Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Other Nuclear Option

By Nicole Makris, AlterNet. Posted February 2, 2006.


If nuclear energy is as safe and clean as Bush says it is, why does the United States have so much trouble safely disposing of its nuclear waste?
Advertisement

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch isn't exactly known for his strong environmental record. He's a staunch Republican who, in addition to serving as a senator since 1976, plays the piano and has made a little cash on the side as a Christian recording artist.

He's described the Kyoto Accords as a waste of time, and he's one of the Senate's most vocal supporters of the Bush administration's energy and environmental policies. He's for drilling at ANWR and other protected sites, supports road-building in wilderness areas, and is rated as one of the senators least likely to vote for legislation supported by the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and other environmental groups. What's more, he uses the Republican buzz-term "environmental extremism" like it's going out of style.

So it came as some surprise when, along with Utah's other senator, Robert Bennett, and Nevada senators Harry Reid and John Ensign, Hatch sided with environmental groups, and pissed off the nuclear energy lobby in the process, by presenting the Spent Nuclear Fuel On-Site Storage Security Act of 2005 last year.

The legislation requires that the nuclear waste produced at commercial power plants around the country remain where it was created until the federal government makes good on its now 24-year-old plan to move all of the nation's nuclear waste to an underground storage facility, where it can live out its deadly radioactive half-lives without threatening nearby populations.

Nuclear power has again become a seductive alternative to oil and coal as a fuel source as America struggles to find enough energy to meet consumer demand. The nation's reliance on nuclear power as a source of energy has steadily increased since the 50s, when then-president Dwight D. Eisenhower assured Americans that nuclear technology could be used for good. In his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Bush announced his intention to rely on "clean, safe nuclear energy" to fight our national oil addiction. But one aspect of its energy production remains the same: Nuclear waste never goes away, and the U.S. government still doesn't have a viable plan to get rid of it.

Hatch's support of the on-site storage bill is part of his ongoing opposition to the creation of a "temporary" above-ground waste storage facility in Skull Valley, Utah, a vast stretch of Utah desert approximately 40 miles east of Salt Lake City. His vehement resistance to storing nuclear waste in his state is just one example of an ongoing headache faced by the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: everyone wants to find a "safe" place to store the nation's 77,000 tons of radioactive nuclear waste. It's just that no one wants it in their backyard.

Where is the West Desert?

Hatch, along with other legislators, public officials, local activists and members of the Native American Goshute tribe -- on whose land the temporary waste site would be located -- have fought for years to keep radioactive waste out of western Utah, where citizens already suffer from severe radiation-related illnesses due to nuclear fallout of bomb testing during the cold war. It's fine, they agree, to want to find a safe place to permanently store the nation's nuclear waste. But why risk an accident by transporting the stuff twice: once to the temporary facility and then again to the permanent one?

Utah's own "environmental extremists" beg the question further: Why does this waste keep getting made if we have nowhere to put it?

"Ultimately, we have to stop producing this stuff," says Pete Litser, executive director of the Shundahai Network, a Utah-based coalition of activists and native Americans opposed to nuclear proliferation. "We're creating hazardous material we don't know what to do with."

Charged with creating a plan for the disposal of "spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste from national defense activities" by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, legislators came up with what seemed like a great idea: Put the waste somewhere sparsely populated with few environmental regulations, amidst good, patriotic U.S. citizens that rarely ask questions and are happy to help out Uncle Sam. One of those flat, square-like states where there aren't any cute owls or polar bears to mourn or big trees to sit in.

Enter the lower Great Basin, also known as Utah's West Desert, or Eastern Nevada: a region of the country so unremarkable no one even knows what to call it. Land of the nuclear test site, numerous bombing grounds and military bases, and some of the country's most heinous polluters, like MagCorp, which holds the title of "nation's worst toxic air polluter." It is also the site of the government's proposed permanent nuclear waste storage facility: Yucca Mountain, where scientists' insistence that seismic activity and groundwater levels make it unsafe for waste storage has delayed the site's opening indefinitely.


Digg!

Nicole Makris works for the SPIN Project and has written for Mother Jones, Hyphen Magazine, and other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
another nuclear option
Posted by: eileenflmng on Feb 2, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twenty years ago the democracy known as Israel kidnapped from Rome, clubbed, drugged, bound and flung Mordechai Vanunu onto an Israeli cargo ship heading home.

The London Sunday times printed Vanunu's photos in 1986, documenting the fact that Israel had gone nuclear.

Vanunu spent 18 yrs. in jail [and 2 more under severe restrictions] for telling the truth while Israel has yet to admit they have WMD and

NO International Inspectors have ever inspected the dinosaur of a nuclear reactor that is the Dimona, the underground plutonium plant in the Negev.

On January 25, 2006, the same day as the Palestinian elections, Vanunu was back in court fighting for FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Three journalist attended.
The trial continues Feb 9, 2006.


Details on January 25, 2006 WAWA BLOG:
http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What do the French do?
Posted by: mmacb on Feb 2, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
European countries rely on nuclear power. What do they do with the waste products?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What do the French do? Posted by: SteveO
Yucca Mountain
Posted by: MLeech on Feb 2, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nicole,
Your article was interesting -- but would have been more so if you had bothered to look at a map of Nevada.

Your comment, "Opponents of the underground repository at Yucca Mountain, a rural, out of the way location in southern Nevada," is slightly off-target.

Yucca Mountain is approximately 80 miles from Las Vegas -- perhaps 100 miles from the "Strip." Las Vegas is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States, and at the moment, it is growing to the north and west -- almost bumping up against the southern border of the area that contains both Yucca Mountain and the Nuclear Test Site.

Las Vegas is not rural -- it is a city of more than 1.2 million people. The vast majority do NOT live in hotel casinos on the Strip (despite popular belief).

If Southern Nevadans oppose Yucca Mountain, it isn't because we're afraid the site will irradiate our COWS -- we're concerned because the rest of the country thinks that Southern Nevada is a "rural, out of the way, location," and as such, think it's just a peachy place to stick the nation's nuclear waste.

Admittedly, the quick taxi ride from McCarren Airport to the Strip for a quick "what happens here, stays here" weekend is not a good method for getting a sense of the city. Perhaps the next time you come out for a little fantasy, you'll pause and take a ride around with a local and discover a little reality.

It was an unwelcome shock to see that your own NIMBY could so color your research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yucca Mountain Posted by: nicole
oldfreedomdude
Posted by: oldfreedomdude on Feb 2, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every material on earth is made of chemically bound atoms which only require tens of electron volts to alter or tear them apart. The energies of nuclear processes are thousands to millions of electron volts. Hence, it would seem that there is no way to contain/store those nuclear wastes indefinitely, and all nuclear reactors will eventually have problems with breakdown and leaks. I don't think nuclear power is a good idea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oldfreedomdude Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: oldfreedomdude Posted by: redjenny
» Not Scandinavians in general Posted by: Swatopluk
» RE: oldfreedomdude Posted by: Artaraxl
Hanford - the other Silkwood
Posted by: biff777 on Feb 2, 2006 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Hanford story makes "Silkwood" look like the cartoon channel.
It wasn't just the 36x's above the recommended dose of radiation dosed on to Spokane for 2 decades (Spokane is 120 miles from Hanford), or the hidden institution that was Interlake School to hide all the defects, which was also acroos the street from Eastern State Hospital & kitty-corner from the U.W. monkey farm that Seattle didn't know about. It is also the deaths of the whistleblowers that were found in the fields, or how we blame the government and not the subcontractors (like the military prisons in Iraq,etc....
Don't count on the local news, the Spokesman-Review is an evil paper controlling the heart and minds of the 'Inland Empire". Most people here haven't even been to Canada, and many probably won't. Spokane markets itself as "near nature, near perfect", but if the public really knew the story the property value would drop in the whole region from eastern Washington to western Montana.
Think for yourself, question authority.
joy & rapture,
biff Michael

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 200,000 Year Mortgage
Posted by: Kneel on Feb 2, 2006 9:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice to see a sane article on nuclear power on Alternet.

Despite all the promises from boosters, nuclear power has proved very expensive. The only way it can hold its own with conventional sources is with massive government subsidies.

Consider the subject of this article, which I like to call the 200,000 year mortgage. For thousands of years, we'll have to constantly maintain cadres of skilled technicians to deal with this. And if we miss a single payment? Catastrophe.

So it's slightly cheaper at the moment, but only if the government assumes all risk and so forth (in Europe, it only works because of massive subsidies, like the government agreeing to deal with the spent fuel). Once the moment has passed, you pay a huge mortgage forever. Would you buy a house (with some scary construction issues) at a slight discount and an infinite mortgage?

Even mining the uranium is it's own little ecological nightmare. And it then has to be processed, requiring a lot of energy just to get it all going.

It's also a terrible idea strategically, from the dependence on minerals from regions to the plants themselves, which are practically made-to-order terrorist targets, so we'll have to spend more and more to defend them, presumably.

As Rory Kennedy's Indian Point film showed, had the 9/11 plot targeted the power plant, it could have been truly devastating. All they would have needed as an explosives-packed Cessna to damage the system long enough for the spent rods to overheat, fuse and sink to the water table, at which point a blast of radioactive steam would've made the entire region uninhabitable for at least a thousand years, and had some rather unpleasant effects on the inhabitants at the time.

Let's just say there's a reason this industry finds Dick Cheney such good friend.

The only people who should support this are those whole believe The Rapture is coming, that the good lord will suck all the good folks up to heaven, and the earth is meant to be left in wretched horror for the next millenium. Those people might find some appeal here.

The rest of us, no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A BETTER IDEA
Posted by: ALANHESTER on Feb 2, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it would be more appropriate for us to expect all politicians and organizations that are pushing for Nuclear Energy to bury ALL of the waste underneath their houses. That way, they can show the rest of the world how safe Nuclear Energy truly is. Hollywood can start a new reality show: "Life with Nucleur Radiation"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A BETTER IDEA Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: A BETTER IDEA Posted by: redjenny
» RE: A BETTER IDEA Posted by: atomicrod
Storage in Iraq and Afghanistan is already in progress
Posted by: ScottP on Feb 2, 2006 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Already hundreds of tons of nuclear material have been disposed of in the wars. It was done in the form of depleted uranium (DU) artillery and bullets, shot by A-10 and AC-130 aircraft, M-1 Abrams tanks, and numerous other heavy gauge guns and artillery mounted on numerous platforms. The DU is used because of its high density, so it can penetrate steel, concrete and stone. In the process most of it turns to dust or uranium oxide, which spreads through the air and ground and into the groundwater. The effects include radiation as well as heavy metal toxification, causing illnesses and birth defects. The plume drifts with the wind before settling down. Any time you read about "close air support", it's probably DU being rained down.

So they have a solution, just not one that the mainstream media likes to report.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Klaxton
Posted by: Klaxton on Feb 2, 2006 1:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been reading some interesting articles about Fast Neutron Reactors recently. They can be designed to burn spent fuel rods, plutonium bomb material, and other highly radioactive wastes. You wind up with byproducts which are dangerous for only a few hundred years instead of 100,000. That's actually feasible to store safely. Also no need to mine more uranium, we already have enough to last at least 50 years with this technique.

Modern reactor technology is inherently much safer than the old "3 Mile Island" design, no danger of meltdowns or explosions. And so, relative to the vastly polluting fossil fuels, nuclear power can actually be pretty attractive if done right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gimme an N!
Posted by: Kneel on Feb 2, 2006 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep in mind that with any new technology, the people we hear from first are the boosters. So of course anything not yet built is, according to 99% of those discussing it, our magnficent, gleaming salvation of the future.

There were a couple articles posted here on the glory of pebble-bed reactors. Well, Germany shut down it's pebble-bed program for a reason. They're not safe; they just haven't had any accidents yet. Oh, wait, they have. Never mind.

A good example and analogy is new pharmaceuticals. For the first bit, they are soooo marvellous. Then we start to see the side effects, the bits of research that were covered up, etc.

Think the nuclear energy industry is somehow different? Nice that they want to play toro, toro with the devil. Problem is, we're all in the path of those horns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Nukes,No Nukes,No Nukes
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 2, 2006 4:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is an anathma on our planet. Hastily developed it was the primary accent to the cold war to aide our development of nuclear bombs.The Govt knows it,so does every nation that wants it. Fact is we're not going to get irradiated from bombs,it'll be from the waste.
We need to halt all Nuclear production until we can use and reuse nuclear material until it's radioactivity is used up. If we had spent money on 'safe' development we would be far better off than we've become from their weapons development/electrical power scam. The fact that we've barely made a dent into our knowlege of what we can do with nuclear energy proves we are little better than drunken teenagers with a loaded gun. Pine Ridge, Oakridge, Hanford are all National Sacrifice areas. In the case of Pineridge,they never moved the People out. Mainly because they're Indians.
We have many towns and areas of the Country where nuclear material was dumped,or is leaking and these sites will be toxic for thousands of years. This has to stop!
Thanks to the space program every human on the planet has small amounts of plutonium in them. If you live within five miles of a nuke plant,you're in for a life laced with cancer.
Any crops you plant for your garden will be irradiated.
Fossil fuels have given us enough mercury contamination that our children are born with a host of ailments from malformed circuilatory systems,to nuerological abnormalities that show up as mental illness in young adults and teens. They keep this information from us because the bottom would fall out of the coal market if you knew it was killing your family. The same is true of nuclear power.
After Three Mile Island there were many folks that died from cancer. Farmers had to kill some of their cattle because of radiation poisoning. Their crops had to be destroyed because they were too contaminated to eat or use as feed.
If you are one of the unlucky folks that have to work inside a boiler cleanup crew,the nuke industry will give you a tremendous retirement package that kicks in at 57. Not bad but if that's your job, you know you'll be dead from cancer by age 55 and they don't transfer your entitlement to your families. That's cold blooded. That's the nuclear power folks.
The nuke industry is more about making weapons than providing cheap,clean eletricity. It always has been. We have to change this script. We can do it,we just have to take action. Serious action. Not only are the lives of all of us here and now at stake but the lives of thousands of future generations of humans. We can tame this tiger. We need to focus on research on recycleing the waste until it becomes inert and not the next great bomb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just an Idea for Waste disposal
Posted by: peritonlogon on Feb 2, 2006 4:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about in the Ocean? Hear me out before dismissing me.

Deap sea dumping of garbage was common practice up until the 80's. The reason people stopped doing it was that deep sea exploration found that garbage did not decompose, for example years old sandwiches were found to look ok, but water logged also, ship wrecks have been found that are thousands of years old and in very very good condition.

So here's the idea, sealed and, perhaps, electronically monitored storage containers with nuclear waste in them at the bottom of the ocean in a spot that is not in danger from vulcanic or other geologic forces. The container would, in thousands of years, be uncompromised and thus not floating around mixing with sea water ever. The location would be as secure as one could immagine from someone who wanted to do malicious deeds with the waste, since, finding it would be an all but impossible search and, even if he or she knew where in the ocean it was, he or she would have a very difficult time retrieving it since there are only a handfull of deep sea subs or drones and they're very expensive.

Also, if problems did arise, the containers could be retrieved by floating them, repacking them and then dealing with them in the same or another way,

I know, I don't like the idea of putting nuclear waste in the Ocean.... but I like it better than putting it in any other earthly place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Live long and prosper Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Live long and prosper Posted by: atomicrod
20% of Generating Capacity
Posted by: skaterokker on Feb 2, 2006 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear Power provies 20% of the baseload capacity here in the US. It would be impossible to take that much power off the grid.
All new nuclear plants that will be built will be built on existing sites because of NIMBY
The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative is the program to make the fuel cycle a closed loop cycle unline the open one it is now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ice Ice Baby Posted by: Kneel
German Pebble Bed program
Posted by: atomicrod on Feb 4, 2006 1:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, Germany did not shut down its pebble bed program because of any accidents, though they did have some first of a kind operational issues with the THTR (Thorium High Temperature Reactor).

If you are really interested in what happened to the German pebble bed program, you can find a pretty good summary at http://www.pbmr.co.za/download/Evolution%20June%2005.pdf.

Of course, many might discount that source because it comes from a company full of engineers that have invested 13 years of their lives studying and refining the pebble bed reactor concept to the point where they believe that they are making good progress toward a reliable, efficient and cost effective energy source for a country that has some rather pressing energy needs.

Amory Lovins and Paul Gunter might advocate conservation as the "source" of new energy, but South Africa has a very large population of people that have little access to even a light bulb or a stove.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is good reason why oil supporters like Hatch dislike nuclear power
Posted by: atomicrod on Feb 4, 2006 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article began with an interesting premise - the author thinks that it is surprising that a guy like Orin Hatch, who opposes the Kyoto Treaty and thinks that drilling in ANWR is a good idea, would be opposed to Yucca Mountain, knowing that his opposition hinders nuclear power developments.

For me, there is no surprise at all why Hatch and many other powers in Utah do not like nuclear power. The fact is that nuclear power is a clean, abundant, safe, potentially inexpensive source of energy that can push oil, coal and natural gas out of key, profitable markets. By taking market share away from those fossil fuels, nuclear power reduces the volume of sales and reduces the unit price for each of the commodities.

This is not voodoo economics; it is a straight application of the law of supply and demand. It is also a theory that can be supported by historical market information.

In 1980, all nuclear power plants in the world produced the equivalent of 3 million barrels of oil per day. By 2000, the world's nuclear power plant were producing the energy equivalent of more than 11 million barrels of oil per day. (Source - Energy Information Agency tables along with some unit conversions)

That is almost exactly equivalent to adding a new Saudi Arabia to the world energy market during a 20 year period, which is shorter than it took to bring the real Saudi Arabia on line.

As most of us can remember, energy prices generally declined (with some local peaks and valleys) throughout that time period.

By 2000, nuclear power plant production began to flatten out and is only now reaching 12 million barrels of oil per day. Energy demands continued to increase during that time, yet there was no new supply being added to the market. Logically enough, prices have increased rather dramatically as the balance shifted and market power moved to the suppliers over the customers.

Coal, oil and gas producers are loving life and living large. ExxonMobil, for example, reported an after tax profit for 2005 of $36 BILLION on revenues of $360 Billion with an employee base of less than 100,000 people. The profit and revenue numbers have more than doubled in 4 years, yet production is essentially flat.

Gas and coal companies are also partying, but not quite so visibly. Check out the stock performance of companies like Chesapeake Energy, Peabody Coal, and Halliburton.

Environmentalists that care about acid rain, smog, fly ash, mercury, drilling in sensitive areas, strip mines, mountain top removal, and global climate change should think carefully about this fact: Nuclear power is clean enough to operate inside sealed submarines.

Contemplate that and the profit implications for fossil fuel before you get on the bandwagon of instinctively or religiously opposing all nuclear power developments. Visit a few communities where nuclear plants are operating today and talk to the smart, educated, dedicated, personally responsible workers in the coffee shops, at the gym, and on the youth athletic fields.

Open your mind and listen to what they have to say about why they have chosen their demanding and unpopular profession.

Now for a shameless plug - I have been writing about atomic energy on the web for more than ten years at Atomic Insights - www.atomicinsights.com and I have recently begun a blog titled Atomic Insights Blog at www.atomicinsights.blogspot.com.

Please let me share some of the insights that I have gained as a nuclear submarine engineer officer, a small businessman, a dedicated environmental enthusiast, a father and an atomic entrepreneur.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Spare us more propaganda Posted by: jefhadist
» RE: Spare us more propaganda Posted by: atomicrod
Atomic entrepreneur adds one more component to the mix
Posted by: atomicrod on Apr 3, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the months since my post in February, I have also begun a podcast called The Atomic Show. You can find it at

http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com.

Come by and have a listen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]