This is a printer friendly version of an article from the The Greenville News
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.

Back

Keep Yucca in nuke plan
As the United States revisits its nuclear waste plan, Yucca Mountain must be the cornerstone of its disposal strategy.

Posted Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - 6:00 am


In a Nov. 22 speech, New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici, a Republican and a supporter of nuclear energy, hinted that the nation's new policy on nuclear waste may lean away from long-term storage in a Nevada mountain. "It (Yucca Mountain) was not a good solution either on straight science, or surely, on economic grounds," he said, according to a report in the Las Vegas Sun. "So clearly, we have to move in another direction."

As the United States examines its future nuclear waste policy, however, it must preserve plans for a long-term underground repository in Nevada. The facility is essential to expanding the use of this clean, efficient and inexpensive power source.

The most likely alternative is reprocessing spent fuel -- a process by which nuclear waste is recycled. But the technology would not eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain. In testimony this summer before a House subcommittee, Steve Fetter, a professor in the University of Maryland's school of public policy, offered these cautions about reprocessing:

  • Reprocessing nuclear waste still leaves unprocessed waste that must be disposed of in some manner.

    Advertisement

  • Reprocessed nuclear fuel is significantly more expensive than traditional "once-through" fuel. According to Fetter, U.S. power companies paid, on average, $33 per kilogram for uranium in 2004. For reprocessed fuel to be competitive, that price would have to rise to $400.

  • The costs to reprocess would be between $50 billion and $100 billion more than the cost to dispose of waste in Yucca Mountain. That increase would be paid by either the government or consumers.

    South Carolina has a clear interest in this debate. Duke Energy may announce later this year where it plans to build two new nuclear reactors, and the Upstate is a likely choice. The reactors would be beneficial to this region, in terms of both employment and the cost and reliability of electricity. When Brew Barron, Duke's chief nuclear officer, met with editors of The Greenville News in October, he said a key to new nuclear plants is resolving the waste disposal issue. Yucca Mountain is the only solution currently on the table.

    Meantime, the Savannah River Site near Aiken is planning a plant that transforms nuclear warheads into the same type of fuel as reprocessed waste. That effort could lead to a cost-effective way to reuse spent fuel. Still, Yucca Mountain would be needed to dispose of the byproducts of fuel reprocessing.

    The Department of Energy is committed to opening Yucca Mountain, and despite new questions, Congress should support it, too. The repository is the only waste-disposal method that would ensure expanded use of nuclear energy in the United States in the near future.