Fresh Loaf

The cost of building nuclear reactors, such as the two new ones Southern Co. has proposed at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, is high. Turns out storing the spent fuel generated from the power generators at Yucca Mountain in Nevada will be expensive as well.

From E&E News (subscription required):

DOE has spent $13.5 billion since 1983, and figures to spend $54.8 billion on construction, operation and decommissioning of the [Yucca Mountain] repository; $19.5 billion for transporting the waste — including building the canisters for holding waste; and $8.4 billion for other program activities.

The report notes that the expenses were based on a repository opening date of 2017 — a best possible opening date that Sproat has already said is no longer possible due to budget constraints, which have pushed it to 2020. The lifecycle estimate also does not include the at least $11 billion in liability expenses DOE expects for breaking its contract with utilities to begin taking away the spent nuclear fuel in 1998.

Another possible cost increase could come from the more than 30 planned new nuclear reactors, which were not included in the estimate. Sproat said trying to estimate costs for waste from the new reactors would be speculative and would no longer provide “an apples to apples” comparison with the 2001 report….

(Hat tip to the always informative Joe Romm at ClimateProgress)

Bookmark It

Emory grad, former West Georgia prof and all-around party animal Newt Gingrich, when not busy playing coy about a run for the White House, likes to write books. Usually they’re about the Civil War or have self-help titles — Winning the Future, Restoring the Dream — but now he’s got a new tome out about saving the environment.

The book, A Contract with the Earth, espouses an anti-regulation, pro-technology approach to moving toward a cleaner environment.

Bravo, Newt, thanks for caring! But Joe Romm at ClimateProgress — he no likey. (Emphasis Romm’s.)

You may be surprised that Newt calls himself an environmentalist, given that he co-authored and then worked to enact the anti-environmental Contract with America. Oh, but Newt now claims:

I don’t think that the environment was a central focus of the Contract With America. I don’t think that it was bad for the environment. I don’t know of a single thing in the Contract that was bad for the environment.

I think Salon had to pause in the interview at that point to allow Newt to douse the flames that began engulfing his trousers. In fact, the CWA was a clever, stealthy attack on the environment as detailed by NRDC in a lengthy analysis (summarized here), by the Sierra Club, and by the National Wildlife Federation, which wrote at the time: “Taken as a whole, the House plan constitutes the broadest and deepest attack ever mounted against laws that protect public health, the environment, natural resources and wildlife.”

The only thing more gut-busting than Gingrich claiming that the CWA and related legislation wasn’t bad for the environment is his newfound embrace of technology as the answer to climate/energy problems.

Recall that in the 1990s, the Gingrich Congress tried to shut down the Department of Energy, slash all clean energy research (including biofuels), stop the joint government-industry effort to develop a superefficient car, and zero out all programs aimed specifically at reducing greenhouse emissions and accelerating technology deployment (for some history, see my 1996 Atlantic Monthly article and this 1997 article).

Well put. He goes on to stab a bunch of holes in Gingrich’s “incentives” idea — rewarding companies that produce cleaner technologies with huge tax breaks — and brands him as the politician who has done the most to undermine America’s leadership in clean technology since Reagan. Worth reading.

Bookmark It