Critics criticize 12 billion for nuclear energy in Infrastructure Act / Public News Service

BOISE, Idaho – The U.S. Senate passed a massive infrastructure bill and buried $ 12 billion in the package for the nuclear industry, but critics said the money would be better spent elsewhere.

Half of the money is reserved for nuclear facilities that are threatened with decommissioning for economic reasons. The other half is dedicated to research and development, such as the small modular nuclear reactor model that is being built in Idaho.

Tim Judson, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said the industry as a whole is in trouble, even the Idaho project is being scaled back.

“By propping up the existing reactors and preventing them from being replaced by renewables, the nuclear industry is essentially trying to gain a foothold in the energy system until it can try to ram through some of these new reactor projects like the one in Idaho.” if it ever happens, “claimed Judson.

He hopes the US House will make changes to nuclear investments. Industry and some environmental groups have touted nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels as the country shifts to clean energy sources.

Judson noted that it is a big deal that many nuclear power plants need a bailout package, adding that it is like nuclear companies are holding cities and states hostage.

“It was such an ongoing process in which the closure of a power plant was announced, the company called for a rescue operation, the state doesn’t know what else to do, that is, grants the rescue operation,” says Judson. “And that federal grant will be the same. There is no planning process in this law.”

He argued that more thought needs to be given to what to do with old power plants and aging infrastructure.

Judson pointed out that another bill in Congress could provide up to $ 50 billion in subsidies to the industry over the next decade.

According to his organization’s research, this does not mean any new jobs and the money would be spent more sensibly on electricity projects such as renewable energies, transmission systems and battery storage.

“If you spent that $ 50 billion on these things, it would create more than 60,000 new jobs,” Judson said. “And that is more than four times the number of workers who are employed in these nuclear power plants and who would be saved.”

Receive more stories like this in your email

BOISE, Idaho – While the US is looking to break its dependence on fossil fuels, nuclear power is part of the conversation, but the non-proliferation watchdogs hope a spent nuclear fuel recycling method to reclaim plutonium doesn’t make a comeback.

Dr. Frank von Hippel, senior research physicist and professor emeritus of public and international affairs at Princeton University, said reprocessing would dissolve spent reactor fuel and separate plutonium or enriched uranium from the material.

“It was originally developed to separate plutonium for US nuclear weapons,” explains von Hippel. “Now some countries are also using it to separate plutonium for use in nuclear fuel.”

Reprocessing was banned in the 1970s after India’s first nuclear detonation was tied to US reprocessing technology.

The nuclear industry wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to relax the rules. In a 2020 letter to the NRC, the American Nuclear Society said reprocessing would get the most out of nuclear fuel and reduce waste.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist for Beyond Nuclear group, said there was high level waste from the US nuclear weapons program at the Idaho National Laboratory, although most of it was being dried and stored.

He found that the remanufacturing operations of civil companies in the US do not have a good environmental record

“We see highly radioactive waste, irradiated nuclear fuel, as forever deadly waste that has to be isolated from the environment,” said Kamps. “Recycling has the opposite effect. It inevitably releases part of it into the environment.”

The Idaho National Laboratory said it is conducting research into the reprocessing of small amounts of spent nuclear fuel. It is part of the research to develop advanced reactor concepts.

Von Hippel believes interest in the technology is renewed. In late May, in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada, he and other non-proliferation experts voiced concerns about the country’s financial support for a company that has proposed the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

Von Hippel also hopes to convince the Biden government that the technology does not need to be re-examined.

“There is no good economic or environmental reason for separating civilian plutonium,” argued von Hippel. “That is why I and many colleagues say that no country should separate plutonium for nominally civil purposes. It is a weapon-grade material.”

Receive more stories like this in your email

BUCHANAN, NY – A 40-year battle to shut down the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant came to an end last week when the last of its three reactors were permanently shut down.

Indian Point was once the state’s largest power source, but its presence on the banks of the Hudson River just 25 miles north of New York City has long raised safety and environmental concerns.

The first reactor was shut down in 1974; the second only last year.

Liz Moran, director of environmental policy for the New York Public Interest Research Group, called the final closure “a great victory”.

“This plant posed a great threat to New Yorkers,” said Moran. “Especially the 19 million or more New Yorkers who live or work in the New York metropolitan area.”

Critics of the closure warned that the loss of a carbon-free source of energy will increase New York’s reliance on natural gas at a time when the state is trying to cut fossil fuel emissions.

But Moran pointed out that renewable energy sources are going online at a breakneck pace, including offshore wind farms that can generate 4,300 megawatts of electricity, twice as much as Indian Point. They should go into operation in 2024.

“There have been a number of studies that have shown that this is very feasible for replacing Indian Point with renewable energy,” explained Moran. “We just need the political will to do so.”

New York has an ambitious plan to move to 70% renewable energy by the end of this decade.

And Moran noted that the potential dangers of Indian Point and other nuclear power plants don’t end if they stop producing electricity. The nuclear waste left behind will remain highly radioactive for millennia.

“The decommissioning of this facility must therefore be closely monitored to ensure that it is carried out in a safe manner that protects public health and protects the environment,” said Moran.

The shutdown is expected to take at least 12 years and cost $ 2.3 billion.

Receive more stories like this in your email

BOISE, Idaho – Nuclear power could be part of the mix to replace the energy from four lower Snake River dams if they are removed.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, has an extensive plan to dismantle the four dams to help the troubled salmon populations in the northwest.

Small, modular reactors used to generate nuclear power could play a role in replacing their hydropower.

Ian Cotten, Energy Program Manager for the Snake River Alliance, said the proposal also touched on increasing renewable energy, transmission capacity and energy efficiency.

“These are all things that we really get excited about, assuming that these will become a bigger part of our northwestern energy infrastructure,” noted Cotten. “But as for the role of small modular reactors in this plan, it really feels to us like it’s a piece that doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the puzzle.”

The $ 33 billion plan provides $ 10 billion in energy exchanges once the dams are removed.

Some environmental groups say nuclear power needs to be part of the energy supply in order to decarbonise the economy in the decades to come.

Don Safer, co-chair of the Sierra Club Nuclear Free Campaign, said energy is not the only product in the industry; it also produces radioactive waste.

“There’s just this future burden of creating this material that we don’t really know how to dispose of,” Safer claimed. “And the problems get more and more pronounced over time.”

Simpson’s Northwest Infrastructure Plan would modernize the region’s energy sector and bring more renewable energies online.

Safer noted that the small, modular reactor design proposed for nuclear projects is still an unproven technology, which means that the ROI may not be as high as people assume.

“The small modular reactors are just not a good choice, especially in the west where there is a lot of sun and wind and the money should better be invested in developing better, lower-cost storage technology that is to come.” Said Safer.

Simpson’s plan could be incorporated into a massive infrastructure package put together by the Biden government.

Disclosure: The Snake River Alliance contributes to our fund for reporting on climate change / air quality, energy policy, the environment and nuclear waste. If you would like to support news in the public interest, click here.

Receive more stories like this in your email

Comments are closed.