U.S. Energy Secretary Outlines Administration's Support for Nuclear Power

Standing before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was prompted by lawmakers to provide further insight into the intentions of the administration of President Barack Obama regarding nuclear power. The tone of questioning was very much driven by the actions of the president, who has in recent weeks outlined a range of policy measures designed to boost investment in renewable and alternative energy technologies, while placing more stringent limits on the traditional hydrocarbon industry. With relatively little to say so far on the issue of nuclear power, other than vague expressions of support, lawmakers were surprised to see the administration move so vigorously to reduce funding for the country's proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Fearing the effect this policy might have on nascent interest in building new nuclear capacity, lawmakers grilled Chu over the issue. The energy secretary responded calmly with assurances that the Yucca Mountain cutback did not indicate a lack of interest in encouraging new nuclear generation, but rather represented a desire on the part of the administration to introduce a long-term strategic plan for nuclear waste disposal that would be more viable than the Yucca option. To that end, Chu announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) would be seeking to shortly put together a high-level panel to examine the issue and provide recommendations before the end of the year.

Dead But Not Buried

The United States continues to lack a long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste despite having introduced legislation in the early 1980s to seek such a site. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, several sites were inspected up until 1987, when Congress decided to focus purely on Yucca Mountain. Since then, workers and scientists have been busy building an 8-km-long exploratory tunnel and carrying out research on the site’s geological suitability to hold some 77,000 tons of waste. In that time however, costs have spiralled to nearly US$100 billion, driven largely by the reality that the original storage capacity now falls far short of that required to hold the growing volume of waste in temporary storage around the country. Moreover, vocal and tenacious local and community opposition to the site have added to concerns about Yucca Mountain's geological stability to effectively turn the project into a political third rail. Sensing this, President Obama effectively swiped the project off the table, and appears to have replaced it with a clean slate. So while the Yucca Mountain project now seems dead, nuclear waste remains scattered at 121 sites around the United States.

No Alternative

The nuclear waste issue has become a very pertinent concern for electric utilities keen to boost nuclear capacity, but confused about the level of government—let alone popular—support for this. The United States currently has 104 nuclear power plants that together supply around 20% of the country's power needs. With many of these facilities due to reach the end of their operational lives in the coming years and decades, utilities encouraged by the implications of the country moving to cut CO2-intensive power generation, have scrambled to position themselves ahead of the expected arrival of political support for their cause. Given that nuclear power provides very large amounts of clean, baseload generation, that political support has been growing slowly but surely over the last few years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for its part, has been beefing up its staff base and streamlining the application process to more efficiently manage the influx of proposals eventually expected, once the economy begins to recover.

Outlook and Implications

It is unlikely that lawmakers will have been assuaged by Chu's comments. Many will no doubt be waiting to see exactly what transpires from this nuclear waste panel proposed by the energy secretary. While Chu himself has described nuclear power as "an essential part of our energy mix", beyond stating the obvious, lawmakers will be pondering the lack of detail that continues to flow from this administration. On the question of whether this continued uncertainty will affect the number of new nuclear applications submitted, Chu does not anticipate utilities will hold back, given that temporary storage solutions are perfectly suitable interim options. Given, however, the tremendous costs involved in building nuclear projects today, this position has to be questioned. Indeed, even ignoring the current and ongoing financial crisis and economic downturn, utilities are going to want to see far more support than currently seems to be emanating from this administration before they commit the billions of dollars necessary to supply the power demand needs of tomorrow's Americans. While this support should eventually come, the administration is likely to have to be prodded into action on a regular basis, if only to remind it that the longer-term energy supply problem is as pressing as any currently on its plate.

Related Articles

United States: 11 March 2009: Economic Downturn to Slow Nuclear Power Spending, Says U.S. NRC

United States: 6 March 2009: Yucca Mountain Prospects Extinguished by U.S. Energy Secretary

United States: 27 February 2009: U.S. President's Federal Budget Proposal Takes Axe to Oil Industry

United States: 11 December 2008: President-Elect Obama Picks Steven Chu for U.S. Energy Secretary Position