

Quote :

"May 21, 2009 EDITORIAL Follow the Science on Yucca The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build? It is no secret that the president and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, who hails from Nevada, want to close down the Yucca Mountain project, which excites intense opposition in the state. The administration has proposed a budget for fiscal year 2010 that would eliminate all money for further development of the site, and Mr. Reid has pronounced the project dead. But the administration at least claimed that it would supply enough money for the Energy Department to complete the process of seeking a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if only to gain useful knowledge about nuclear waste disposal. Unfortunately, the budget released this month looks as if it will fall well short of the amount needed. Money for the Yucca Mountain project, nearly all of which is used to support the licensing application, would fall from $288.4 million in 2009, the current year, to $196.8 million in 2010, a precipitous drop. And the agency intends to rely heavily on its own staff personnel rather than on more costly outside consultants from the national laboratories or private contractors. There is great danger that the department will lack the expertise needed to answer tough technical questions that emerge during the regulatory commission’s reviews. These ramp-downs are occurring at the worst time. The regulatory commission is just beginning its licensing process, which is scheduled to take three to four years, and its relevant boards have ruled that at least eight intervenors can raise some 300 issues for technical challenges, an unusually high number. The cutbacks increase the odds that the agency will stumble in trying to justify a license — or that the hearings and evaluations won’t be completed within statutory deadlines. Meanwhile, the administration, Congressional leaders and the nuclear industry are calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study alternative ways to dispose of nuclear waste. Surely it would be useful for any such panel to know whether the Yucca Mountain project was sound or flawed. Before approving this truncated budget, Congress needs to ensure that it contains enough money to sustain a genuine licensing effort. We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes. But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation. Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?"

Well now - you know it's bad when even famously liberal NYT is on the president's case about chucking science in favor of politics.

5/21/2009 10:33:18 PM

Great article (a rarity in the NYT) but WTF was this?!?

Quote :

"We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes"

No, we actually do!

5/22/2009 8:39:54 AM

Hey, give the NYT Editorial Board a little credit - at least they admit for once when they're opining over a matter in which they don't fully understand. I mean, yes, anyone who's actually spent even a little time with the science knows different, but what the hey. At least they're advocating "follow the science" - in spite of Obama. That right there's an accomplishment for them.

5/22/2009 9:57:30 AM

I totally agree with you there. I'm still shocked they printed that, lol.

5/22/2009 11:08:57 AM

So I wasn't sure where else to post this, and here works just as well.

Stumbled across an interview with Secretary Chu, where it seems like he's actually hinting at... fast reactors?

http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/

Quote :

"Technology Review: There's some 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste scattered among 130 sites across the country. What are you going to do with that waste now? Steven Chu: Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue. [We're] looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. [Editor's note: Actinides include plutonium, which can be dangerous for 100,000 years.] These are fast neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides. TR: Is this to burn up existing waste? Or to deal with waste in future reactors? SC: It could be for existing, but mostly for future waste. So we're looking at, instead of the way we do it today, where you're using 10 percent or less of the energy content of fuel, can you actually reduce the amount of waste and the lifetime of the waste. TR: What about the existing waste? SC: Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine--again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says--one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, [such as] salt domes. Once you put it in there, the [salt] oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore--that's good. It's a very natural containment. TR: Waste you know you don't want to reprocess. SC: Yes, whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that. So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas."

On one hand, it still irritates the hell out of me that Obama and Chu decided to simply shred 20+ years of established policy with nothing to immediately replace it. But you know, if it means we actually do build fast reactors - finally - it seems like a net gain in the end. Fundamentally less waste to manage and such.

But as far as I can tell here, it seems like Chu is both positive toward reprocessing and fast reactors; although he also seems a little ambiguous to this. Interestingly enough, he talks up salt dome formations - like WIPP (and the pilot project at Lyons, Kansas).

Frankly, if the administration had just come out and said, "Yeah, we're axing Yucca Mountain... to bring you a totally closed fuel cycle!" I don't think there'd have been nearly as many hackles from me or others in the nuclear community. But... this may just be wild optimism speaking.

6/6/2009 10:02:38 AM

Are there any fast reactors far enough along in design/development to meet our fairly short term needs (i.e. replace the existing, aging nuclear fleet and supplant base-load coal plants)?

With respect to waste, reprocessing seems to be our best bet for the immediate future. Fast reactors would probably need to be in the next generation of plants.

6/6/2009 10:47:40 AM