CONTRIBUTED BY:

Aaron Kunz

---

VIDEO:

Idaho National Laboratory (Aerial View)

IMAGES:

View Slideshow

---

---

Related Articles

Hanford’s Work With Robotic Arm Slow At Tank Farms

by Anna King

Washington Presses Case For Yucca Mountain Nuke Waste Site

by AP

Wash. Reissues Draft Hanford Permit For Comment

by AP

BOISE, Idaho — Support for nuclear energy took a hit after the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan suffered a meltdown after a powerful earthquake and tsunami last year.

Here at home, the director of the Idaho National Laboratory, John Grossenbacher, told members of the Idaho House Environment, Energy and Technology Committee that nuclear energy has its place.

The big downside to renewable energy, including that generated from wind and solar, is that it only provides 8 percent of the energy used in 2009 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That percentage includes the use of hydro which some conservation groups don’t recognize as a positive renewable because of its impact on migrating fish.

Nuclear in 2009 accounted for 9 percent of the power in the U.S. but has the ability to provide a lot more. But nuclear has one big problem, it’s very expensive to build a large nuclear power facility.

Grossenbacher suggested it may be more practical to build small reactors that would power a city, rather than larger ones that serve regional areas.

(video furnished by the INL)

“From a technical perspective, we know we can do it, we know we can build them. The real question is how much will they cost and how much will the electricity cost. Today in my opinion there is too many uncertainties to say yes it will work.”

The Department of Energy started exploring that possibility this year. The selling point behind a small reactor is the cost. Grossenbacher estimates it would cost between $1 billion and $2 billion. A full-sized reactor would run between $5 billion and $6 billion.

There is also the question of where to store nuclear materials. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada was scrapped in 2010. That spent nuclear material is now held at individual nuclear power facilities including in Idaho and Washington.

Currently the high-level waste in the U.S. is stored at one of three locations. Idaho, Washington and South Carolina. Washington carries the biggest share of the burden by storing 9,700 canisters of high-level waste. Idaho has the least with just 4,300 canisters while South Carolina has 6,300 canisters.

Meanwhile the U.S. Senate last month started looking at alternatives to put forward by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Here are the recommendations the panel proposed.

• Apply a new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
• Establish a new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program.
• Provide access to the Nuclear Waste Fee funds currently paid by nuclear utility ratepayers.
• Develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
• Develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
• Prepare for large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities.
• Support innovation in nuclear energy technology and workforce development.

Now that the commission has released its report, it’s up to Congress to make the necessary changes. That includes making changes to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which states Yucca Mountain is the nation’s wastes disposal facility.

As long as that law is in place, Grossenbacher says it would be unlawful for the Department of Energy to spend money to start looking for a new nuclear waste storage facility. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was the first attempt to establish a permanent site to store spent nuclear waste. It was revised in 1987 after Congress determined Yucca Mountain to be the most feasible location.

The three locations for the national spent nuclear waste repository were selected under President Reagan’s Administration in the 1980s. They were Hanford, Washington, Deaf Smith County, Texas, and Yucca Mountain about 100 miles from Las Vegas.

Idaho was not on the list of feasible locations for storage. In 1995 the state entered into a settlement agreement with the Department of Energy and the U.S. Navy that makes sure the State of Idaho will not be a repository for spent nuclear fuel or high-level waste. The agreement gave the federal government 40-years to open up a repository or find a way to deal with all the nuclear waste currently stored in Idaho.