By Julio Godoy 1335 words15 February 2010Inter Press Service
(c) 2010 Global Information Network
BERLIN, Feb. 12, 2010 (IPS/GIN) - The enormous technical and financial risks involved in the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants make them prohibitive for private investors, rebutting the thesis of a renaissance in nuclear energy, say several independent European studies.
The risks include high construction costs, likely long delays in building, extended periods of depreciation of equipment inherent to the construction and operation of new power plants and the lack of guarantees for prices of electricity.
Adding to these is the global meltdown and the consequent cautious behaviour of investors as also fiscal and revenue difficulties of governments in the industrialised countries, say the studies.
In the most recent analysis on the feasibility of new nuclear power plants, the Citibank group concludes that some of "the risks faced by developers are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially."
The Citibank paper, titled 'New Nuclear - The Economics Say No', lists five major risks developers and operators of new nuclear power plants must confront. These risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning. According to the study, most governments in industrialised countries today have only "sought to limit the planning risk" for investors.
CRESP Newstories and Links related to risk-based cleanup of the nation’s nuclear weapons production facility waste sites and cost-effective, risk-based management of potential future nuclear sites and wastes. CRESP seeks to improve the scientific and technical basis for environmental management decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) and by fostering public participation in that search.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Nuclear confusion ; Washington must forge clear policies
396 words14 February 2010Worcester Telegram & Gazettenglish
© 2010 Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
One year into his presidency, Barack Obama's stance on nuclear energy is fast becoming a study in contradictions. The fiscal 2011 budget he recently unveiled calls for an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees designed to support what he referred to in his State of the Union address as "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants." But that same budget would eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, a project that the nation has already spent some $38 billion to develop, and which remains the only viable, long-term storage option in sight.
Whatever one thinks of global warming, it is clear that nuclear energy offers Americans an emissions-free means of easing our dependence on foreign oil. With 104 operational nuclear plants, the U.S. obtains nearly 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. That number could be much higher, but only if government commits itself to a clear and consistent political and regulatory framework that includes sensible options for waste storage.While seeking to end the Yucca Mountain project, the administration promises to convene a blue-ribbon panel to find a long-term waste storage solution. But the Yucca Mountain project was that solution, and would have begun accepting waste more than a decade ago had Washington been willing to place science ahead of politics. Launching another study group is no solution, but simply continues a cycle of governmental inaction and delay that could eventually prove fatal to the nation's nuclear program.
Already, Americans are grappling with the effects of aging nuclear plants, such as the Vermont Yankee plant, which was recently found to be leaking tritium. While experts disagree over the severity and environmental impact of such leaks, there is no question that aging facilities have problems that require prompt attention, and decommissioning of reactors, when necessary, can be done most effectively with a long-term waste solution in view. At the same time, new reactor designs and projects must be encouraged.
Meeting those twin goals can only happen when Washington puts together a comprehensive nuclear policy free of internal contradictions.
Investors must be able to proceed with confidence if the nation is to reap the full benefits of nuclear energy. Mere talk and the promise of more loans won't get the job done.
© 2010 Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
One year into his presidency, Barack Obama's stance on nuclear energy is fast becoming a study in contradictions. The fiscal 2011 budget he recently unveiled calls for an additional $36 billion in loan guarantees designed to support what he referred to in his State of the Union address as "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants." But that same budget would eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, a project that the nation has already spent some $38 billion to develop, and which remains the only viable, long-term storage option in sight.
Whatever one thinks of global warming, it is clear that nuclear energy offers Americans an emissions-free means of easing our dependence on foreign oil. With 104 operational nuclear plants, the U.S. obtains nearly 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. That number could be much higher, but only if government commits itself to a clear and consistent political and regulatory framework that includes sensible options for waste storage.While seeking to end the Yucca Mountain project, the administration promises to convene a blue-ribbon panel to find a long-term waste storage solution. But the Yucca Mountain project was that solution, and would have begun accepting waste more than a decade ago had Washington been willing to place science ahead of politics. Launching another study group is no solution, but simply continues a cycle of governmental inaction and delay that could eventually prove fatal to the nation's nuclear program.
Already, Americans are grappling with the effects of aging nuclear plants, such as the Vermont Yankee plant, which was recently found to be leaking tritium. While experts disagree over the severity and environmental impact of such leaks, there is no question that aging facilities have problems that require prompt attention, and decommissioning of reactors, when necessary, can be done most effectively with a long-term waste solution in view. At the same time, new reactor designs and projects must be encouraged.
Meeting those twin goals can only happen when Washington puts together a comprehensive nuclear policy free of internal contradictions.
Investors must be able to proceed with confidence if the nation is to reap the full benefits of nuclear energy. Mere talk and the promise of more loans won't get the job done.
Sellafield: inside the big clean-up; It's a dirty business but someone has to remove the radioactive waste, writes Danny Fortson
Danny Fortson 1243 words14 February 2010The Sunday Times
(c) 2010 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved
Bill Poulson had been in his new job barely two weeks when a radioactive leak ruined his day.
The American executive had moved from his home in South Carolina to the rural tranquillity of Cumbria to become head of the consortium that has been handed control of Sellafield, the 700-acre site that houses two-thirds of Britain's radioactive waste.
He knew it was a big job. Sellafield has been called the most contaminated industrial site in western Europe and has a long history of accidents, project delays, and spending overruns that have cost taxpayers billions.
(c) 2010 Times Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved
Bill Poulson had been in his new job barely two weeks when a radioactive leak ruined his day.
The American executive had moved from his home in South Carolina to the rural tranquillity of Cumbria to become head of the consortium that has been handed control of Sellafield, the 700-acre site that houses two-thirds of Britain's radioactive waste.
He knew it was a big job. Sellafield has been called the most contaminated industrial site in western Europe and has a long history of accidents, project delays, and spending overruns that have cost taxpayers billions.
Hanford landfill keeps growing
Annette Cary;Herald staff writer ary Annette11 February 2010Tri-City HeraldTRIC(c) 2010 The Tri-City Herald. All Rights Reserved.
Hanford’s super-sized landfill is getting two new “super cells.”
An excavator started digging up large shovelfuls of dirt Wednesday for the latest expansion of the Hanford landfill for low-level radioactive waste.
With the infusion of nearly $2 billion in economic stimulus money to speed up environmental cleanup at the Hanford nuclear reservation, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility is being filled faster than ever. The contents of about 400 containers holding an average of 20 tons of waste apiece are added to the site each day.
“ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds are actually doing real work at Hanford,” said Dave Einan, an engineer for the Environmental Protection Agency, a Hanford regulator. “We are going to need the capacity.”
TradeWind Services, a Richland company founded in 2005, was awarded a subcontract worth up to $30 million for the latest expansion. It will increase landfill capacity by 50 percent to 16.4 million tons.
The contract includes excavating and lining super cell 10, on which digging began Wednesday, and finishing super cell 9, which already has been excavated. They’re called super cells because each is twice the size of the first eight disposal areas.
Each super cell will be 70 feet deep and measure 1,000-feet-by-500-feet, making the bulldozers and excavators working there look like inches-long Matchbox toys.
Washington Closure Hanford, which operates the landfill, expects to receive about $100 million in federal economic stimulus money for expansion of the landfill and other improvements so it can accept and handle increased daily volumes of waste.
Hanford’s super-sized landfill is getting two new “super cells.”
An excavator started digging up large shovelfuls of dirt Wednesday for the latest expansion of the Hanford landfill for low-level radioactive waste.
With the infusion of nearly $2 billion in economic stimulus money to speed up environmental cleanup at the Hanford nuclear reservation, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility is being filled faster than ever. The contents of about 400 containers holding an average of 20 tons of waste apiece are added to the site each day.
“ARRA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funds are actually doing real work at Hanford,” said Dave Einan, an engineer for the Environmental Protection Agency, a Hanford regulator. “We are going to need the capacity.”
TradeWind Services, a Richland company founded in 2005, was awarded a subcontract worth up to $30 million for the latest expansion. It will increase landfill capacity by 50 percent to 16.4 million tons.
The contract includes excavating and lining super cell 10, on which digging began Wednesday, and finishing super cell 9, which already has been excavated. They’re called super cells because each is twice the size of the first eight disposal areas.
Each super cell will be 70 feet deep and measure 1,000-feet-by-500-feet, making the bulldozers and excavators working there look like inches-long Matchbox toys.
Washington Closure Hanford, which operates the landfill, expects to receive about $100 million in federal economic stimulus money for expansion of the landfill and other improvements so it can accept and handle increased daily volumes of waste.
NRC nominees say they won't oppose Yucca project shutdown
Steve Tetreault 487 words11 February 2010The Las Vegas Review-Journal© 2010 The Las Vegas Review-Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
By STEVE TETREAULT
WASHINGTON - Three officials nominated to fill seats on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicated this week that they would not stand in the way of a shutdown of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste program.
But one suggested that because it now looks as if radioactive spent fuel will remain at power plants for the foreseeable future, their steel-and-concrete storage canisters should be checked for safety.
"When we first started storing spent fuel at reactor sites, nobody was thinking it was going to be there for 100 years," said William Magwood, a former Department of Energy official. "I think we have to go back and take a look at what we have in place now and assure ourselves it is able to stay in place another 50 years if necessary."
The NRC has indicated that nuclear waste can remain on site for decades at least. But if there are places where it might not stay safe that long, Magwood said, he would call for "corrective action as soon as possible."
By STEVE TETREAULT
WASHINGTON - Three officials nominated to fill seats on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicated this week that they would not stand in the way of a shutdown of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste program.
But one suggested that because it now looks as if radioactive spent fuel will remain at power plants for the foreseeable future, their steel-and-concrete storage canisters should be checked for safety.
"When we first started storing spent fuel at reactor sites, nobody was thinking it was going to be there for 100 years," said William Magwood, a former Department of Energy official. "I think we have to go back and take a look at what we have in place now and assure ourselves it is able to stay in place another 50 years if necessary."
The NRC has indicated that nuclear waste can remain on site for decades at least. But if there are places where it might not stay safe that long, Magwood said, he would call for "corrective action as soon as possible."
NUCLEAR POWER; Utah eyes second radioactive waste dump
246 words10 February 2010GreenwireGRWREnglish© 2010 E&E Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved
A potential competitor to EnergySolutions Inc. proposed a second radioactive waste facility in Utah yesterday, claiming that the EnergySolutions' facility in Utah's west desert is running out of room and that another facility will store the excess low-level radioactive waste more safely and with more financial benefit to the state.
The current facility disposes of low-level radioactive waste for 36 states and will not be able to handle future waste coming from the decomissioning of nuclear power plants, the former head of EnergySolutions, Charles Judd, told the state's Radiation Control Board yesterday. EnergySolutions refutes that claim.
Judd urged the board to consider a new site for another waste dump on state land about 3 miles from Interstate 80 in Tooele County. Building on state lands would generate tens of millions of dollars for the state trust land fund, which could then be funneled to Utah schools, he said. He claimed his facility would also be safer since it would use twice as much radon barrier to cover the site.
Judd also proposed increasing taxes on radioactive waste by 50 percent and doubling state oversight fees. The proposal comes at a time when the state is already staring down a $700 million budget shortfall, although Judd noted that if the project is approved it would still take years before he could get it up and running (Brock Vergaki, AP/ABC News, Feb. 9). -- DFM
A potential competitor to EnergySolutions Inc. proposed a second radioactive waste facility in Utah yesterday, claiming that the EnergySolutions' facility in Utah's west desert is running out of room and that another facility will store the excess low-level radioactive waste more safely and with more financial benefit to the state.
The current facility disposes of low-level radioactive waste for 36 states and will not be able to handle future waste coming from the decomissioning of nuclear power plants, the former head of EnergySolutions, Charles Judd, told the state's Radiation Control Board yesterday. EnergySolutions refutes that claim.
Judd urged the board to consider a new site for another waste dump on state land about 3 miles from Interstate 80 in Tooele County. Building on state lands would generate tens of millions of dollars for the state trust land fund, which could then be funneled to Utah schools, he said. He claimed his facility would also be safer since it would use twice as much radon barrier to cover the site.
Judd also proposed increasing taxes on radioactive waste by 50 percent and doubling state oversight fees. The proposal comes at a time when the state is already staring down a $700 million budget shortfall, although Judd noted that if the project is approved it would still take years before he could get it up and running (Brock Vergaki, AP/ABC News, Feb. 9). -- DFM
EDITORIAL: Out of nuclear options
The Blade, Toledo, Ohio McClatchy-Tribune Regional News521 words10 February 2010The Blade (MCT)Distributed by McClatchy - Tribune Information Services
Feb. 10--THE light at the end of this tunnel isn't a radioactive glow, but the demise of the federal plan to store nuclear waste deep beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain. That decision leaves the Obama Administration in the awkward position of promoting growth of the nuclear power industry while reducing to zero the available options for where to put its dangerous waste product.
If the United States is to lessen its $700-billion-a-year dependence on foreign oil and address global warning issues, nuclear power, along with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power will have to be part of the solution. President Obama signaled his awareness of that in his State of the Union address, calling for "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear-power plants." He supported that call by tripling to $54 billion the amount of federal loan guarantees for financing new nuclear plants.
But candidate Obama said in 2008 -- and President Obama reiterated last year -- that Yucca Mountain, about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was not going to be the final resting place for the toxic waste left over from nuclear-power generation. Now, acting on that promise, the administration has declared its intention to withdraw the application to build the underground storage facility.
Feb. 10--THE light at the end of this tunnel isn't a radioactive glow, but the demise of the federal plan to store nuclear waste deep beneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain. That decision leaves the Obama Administration in the awkward position of promoting growth of the nuclear power industry while reducing to zero the available options for where to put its dangerous waste product.
If the United States is to lessen its $700-billion-a-year dependence on foreign oil and address global warning issues, nuclear power, along with wind, solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power will have to be part of the solution. President Obama signaled his awareness of that in his State of the Union address, calling for "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear-power plants." He supported that call by tripling to $54 billion the amount of federal loan guarantees for financing new nuclear plants.
But candidate Obama said in 2008 -- and President Obama reiterated last year -- that Yucca Mountain, about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was not going to be the final resting place for the toxic waste left over from nuclear-power generation. Now, acting on that promise, the administration has declared its intention to withdraw the application to build the underground storage facility.
Nothing to lose in studying nuclear option
432 words10 February 2010Straits TimesSTIMESEnglish(c) 2010 Singapore Press Holdings Limited
NUCLEAR power is controversial as an energy source despite its long use. So, it is hardly surprising the Economic Strategies Committee's recommendation to study the nuclear option has provoked some discussion. Safety concerns are more acute than in larger countries. On a small, densely populated island, is there anywhere a nuclear power plant can be located and operated without environmental and human risk if there is a malfunction? The world is most familiar with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as representations of extreme technological risk and the nightmare consequences of accidents. Still, the committee's energy panel is justified in saying the option should not be excluded from study.
The price of conventionally produced energy will rise as demand continues to outpace supply with the urbanisation and industrialisation taking place in Asia. The need to diversify sources has been picking up pace. Electricity tariffs will go up as imported liquefied natural gas, used to generate 80 per cent of power here, continues to rise in cost. Singapore has no recourse to hydro and geothermal options, while low wind speeds do not favour wind farms. Solar energy is a better bet, and even then is a limited alternative. It will be a challenge to generate 5 per cent of peak electricity demand from renewable sources in 10 years' time, a goal the panel proposed. So, through a process of elimination, nuclear power surprisingly survives the winnowing, as a concept.
NUCLEAR power is controversial as an energy source despite its long use. So, it is hardly surprising the Economic Strategies Committee's recommendation to study the nuclear option has provoked some discussion. Safety concerns are more acute than in larger countries. On a small, densely populated island, is there anywhere a nuclear power plant can be located and operated without environmental and human risk if there is a malfunction? The world is most familiar with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as representations of extreme technological risk and the nightmare consequences of accidents. Still, the committee's energy panel is justified in saying the option should not be excluded from study.
The price of conventionally produced energy will rise as demand continues to outpace supply with the urbanisation and industrialisation taking place in Asia. The need to diversify sources has been picking up pace. Electricity tariffs will go up as imported liquefied natural gas, used to generate 80 per cent of power here, continues to rise in cost. Singapore has no recourse to hydro and geothermal options, while low wind speeds do not favour wind farms. Solar energy is a better bet, and even then is a limited alternative. It will be a challenge to generate 5 per cent of peak electricity demand from renewable sources in 10 years' time, a goal the panel proposed. So, through a process of elimination, nuclear power surprisingly survives the winnowing, as a concept.
IN THE SENATENUCLEAR POWER; Panel to vet last 3 picks for regulatory commission
Katherine Ling, E&E reporter 713 words8 February 2010Environment & Energy Daily
© 2010 E&E Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved
The Environment and Public Works Committee tomorrow will examine President Obama's nominees to fill three spots on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Obama nominated George Apostolakis, former chairman of the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and William Magwood IV, former director of the Department of Energy civilian nuclear technology program, last October to fill two open Democratic spots on the committee.
© 2010 E&E Publishing, LLC. All Rights Reserved
The Environment and Public Works Committee tomorrow will examine President Obama's nominees to fill three spots on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Obama nominated George Apostolakis, former chairman of the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and William Magwood IV, former director of the Department of Energy civilian nuclear technology program, last October to fill two open Democratic spots on the committee.
Nuclear waste still up in air
Benjamin Spillman 597 words February 2010he Las Vegas Review-JournalLVGS© 2010 The Las Vegas Review-Journal. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All Rights Reserved.
By BENJAMIN SPILLMAN
A devastating blow last week to a plan to bury nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain has bolstered another controversial idea: reprocessing nuclear waste at the same location on the Nevada Test Site.
Several Republican candidates - including leading U.S. Senate candidates Danny Tarkanian, Sue Lowden and Sharron Angle - have expressed support for studying or experimenting with reprocessing, a method of extracting useful fuel from radioactive waste.
Two Republican guber-natorial candidates are also open to the idea, despite steadfast opposition from the Nevada political establishment that stymied the plan to store waste at Yucca Mountain.
The opposition lineup includes Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the highest-ranking politician to ever come from the state who counts keeping dangerous radioactive waste out of Nevada among his foremost accomplishments.
Of Yucca Mountain Reid said, "We should be able to use it for something ... other than nuclear waste."
By BENJAMIN SPILLMAN
A devastating blow last week to a plan to bury nuclear waste under Yucca Mountain has bolstered another controversial idea: reprocessing nuclear waste at the same location on the Nevada Test Site.
Several Republican candidates - including leading U.S. Senate candidates Danny Tarkanian, Sue Lowden and Sharron Angle - have expressed support for studying or experimenting with reprocessing, a method of extracting useful fuel from radioactive waste.
Two Republican guber-natorial candidates are also open to the idea, despite steadfast opposition from the Nevada political establishment that stymied the plan to store waste at Yucca Mountain.
The opposition lineup includes Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the highest-ranking politician to ever come from the state who counts keeping dangerous radioactive waste out of Nevada among his foremost accomplishments.
Of Yucca Mountain Reid said, "We should be able to use it for something ... other than nuclear waste."
HEARING OF THE SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
(c) 2010 Federal News Service, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SEN. BINGAMAN: All right, good morning everyone. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2011 Department of Energy budget. We want to thank Secretary Chu for testifying today on the department's 2011 budget. And I compliment him and his staff for their timely and thorough budget. That has been a tradition in the Department of Energy and very much carried forward this year.
Given our stark fiscal climate, I appreciate the president's commitment to the continued development of clean energy programs that will help the United States be competitive in the world economy. The department continues to support renewables and conservation as well as electricity delivery and transmission.
SEN. BINGAMAN: All right, good morning everyone. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on the fiscal year 2011 Department of Energy budget. We want to thank Secretary Chu for testifying today on the department's 2011 budget. And I compliment him and his staff for their timely and thorough budget. That has been a tradition in the Department of Energy and very much carried forward this year.
Given our stark fiscal climate, I appreciate the president's commitment to the continued development of clean energy programs that will help the United States be competitive in the world economy. The department continues to support renewables and conservation as well as electricity delivery and transmission.
Board: Lung disease risk too high at Hanford
Annette Cary;Herald staff writer Cary Annette/841 words/5 February 2010Tri-City Herald(c) 2010 The Tri-City Herald. All Rights Reserved.
The Hanford Advisory Board is questioning whether the Department of Energy is doing enough to protect Hanford workers from an incurable lung disease caused by exposure to beryllium.
DOE officials in Washington, D.C., are about to launch a review of the Hanford beryllium protection program because of the concerns of some workers.
But by the time that review is finished, three more cases of chronic beryllium disease could be diagnosed if current trends continue, said board member Mike Korenko at a meeting Thursday of the advisory board in Kennewick.
“How can you not look at that data and have adrenaline flowing?” he asked Doug Shoop, deputy manager of the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office.
The Hanford Advisory Board is questioning whether the Department of Energy is doing enough to protect Hanford workers from an incurable lung disease caused by exposure to beryllium.
DOE officials in Washington, D.C., are about to launch a review of the Hanford beryllium protection program because of the concerns of some workers.
But by the time that review is finished, three more cases of chronic beryllium disease could be diagnosed if current trends continue, said board member Mike Korenko at a meeting Thursday of the advisory board in Kennewick.
“How can you not look at that data and have adrenaline flowing?” he asked Doug Shoop, deputy manager of the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office.
Nuclear renaissance could stall, Canada group says
4 February 2010/Reuters News(c) 2010 Reuters Limited * Significant industry expansion by 2030 seen unlikely* Cost, security issues could hamper new builds (In U.S. dollars, unless noted)
By Cameron French
TORONTO, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Expectations of a sharp rise in nuclear generating capacity over the next two decades are likely overblown, a Canadian think tank said on Thursday, disputing conventional wisdom that a nuclear renaissance is in full swing.
In a report based on a 3-1/2 year study of the nuclear industry, the Waterloo, Ontario-based Centre for International Governance Innovation said new reactor construction will be held back by a series of economic, security, and waste disposal issues.
"Despite some powerful drivers, a revival of nuclear energy faces too many barriers compared to other means of generating electricity," Trevor Findlay, the report's author, said in a statement.
He argues that, despite claims in the industry that nuclear capacity is expanding, there have actually been very few new reactors started in recent years, and that nuclear energy as a percentage of global energy production has actually retreated since 2001.
Standing in the way of new construction are costs that can run up to $10 billion per new reactor, competition from other, cheaper, energy sources, the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste, and concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, the report said.
"On balance, a significant expansion of nuclear energy worldwide to 2030 faces constraints that, while not insurmountable, are likely to outweigh the drivers of nuclear energy," it said.
This contrasts with expectations of a sharp rise in nuclear generating capacity over the next 20 years due to higher energy demand from emerging nations and a push to reduce global carbon emissions.
The World Nuclear Association, an industry group whose forecasts are often cited by uranium producers, predicts generating capacity could rise by more than 50 percent by 2030, while the number of operating reactors could rise by a third.
In its report, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, or CIGI, predicted that new reactor openings will be offset by closure of older reactors.
The study follows recent decisions by the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta not to go ahead with costly reactors that had been contemplated, and the cancellation of a planned build in Ontario.
CIGI was founded in 2002 by Research In Motion co-Chief Executive Jim Balsillie. Canada is the world's No. 2 producer of uranium. (Reporting by Cameron French; editing by Peter Galloway)
By Cameron French
TORONTO, Feb 4 (Reuters) - Expectations of a sharp rise in nuclear generating capacity over the next two decades are likely overblown, a Canadian think tank said on Thursday, disputing conventional wisdom that a nuclear renaissance is in full swing.
In a report based on a 3-1/2 year study of the nuclear industry, the Waterloo, Ontario-based Centre for International Governance Innovation said new reactor construction will be held back by a series of economic, security, and waste disposal issues.
"Despite some powerful drivers, a revival of nuclear energy faces too many barriers compared to other means of generating electricity," Trevor Findlay, the report's author, said in a statement.
He argues that, despite claims in the industry that nuclear capacity is expanding, there have actually been very few new reactors started in recent years, and that nuclear energy as a percentage of global energy production has actually retreated since 2001.
Standing in the way of new construction are costs that can run up to $10 billion per new reactor, competition from other, cheaper, energy sources, the problem of safely disposing of nuclear waste, and concern about the spread of nuclear weapons, the report said.
"On balance, a significant expansion of nuclear energy worldwide to 2030 faces constraints that, while not insurmountable, are likely to outweigh the drivers of nuclear energy," it said.
This contrasts with expectations of a sharp rise in nuclear generating capacity over the next 20 years due to higher energy demand from emerging nations and a push to reduce global carbon emissions.
The World Nuclear Association, an industry group whose forecasts are often cited by uranium producers, predicts generating capacity could rise by more than 50 percent by 2030, while the number of operating reactors could rise by a third.
In its report, the Centre for International Governance Innovation, or CIGI, predicted that new reactor openings will be offset by closure of older reactors.
The study follows recent decisions by the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta not to go ahead with costly reactors that had been contemplated, and the cancellation of a planned build in Ontario.
CIGI was founded in 2002 by Research In Motion co-Chief Executive Jim Balsillie. Canada is the world's No. 2 producer of uranium. (Reporting by Cameron French; editing by Peter Galloway)
Chu defends US DOE budget request against Republican questioning
603 words/4 February 2010/Platts Commodity News/PLATT//Copyright 2010. Platts. All Rights Reserved./Washington (Platts)--4Feb2010/259 pm EST/1959 GMT
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu faced a barrage of questions Thursday from Republicans over the Obama administration's proposed withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain license application, reduction of funding for fossil fuel programs and slow pace of issuing nuclear loan guarantees.
In a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the US Department of Energy's $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 budget request, Republicans also criticized the administration for seeking an almost $2 billion increase for DOE over last year's budget, when it has already received nearly $37 billion in stimulus funds and could get even more in a pending "jobs" bill.
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, ranking Republican on the committee, noted that DOE has spent just $2.1 billion of its stimulus funds so far.
"DOE had authority to spend a total of $63 billion last year, but did not come close to that level," she said.
Chu acknowledged that he is "disappointed" in the amount of money that DOE has spent so far, but he said many of the funds have been obligated to states and local governments--for weatherization programs, for instance--and those administrations do not always have the expertise to move funds quickly."We are sending people out to the states to help them," Chu said.
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu faced a barrage of questions Thursday from Republicans over the Obama administration's proposed withdrawal of the Yucca Mountain license application, reduction of funding for fossil fuel programs and slow pace of issuing nuclear loan guarantees.
In a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the US Department of Energy's $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 budget request, Republicans also criticized the administration for seeking an almost $2 billion increase for DOE over last year's budget, when it has already received nearly $37 billion in stimulus funds and could get even more in a pending "jobs" bill.
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, ranking Republican on the committee, noted that DOE has spent just $2.1 billion of its stimulus funds so far.
"DOE had authority to spend a total of $63 billion last year, but did not come close to that level," she said.
Chu acknowledged that he is "disappointed" in the amount of money that DOE has spent so far, but he said many of the funds have been obligated to states and local governments--for weatherization programs, for instance--and those administrations do not always have the expertise to move funds quickly."We are sending people out to the states to help them," Chu said.
EM Newsletter U.S. Department of Energy • Volume 2, Issue No. 2 • January 29, 2010
DOE Issues Draft Mercury Storage EIS
Marshall Islands Research Could Lead to Resettlement After Nuclear Tests
ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2010) — Through Laboratory soil cleanup methods, residents of Bikini, Enjebi and Rongelap Islands -- where nuclear tests were conducted on the atolls and in the ocean surrounding them in the 1950s -- could have lower radioactive levels than the average background dose for residents in the United States and Europe.
The National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists Bill Robison and Terry Hamilton calculated the radiation doses for people resettling Bikini, Enjebi, Rongelap and Utrok Islands. The two found that when it rains, a portion of the soluble cesium-137 (137Cs) -- an isotope of cesium -- is transported to the groundwater that lies about three meters below the soil surface. The groundwater eventually gets mixed with the ocean waters so the 137Cs is lost from the soil and is not available for uptake by growing vegetation on the island. The rate of this loss process is much faster than the loss by radiological decay.
In addition, treatment of food crops with potassium reduces the 137Cs concentration in edible fruits to about 5 percent of pretreatment concentrations. Potassium treatment and removal of the top 15 centimeters of soil around houses and community buildings prior to construction of new buildings to reduce external exposure where people spend most of their time -- referred to as the combined option -- could be used as a remediation strategy before resettlement, Robison said.
"If this approach is taken, the natural background dose plus the nuclear-test-related dose at Bikini, Enjebi and Rongelap would be less than the usual background dose in the United States and Europe," Hamilton said.
The United States conducted 24 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll with a total yield of 76.8 megatons (MT). The Castle series of tests produced about 60 percent of this total yield and included the 15-megaton Bravo test that was the primary source of radioactive contamination of Bikini Island and Rongelap and Utrok Atolls. Pretest estimated yield for the Bravo test was about five megatons. The much larger yield resulted in vaporization of more coral reef and island than expected and the debris-cloud reached a much higher altitude than anticipated.
The National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists Bill Robison and Terry Hamilton calculated the radiation doses for people resettling Bikini, Enjebi, Rongelap and Utrok Islands. The two found that when it rains, a portion of the soluble cesium-137 (137Cs) -- an isotope of cesium -- is transported to the groundwater that lies about three meters below the soil surface. The groundwater eventually gets mixed with the ocean waters so the 137Cs is lost from the soil and is not available for uptake by growing vegetation on the island. The rate of this loss process is much faster than the loss by radiological decay.
In addition, treatment of food crops with potassium reduces the 137Cs concentration in edible fruits to about 5 percent of pretreatment concentrations. Potassium treatment and removal of the top 15 centimeters of soil around houses and community buildings prior to construction of new buildings to reduce external exposure where people spend most of their time -- referred to as the combined option -- could be used as a remediation strategy before resettlement, Robison said.
"If this approach is taken, the natural background dose plus the nuclear-test-related dose at Bikini, Enjebi and Rongelap would be less than the usual background dose in the United States and Europe," Hamilton said.
The United States conducted 24 nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll with a total yield of 76.8 megatons (MT). The Castle series of tests produced about 60 percent of this total yield and included the 15-megaton Bravo test that was the primary source of radioactive contamination of Bikini Island and Rongelap and Utrok Atolls. Pretest estimated yield for the Bravo test was about five megatons. The much larger yield resulted in vaporization of more coral reef and island than expected and the debris-cloud reached a much higher altitude than anticipated.
Utah to consider second radioactive waste dump
February 9, 2010 /By BROCK VERGAKIS/Associated Press Writer
The former president of the only facility that can dispose of low-level radioactive waste for 36 states said Tuesday that he wants to open a new disposal facility in Utah.
Charles Judd said EnergySolutions Inc.'s facility in Utah's west desert is running out of space and can't handle future waste from the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. He wants to build a new site on state land about three miles from Interstate 80 in Tooele County.
By building on state trust land, Judd says the state's schools could reap a financial windfall.
"We think the state ought to get a significant amount more than they are getting right now. If we were to use state lands, (schools) would benefit from tens of millions of dollars," Judd told The Associated Press in an interview before presenting the proposal to the state's Radiation Control Board.
Judd is also proposing increasing taxes on radioactive waste by 50 percent and doubling state oversight fees.
Judd made his initial pitch for a new facility at a time when the state is facing a $700 million budget shortfall, although he said it would be years before he could get his operation up and running.
In a statement, EnergySolutions President Val Christensen noted that opening a new facility is a lengthy and expensive process and that the company wasn't aware of any progress Judd has made.
Judd was the president of EnergySolutions' predecessor, Envirocare. He contends that EnergySolutions has thumbed its nose at Utah too often, citing its plans to dispose of waste from Italy's shuttered nuclear power program over objections from two Utah governors and the public.
His comments touting the economic benefits of a new facility resemble those EnergySolutions made last year, when it offered to share revenue from disposing foreign nuclear waste with the state during another tough budget year if it dropped its objections to importing the material. The idea was supported by some lawmakers but rebuffed by former Gov. Jon Huntsman.
Judd said his company, Cedar Mountain Environmental, would not seek to import foreign low-level radioactive waste or depleted uranium.
Depleted uranium is different from other low-level radioactive waste because it becomes hotter over time. EnergySolutions has been disposing of the material for years.
Environmental groups and some in Congress have raised concerns that depleted uranium becomes so hot that it shouldn't be considered Class A waste, the lowest classification for radioactive waste and the only type EnergySolutions is licensed to handle.
In response to EnergySolutions' plans for the Italian waste, an effort is also under way in Congress to ban the importation of foreign low-level radioactive waste.
The measure's lead sponsors, U.S. Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., contend that the U.S. should preserve capacity at its disposal sites for domestic waste at a time the nation is increasingly looking at expanding the use of nuclear power.
EnergySolutions has repeatedly said capacity is not a problem at its facility.
Judd said there will be no shortage of domestic waste in the future, including waste created at EnergySolutions' site.
"Right now there's not a great need. There's ample capacity for this year, but we see in the future a great need for these facilities," he said. "One of the bigger needs is just to clean up the (EnergySolutions) site."
But first, Judd will have to get regulatory, legislative and gubernatorial approval. It's unclear how much of an appetite lawmakers would have for approving a new site. Utah Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday they were unaware of the proposal.
A spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, who is facing a special election this fall, said Herbert did not support a second disposal site. She did not elaborate.
The nuclear waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah began calling on lawmakers Tuesday to send a quick, strong message that Utah doesn't need another disposal site.
"It's not surprising Judd is trying to sell a bill of radioactive goods to the state of Utah because the state has allowed EnergySolutions to make nuclear waste dumping a marquee industry in the state," said HEAL Utah's executive director, Vanessa Pierce. "But that's not an image that the state should be perpetuating, and Herbert and the Legislature can put a stop to this right now by saying 'no.'"
EnergySolutions shares fell 15 cents, or 2 percent, to $7.34 Tuesday.
The former president of the only facility that can dispose of low-level radioactive waste for 36 states said Tuesday that he wants to open a new disposal facility in Utah.
Charles Judd said EnergySolutions Inc.'s facility in Utah's west desert is running out of space and can't handle future waste from the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. He wants to build a new site on state land about three miles from Interstate 80 in Tooele County.
By building on state trust land, Judd says the state's schools could reap a financial windfall.
"We think the state ought to get a significant amount more than they are getting right now. If we were to use state lands, (schools) would benefit from tens of millions of dollars," Judd told The Associated Press in an interview before presenting the proposal to the state's Radiation Control Board.
Judd is also proposing increasing taxes on radioactive waste by 50 percent and doubling state oversight fees.
Judd made his initial pitch for a new facility at a time when the state is facing a $700 million budget shortfall, although he said it would be years before he could get his operation up and running.
In a statement, EnergySolutions President Val Christensen noted that opening a new facility is a lengthy and expensive process and that the company wasn't aware of any progress Judd has made.
Judd was the president of EnergySolutions' predecessor, Envirocare. He contends that EnergySolutions has thumbed its nose at Utah too often, citing its plans to dispose of waste from Italy's shuttered nuclear power program over objections from two Utah governors and the public.
His comments touting the economic benefits of a new facility resemble those EnergySolutions made last year, when it offered to share revenue from disposing foreign nuclear waste with the state during another tough budget year if it dropped its objections to importing the material. The idea was supported by some lawmakers but rebuffed by former Gov. Jon Huntsman.
Judd said his company, Cedar Mountain Environmental, would not seek to import foreign low-level radioactive waste or depleted uranium.
Depleted uranium is different from other low-level radioactive waste because it becomes hotter over time. EnergySolutions has been disposing of the material for years.
Environmental groups and some in Congress have raised concerns that depleted uranium becomes so hot that it shouldn't be considered Class A waste, the lowest classification for radioactive waste and the only type EnergySolutions is licensed to handle.
In response to EnergySolutions' plans for the Italian waste, an effort is also under way in Congress to ban the importation of foreign low-level radioactive waste.
The measure's lead sponsors, U.S. Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., contend that the U.S. should preserve capacity at its disposal sites for domestic waste at a time the nation is increasingly looking at expanding the use of nuclear power.
EnergySolutions has repeatedly said capacity is not a problem at its facility.
Judd said there will be no shortage of domestic waste in the future, including waste created at EnergySolutions' site.
"Right now there's not a great need. There's ample capacity for this year, but we see in the future a great need for these facilities," he said. "One of the bigger needs is just to clean up the (EnergySolutions) site."
But first, Judd will have to get regulatory, legislative and gubernatorial approval. It's unclear how much of an appetite lawmakers would have for approving a new site. Utah Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday they were unaware of the proposal.
A spokeswoman for Republican Gov. Gary Herbert, who is facing a special election this fall, said Herbert did not support a second disposal site. She did not elaborate.
The nuclear waste watchdog group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah began calling on lawmakers Tuesday to send a quick, strong message that Utah doesn't need another disposal site.
"It's not surprising Judd is trying to sell a bill of radioactive goods to the state of Utah because the state has allowed EnergySolutions to make nuclear waste dumping a marquee industry in the state," said HEAL Utah's executive director, Vanessa Pierce. "But that's not an image that the state should be perpetuating, and Herbert and the Legislature can put a stop to this right now by saying 'no.'"
EnergySolutions shares fell 15 cents, or 2 percent, to $7.34 Tuesday.
Monday, February 8, 2010
DOE Issues Draft Mercury Storage EIS
DOE Issues Draft Mercury Storage EIS DOE has issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on
the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury. A notice of its availability was set to
be published in today’s edition of the Federal Register. The draft EIS reports on the results of DOE’s evaluation of seven sites around the country as possible locations for a mercury storage facility.
DOE selected Waste Control Specialists (WCS) near Andrews, Texas, as its preferred alternative
for the long-term storage of surplus elemental mercury. The public comment period on the
EIS will run through March 30 and a series of nine public meetings will be held at venues near the locations
under consideration as sites for longterm storage facilities. The hearings will be held between February 23
and March 9.
http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/
The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider the impacts of the required action. The Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury EIS (Mercury Storage EIS) evaluates alternatives for a long-term mercury storage facility or facilities to open no later than January 1, 2013, the statutory start date for storage operations. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mesa County, CO are cooperating agencies on the Mercury Storage EIS.
This web site provides information on the development of the EIS and opportunities for the public to participate in the decisionmaking process. The Draft EIS is available for download from this site as well as through other means.
The Department of Energy currently expects the Final Environmental Impact Statement to be released in the Fall of 2010.
http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/library.htm
the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury. A notice of its availability was set to
be published in today’s edition of the Federal Register. The draft EIS reports on the results of DOE’s evaluation of seven sites around the country as possible locations for a mercury storage facility.
DOE selected Waste Control Specialists (WCS) near Andrews, Texas, as its preferred alternative
for the long-term storage of surplus elemental mercury. The public comment period on the
EIS will run through March 30 and a series of nine public meetings will be held at venues near the locations
under consideration as sites for longterm storage facilities. The hearings will be held between February 23
and March 9.
http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/
The Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to designate a facility or facilities for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury generated within the United States. Therefore, DOE has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to consider the impacts of the required action. The Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury EIS (Mercury Storage EIS) evaluates alternatives for a long-term mercury storage facility or facilities to open no later than January 1, 2013, the statutory start date for storage operations. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Mesa County, CO are cooperating agencies on the Mercury Storage EIS.
This web site provides information on the development of the EIS and opportunities for the public to participate in the decisionmaking process. The Draft EIS is available for download from this site as well as through other means.
The Department of Energy currently expects the Final Environmental Impact Statement to be released in the Fall of 2010.
http://www.mercurystorageeis.com/library.htm
Monday, February 1, 2010
NEI Notes: The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Arrives
And that’s what they’re calling it: The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. Announced today during a telephone conference with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Presidential Advisor Carol Browner, the commission’s charge is to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the nation’s used nuclear fuel.
The commission will be headed by former House member Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana) and former National Security Advisor (to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush) Brent Scowcroft. These men volunteer to chair the commission and show considerable devotion to public service in doing so.
The remaining 13 commission members include:
Mark Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Vicky Bailey, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former IN PUC Commissioner; Former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Albert Carnesale, Chancellor Emeritus and Professor, UCLA
Pete V. Domenici, Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center; former U.S. Senator (R-NM)
Susan Eisenhower, President, Eisenhower Group
Chuck Hagel, Former U.S. Senator (R-NE)
Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute
Allison Macfarlane, Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University
Dick Meserve, Former Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Ernie Moniz, Professor of Physics and Cecil & Ida Green Distinguished Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Per Peterson, Professor and Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
John Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation
Phil Sharp, President, Resources for the Future
As you can see, this is an exceptionally well-chosen group, with various political, scientific and industrial constituencies included.
Here are some interesting tidbits:
Yucca Mountain will not be considered an option. For all intents and purposes, it’s dead.
Why not Yucca Mountain? Because, said Chu, “science has advanced dramatically” in the 20 years since Yucca Mountain was chosen and a better, safer solution is preferable and now possible.
Chu made it clear, though, that this is not a siting commission – that is, if it settles around the idea of a repository, it won’t suggest where it might be located – and of course a repository may not be one of the recommendations.
The commission is charged with delivering an interim report in 18 months and a final report in two years. The chairmen said they’d like to finish sooner.
Chu does not consider the focus on nuclear energy in President Obama’s State of the Union or the founding of the commission to represent a “betrayal” of environmentalists who supported the President’s election (nor should he – Obama was muted but definite during the election that he supported nuclear energy.)
Chu noted that nuclear energy is baseload, carbon emission free energy and, compared to fusion, for example, is well understood now.
You can see the Presidential memo ordering this commission here.
We’ll have lots more to say about this in the days and weeks ahead, but we thought you’d want the initial news quickly. As they say in the trade, breaking…
Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton.
The commission will be headed by former House member Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana) and former National Security Advisor (to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush) Brent Scowcroft. These men volunteer to chair the commission and show considerable devotion to public service in doing so.
The remaining 13 commission members include:
Mark Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Vicky Bailey, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former IN PUC Commissioner; Former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Albert Carnesale, Chancellor Emeritus and Professor, UCLA
Pete V. Domenici, Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center; former U.S. Senator (R-NM)
Susan Eisenhower, President, Eisenhower Group
Chuck Hagel, Former U.S. Senator (R-NE)
Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute
Allison Macfarlane, Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University
Dick Meserve, Former Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Ernie Moniz, Professor of Physics and Cecil & Ida Green Distinguished Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Per Peterson, Professor and Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
John Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation
Phil Sharp, President, Resources for the Future
As you can see, this is an exceptionally well-chosen group, with various political, scientific and industrial constituencies included.
Here are some interesting tidbits:
Yucca Mountain will not be considered an option. For all intents and purposes, it’s dead.
Why not Yucca Mountain? Because, said Chu, “science has advanced dramatically” in the 20 years since Yucca Mountain was chosen and a better, safer solution is preferable and now possible.
Chu made it clear, though, that this is not a siting commission – that is, if it settles around the idea of a repository, it won’t suggest where it might be located – and of course a repository may not be one of the recommendations.
The commission is charged with delivering an interim report in 18 months and a final report in two years. The chairmen said they’d like to finish sooner.
Chu does not consider the focus on nuclear energy in President Obama’s State of the Union or the founding of the commission to represent a “betrayal” of environmentalists who supported the President’s election (nor should he – Obama was muted but definite during the election that he supported nuclear energy.)
Chu noted that nuclear energy is baseload, carbon emission free energy and, compared to fusion, for example, is well understood now.
You can see the Presidential memo ordering this commission here.
We’ll have lots more to say about this in the days and weeks ahead, but we thought you’d want the initial news quickly. As they say in the trade, breaking…
Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton.
ETEBA Applauds the President’s FY 2011 Budget Request
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release Date: February 1, 2010
Contact: (202) 360‐9210
WASHINGTON—The Obama Administration today released its FY 2011 budget request
to Congress, which makes critical investments in key Department of Energy programs.
In the $28.4 billion budget for the Department of Energy, the new Administration makes many important energy, technology, and environmental funding choices that will maintain current work underway at DOE field sites and will also provide the investments necessary to propel a clean energy economy. Following is a statement from Nithin Akuthota, ETEBA Executive Director and DC representative.
“On the national security side of the DOE budget, the Administration clearly understands the importance of nuclear security and environmental management. Both of these budget accounts represent a fundamental commitment to the national security and environmental stewardship of this country. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapons programs – which are needed to reduce the nuclear stockpile while maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent – would receive $7 billion, including funding to support key construction projects at LANL and Y‐12. Meanwhile, the environmental management
program – which is responsible for the risk reduction and cleanup of the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear weapons program – would receive about $6 billion. This represents a substantial correction to devastating cuts that were contemplated just weeks ago.
Release Date: February 1, 2010
Contact: (202) 360‐9210
WASHINGTON—The Obama Administration today released its FY 2011 budget request
to Congress, which makes critical investments in key Department of Energy programs.
In the $28.4 billion budget for the Department of Energy, the new Administration makes many important energy, technology, and environmental funding choices that will maintain current work underway at DOE field sites and will also provide the investments necessary to propel a clean energy economy. Following is a statement from Nithin Akuthota, ETEBA Executive Director and DC representative.
“On the national security side of the DOE budget, the Administration clearly understands the importance of nuclear security and environmental management. Both of these budget accounts represent a fundamental commitment to the national security and environmental stewardship of this country. The National Nuclear Security Administration’s nuclear weapons programs – which are needed to reduce the nuclear stockpile while maintaining a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent – would receive $7 billion, including funding to support key construction projects at LANL and Y‐12. Meanwhile, the environmental management
program – which is responsible for the risk reduction and cleanup of the environmental legacy of the Nation's nuclear weapons program – would receive about $6 billion. This represents a substantial correction to devastating cuts that were contemplated just weeks ago.