Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

( By DGM ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

I am sadly terrified that our Government does not employ engineers at the highest levels of government. Why this is, I do not know.  The rest of us engineers stand in astonishment when we look at how much power our country needs, along with the ability of solar and wind power to provide that power—as these are apparently the only form of power that the President recognizes.

Perhaps we need a Chief Engineer of the United States. We have an Attorney General and a Surgeon General, why not an Engineer General? He/she could take a dry erase board over to the White House and draw the simple equation of “SOLAR + WIND < FUTURE ENERGY REQUIRED.”

Then he/she would show the realistic CO2 free proposed solution of “SOLAR + WIND + NUCLEAR = FUTURE ENERGY REQUIRED.” There is a staggering realization here that our Government is failing to recognize. My real fear is that if our Government fails to admit to understanding the problem until too late then we will build a bunch of CO2 emitting plants because they are faster and more convenient to build.

OK, now I’m a little miffed. Carrington just pointed out this story to me that I never saw. Although it kind of steals my thunder a bit, Henry Petroski and I are in complete agreement.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 6 minutes]

Recently, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, Alex Flint, offered an extensive update on the current condition of the nuclear industry as well as a forecast for the future.  Mr. Flint addressed the Senate Republican Conference on June 8th, 2009.  We’re a month late with this, but I don’t remember seeing it reported anywhere else (I could be wrong).

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Flint’s prepared exchange:

Addressing nuclear costs, Mr. Flint commented about CWIP and Loan Guarantees:

“In general, U.S. utility companies are not large enough to finance these projects using traditional utility financing schemes – a 50:50 debt:equity structure.

However, there are steps that can be taken to address that challenge.

A number of projects that are regulated by public utility commissioners will be financed using the Construction Work-in-Progress (CWIP) approach in which a company is permitted to recover part of the cost before the plant goes on-line, a concept that is similar to putting a larger down payment on a house.  Such an approach is estimated to result in long-term savings to the consumer of 25 percent.

The DOE loan guarantee program could also significantly reduce interest costs on new plants, making it possible for utilities to order plants, reducing long-term costs to consumers.

It is for that reason that NEI strongly supports reform of the DOE’s Title XVII loan guarantee program and proposals such as the authorization of a Clean Energy Deployment Administration.”

Mr. Flint then addressed job creation and positive economic impacts by the industry:

“It is important to understand the economic significance of constructing 45 nuclear plants.  That effort will generate up to 82,800 construction jobs (with peak employment at 128,800).

These jobs include skilled trades such as welders, pipefitters, masons, carpenters, millwrights, sheet metal workers, electricians, ironworkers, heavy equipment operators, insulators, engineers, project managers, and construction supervisors.

Once built, these 45 plants will generate up to 32,200 high paying permanent fulltime jobs in rural counties where the plants are located.

Each year, each new reactor will generate approximately $430 million in expenditures for goods, services and labor, and through subsequent spending because of the presence of the plant and its employees.

The average nuclear plants also contributes more than $20 million annually to state and local tax revenue, benefiting schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure.  By 2030 these 45 new nuclear plants will be generating over $3.3 billion in annual revenue to the federal government.”

Mr. Flint then lays it all out with his take on the whole Yucca Mountain situation.  This part actually got me pumped up a little bit:

“First, all credible scientific evidence to date suggests that Yucca Mountain is suitable to serve as a geologic repository for spent fuel.

But it is clear that due to political commitments the President made during the campaign, the administration may not support opening the Yucca Mountain repository even if it receives a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Given that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act remains the law of the land, and recognizing the legal and moral obligation that the government has to fulfill its responsibility under that law, the industry believes the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application should continue.

In parallel, the administration should convene an independent panel of the best scientific, environmental, engineering and public policy leaders to fully investigate the critical issues and make a recommendation to President Obama and Congress on how best to proceed with managing used nuclear fuel.

Given the clear need for expansion of nuclear energy programs in the United States and worldwide, the nuclear industry proposed two years ago that our nation should revisit the decision to use a once-through fuel cycle and instead pursue a closed fuel cycle that includes recycling. This integrated approach includes at-reactor storage, private sector or government-owned centralized storage, research and development on recycling technology and continued development and licensing of a federal repository.

If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments as well as likely requests for refunding of at least $22 billion already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program from the Nuclear Waste Fund. Further, given the uncertain path forward for the Yucca Mountain project and the difficult economic times facing American families and businesses, Energy Secretary Steven Chu should reduce the fee paid by consumers to cover only licensing costs incurred by DOE, NRC and local Nevada government units that provide oversight of the program.”

You should really read the entire speech here.  You can watch it here. It is a great synopsis of the industry, and that’s why I thought it was necessary to post on Clean Energy Insight.  Thanks, Alex.  Keep up the good work.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Keeping in-line with some of our recent news-posts.  Here is a good article from the Wall Street Journal on the current International debate on Nuclear Power.  Simply a short summary of current news on the debate, the article does the job in raising awareness about the current Nuclear Revival around the world.  Here is a link to the article.

“In the U.S., nuclear power is the Republican Party’s battle horse when it comes to energy policy. Yesterday, for the umpteenth time, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called for the construction of 100 nuclear plants…

In the U.K., the British business lobby criticized the government for banking too much on renewable energy, especially wind power, and called for more government support for an already-incipient British nuclear revival. That prompted an immediate counterattack from clean-energy boosters. Their main argument? While renewable energy may require subsidies for the immediate future, nuclear power needs subsidies forever.

In Germany, a nuclear-plant snafu suddenly put the future of nuclear power back on the electoral agenda. The conservative ruling party, which is in favor of extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants, faces strident anti-nuclear opposition ahead of the elections this fall.

In Spain, the future of nuclear power has caused fresh headaches for a prime minister vehemently opposed to atomic power. The Spanish government recently reached a Salomonic decision that has pleased exactly no one: It agreed to extend the life of its oldest nuclear power plant, but only by two years, rather than the 10 years the nuclear authorities recommended.

If it weren’t for Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s beach house antics, Italy’s official return to nuclear power this week might have garnered even more attention. As it is, one of Europe’s biggest economies—and most virulent opponents of nuclear power—is slated to break ground on new nuclear reactors in 2013.”

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

On Monday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) unveiled his blueprint to construct 100 new Nuclear Power reactors in the United States.  Sen. Alexander brought up a couple of good points, like the amount of land area required for Nuclear Power vs. solar and wind powers.  For example, to generate 2000 MW, Nuclear Power requires less than 1 sq. mi., solar requires approximately 100 sq. mi., and wind requires approx. 420 sq. mi.  Since so-called environmental groups have seemingly lost the battle trying to discount Nuclear Power’s environmental effects, they have turned to the cost of the reactors.  Keep in mind that these groups regularly cite the Center for American Progress’ recent analysis of the costs associated with Nuclear–a study that many have questioned recently including the Heritage Foundation and NEI.  A link to the article on Sen. Alexander’s proposal can be found here.  Check out an excerpt below:

“We Americans invented the technology,” he said Monday in outlining his proposal for construction of a hundred new nuclear generation plants. “Isn’t it about time we got back into the game?”

The primary advantage of going nuclear is that the technology is proven. Nuclear power plants exist around the world, and other countries are building new ones. The United States erected a hundred nuclear plants between 1970 and 1990, Alexander points out, but stopped after the Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island incidents created a national phobia.

Experience has proven that the meltdown genie is a myth. Nuclear power today is as safe as any available technology, and vastly less polluting.”

And, as Alexander pointed out, they require vastly more space than nuclear plants. In his words, “There is no need to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.”

“The difficulties with nuclear power are political, not technological; social, not economic,” our senior senator said. “The main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear in the public mind about the technology.”

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Last night I was invited to join the Virginia Energy Independence Alliance’s fan page on Facebook.  After checking out their notes page, I had to write about this article that I found in there.  Robert Bodnar, Professor of Geochemistry, from the greatest University in the United States–Virginia Tech, was recently quoted as saying that the Coles Hill Uranium deposit located in Southwest Virginia presents a “golden opportunity for the state, and specifically Southside Virginia.”  Professor Bodnar is currently researching the site.  As you can see from his research, he is interested in Geochemistry and fluid flow through geological deposits.  Personally, I feel that his expertise is a great match for some of the concerns raised by environmental groups in Virginia and elsewhere about the mining opportunity there.  Here is a link to the article and the excerpt from the VEIA’s Facebook news blog:

“The largest untapped uranium deposit in the U.S. found in Pittsylvania County represents a “golden opportunity for the state, and specifically Southside Virginia, to serve as the main source of [nuclear] fuel domestically and worldwide,” according to Virginia Tech professor Robert Bodnar. Professor Bodnar’s remarks appeared in an article about the uranium deposit, known as Coles Hill, in July’s Virginia Business.

Garry Kranz extolls the economic benefits the development of the deposit would bring for the ailing economy of Southside Virginia. Mining and milling the deposit would create as many as 500 new jobs with average salaries of $68,000, generate millions in annual local tax revenues and stimulate related local industries.

“Contained beneath Pittsylvania County’s loamy soil, a mere whisper from the burgs of Gretna and Chatham, lies the largest undeveloped uranium deposit known in the U.S. Estimated at nearly 120 million tons of ore, its economic impact on Virginia would be profound — were it ever to be mined.”

The Coles Hill deposit contains an estimated 120 million pounds of uranium ore, enough to fuel Virginia’s exisiting nuclear power demand for 65 years. Nuclear power currently generates almost 40% of Virginia’s electricity supply. While a 25-year-old moratorium on uranium mining and milling is preventing the development of this massive resource, the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has tasked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an 18-month, $1.2 million study that will make recommendations to the General Assembly as it considers whether to lift the moratorium. The National Academy of Sciences study is set to commence soon and will examine the human health and safety, environmental and socio-economic impacts of uranium mining in Virginia.”

( By Lakshmi Pendyala ) [Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Per a new bill approved by Italian parliament on July 9th, the country is going to reopen its doors for nuclear energy. In the next six months, candidate sites for new nuclear reactors will be selected and the country will break ground for its first new nuclear reactor in 2013.

Italy’s Energy Minister Claudio Scajola announced that the plant is expected to enter revenue service five years later.

”We have had signals of availability at a local level from various bodies to welcome nuclear plants. Nuclear energy was spoken of in negative terms after Chernobyl, but the country can’t be influenced by fear ” Scajola said at a press conference Thursday.

Italy which was among the pioneers of nuclear energy in 1950s had abandoned its nuclear energy program following the nuclear power referendum in 1987. High costs of electricity which relies on fossil fuels and imports have prompted its return to nuclear power.

”This is a turning point, a courageous choice,” said Senate Whip Maurizio Gasparri of Premier Silvio Berlusconi’s People of Freedom party.

”It’s a law against a policy that has paralysed Italy and made us dependent on the import of gas and oil with enormous energy bill costs,” he added.

Click here to see the original article.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

It is good to see Energy Utilities push back against the Federal Government after their decision to suspend development of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.  Almost $30 Billion from ratepayers like you and I have been paid to the Federal Government by Utilities with the promise of completing Yucca Mountain.  Now the Utilities are looking to get that money back to ratepayers and themselves.  See this article from Bloomberg on the issue.

“U.S. nuclear utilities say they shouldn’t have to pay an estimated $769 million this year toward a waste repository since the U.S. is abandoning the Yucca Mountain site and hasn’t settled on another disposal plan.

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based group representing owners of all 104 operating U.S. reactors, sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu today asking for the payments to be suspended. About $29.6 billion in fees and interest has gone into the nuclear fund as of the end of 2008. Utilities pay into the fund via a surcharge on electricity produced by nuclear power.

President Barack Obama announced earlier this year in budget documents that the U.S. would no longer seek to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Chu has proposed a panel to make recommendations on a plan for waste disposal…

Nuclear Energy Institute President Marvin Fertel said in his letter to the secretary that the fund has “more than enough money” to cover the president’s $197 million request for Yucca Mountain’s 2010 budget.”

We’ll see what comes of this.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 2.5 minutes]

The News & Advance from Lynchburg, VA recently provided a short re-cap of the recent Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill that passed in the House of Representatives.  In this article, the News & Advance noted that Nuclear Power wasn’t given its due in the Bill’s pages.  The newspaper from Virginia also encouraged readers to contact their Senators (Mark Warner and Jim Webb) and encourage them to revise the Senate version of the Bill to include more provisions that recognize that more Nuclear Power is needed for this country to gain energy independence and greenhouse gas reduction goals.  See the article here.

“As initially crafted by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman, of California, and Edward Markey, of Massachusetts, HR 2454 contained no mention whatsoever of the role of nuclear power in America’s energy future. For a major piece of legislation designed to plot America’s 21st century energy roadmap and address concerns about climate change, that omission was shocking, to say the least…

…so far as nuclear energy is concerned, the bill is woefully lacking. Many people in the environmental community become apoplectic at the very mention of the word “nuclear,” with visions of Three Mile Island in their heads.

The bill is now in the hands of the U.S. Senate where, perhaps, more rational thinking will emerge.

For America to reach the energy goals set forth in the bill, especially those on carbon emissions and renewable generation, more power will have to be generated by nuclear plants. It’s that simple. The nation’s generating capacity is stretch to the limits today, with coal doing much of the heavy lifting. But coal is also the biggest source of carbon emissions.

Conservation, wind generation, biomass generation and any other niche source of power simply will not meet the nation’s growing needs. Nuclear has to be the linch pin of America’s energy future…

So start calling and e-mailing Sens. Mark Warner and Jim Webb (warner.senate.gov and webb.senate.gov). Tell Virginia’s two U.S. senators that the energy bill needs some serious revisions and that nuclear power needs a bigger presence.

Time’s a’wasting.”

Thank you, News & Advance.  You people from Virginia–get on it.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Starting today, we are going to be trying out a new format for the blogs posted on Clean Energy Insight.  Instead of longer news and opinion pieces being posted, we are going to start posting short news-brief style blogs.  Hopefully, this will keep you more interested and effectively informed.  We will still be posting the “old-style” blogs, but less often.

I would also like for this change to start more conversation in the comment section of each blog.  Without as much information presented in the blogs as before, our readers are allowed to get more involved with explaining and discussing the implications of the news in the blog.

By trimming down our blog categories into a few News blogs, we will be able to better present some of our advocacy activities from all over the country in new categories.  These new categories will be phased in by the end of the week.

Let us know what you think.  We hope you enjoy the new blogging strategy, and thank you for checking out Clean Energy Insight.

( By Lisa Peterson )

Nuclear power is on the brink of a renaissance. New nuclear power plants are planned to be built; which means the nuclear industry has the potential to provide thousands of people with jobs, in fields such as construction and engineering, to name a few. This will create major positive impacts on the economy.

The nuclear industry is, therefore, in need of new talent. Charlotte, NC has been named the supposed “hub” for this nuclear renaissance in the United States, drawing scores of people to the area to work in the nuclear industry. Companies like Shaw, Westinghouse, Areva, URS/Washington, and Toshiba all have offices in Charlotte.  Utilities who employ many nuclear power plants in their fleets such as Duke Energy, Progress Energy, and The Southern Company are nearby as well.  Listen to this radio program that aired on Wednesday, May 6, (WFAE 90.7 FM) that discusses the positive impact that nuclear power can have on the overall national economy, the environment and the influx of jobs it can bring to the Charlotte area.

http://www.wfae.org/wfae/18_93_0.cfm?do=detail&id=10002

( By Tyler Moses )

It appears that the Climate Bill will not escape the Senate without confronting the future of domestic Nuclear power.  Nuclear power’s inclusion in the Climate Bill is becoming a make or break issue for many Senators. During the first day of Senate hearings on the bill, Obama’s Nobel Prize winning Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, openly supported nuclear power.  Chu provides some refreshing rhetoric for those of us who realize that nuclear power is the only viable option for CO2 free base load energy generation. Hopefully, Senators such as Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Tom Carper (D-Del) will be successful in convincing the senate to include key concessions for Nuclear power in the Climate Bill.

( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 3.5 minutes]

With all the attention that yesterday’s meeting between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev received, I thought that it was necessary to raise awareness of the “Megatons to Megawatts” program that turns former Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel.  This program wasn’t mentioned a single time in yesterday’s negotiation announcements.  This is especially a shame since the “Megatons to Megawatts” program is such a great program that largely goes unnoticed on a public stage.

From the negotiations between the two countries came one agreement to negotiate, by the year’s end, a reduction in one another’s nuclear weapon arsenals.  I felt that this may have left some people wondering, “where do these weapons go?”

I only recently learned of this private program that, at no cost to taxpayers, turns nuclear weapons into nuclear energy fuel.  You may have heard of the phrase “10% of American lightbulbs are powered by a former Russian nuclear warhead.”  Thanks to the “Megatons to Megawatts” program, that is true.

The goal of the program is to recycle 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads into nuclear energy fuel by 2013.  As of June 30th, 2009, 14,686 Russian nuclear warheads have been eliminated and turned into nuclear fuel.  Another relevant statistic from this program is that 367 metric tons of weapons-grade uranium has been recycled into 10,621 metric tons of nuclear energy fuel–a testament to the importance and effectiveness of this program.

With the recent and upcoming agreements between the Russian and American governments to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles, hopefully, this program will be expanded and brought to light on a larger stage.

You can learn more about the program here: http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm

( By Carrington Dillon )

I’d like to share something with all of you that I, for some reason, started thinking of the past couple of days.  This short excerpt from an essay by Albert Einstein entitled “The World As I See It,” had a very profound effect on my life when I read the piece in college.  Take from it what you may, but for some reason it struck a chord in me.  And looking at it now, how ironic is it to come from someone who had such a profound impact on all of our American nuclear industry lives?

“How strange is the lot of us mortals!  Each of us is here for a brief sojourn; for what purpose he knows not, though he sometimes thinks he senses it.  But without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people — first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy.  A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving…”

Thanks and Happy Independence Day, Albert.

( By Keith Hernandez ) [Approx. Read Time: 7 minutes]

This is a follow-up to a previous blog posted on June 22, 2009: ‘Battle Royale on Uranium Mining‘.  Currently, there is talk of opening a new uranium mine in southern Virginia.  In particular, a statewide study has been approved to examine the potential risks and feasibility of such mines.  The proposed site in Pittsylvania County, VA is very rural and the opposition for the mine is stiff.  Below is a background and history discussion for the subject.  There are some very pertinent historical events that warrant opposition of this new mine, but misinformation is going to be its biggest enemy.  All political, economical, and aesthetic issues aside, this blog is intended to present straight-up hard facts about uranium mining operations and regulations.

The Process

The nuclear fuel cycle begins with mining and processing uranium ore. There are two methods for extracting ore. Open pit and underground mining operations remove ore from the ground with mechanical equipment. In-situ Leaching (ISL) operations pump solutions into the soil in order to extract uranium ore in a slurry.

The extracted ore is then milled and refined into ‘yellow cake’.  This refining process yields liquid mill tailings that are usually stored in evaporation ponds.  These ponds themselves contain low level radioactive contamination.  They can also release radon gas when improperly maintained.  Other wastes from the process create large stockpiles of sub-grade ore and slightly uranium enriched rock.  These stockpiles can create radioactive dust that spread to surrounding areas through wind transport.

Additional background can be found in the following links:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/uranium.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/mill-tailings.html

Background

Commercial nuclear power generation in the United States has a spotless record with respect to radiation related deaths.  This success is due largely in part to the regulations that guide our industry.  Unfortunately, uranium mining was not always regulated as it is today.  Much was unknown about the effects and hazards of radioactive material.

Historically, uranium mines were plagued with all the health hazards of regular mines, but they also had additional risks from the naturally occurring radioactive isotopes found in the ore.  One of the most notorious accidents occurred in Church Rock, New Mexico on July 16, 1979.  A tailings pond dam ruptured and released the contaminated water into local water sources.

However, barring any major accidents, many of these sites did not pose immediate health threats, and according to an NRC study circa 1980, the possible effective lung dose (including possible radon release) received over 15 years by an individual living near a “cluster” of uranium mills is 41 millirem.  This is about the same amount of exposure received from a full set of dental x-rays (40 millirem).

Below is a chronology (worldwide) of major accidents resulting from uranium tailing pond failures.  Notice that there were many in the US prior to 1980 and zero after these laws were enacted.  Also keep in mind that tailing pond failure, while a major factor, is only one dimension of environmental impact that results from uranium mining.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafu.html

These environmental and health tragedies lead to reform in our federal regulations. Uranium mining is now closely regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). There are many federal laws that provide these government agencies with standards, requirements, and the sovereignty to enforce.

Laws and Regulations

The applicable laws enforced by the EPA can be found below.  These laws caveat the laws that the NRC enforces:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/soil/pdfs/ssg_appd-e.pdf

The applicable laws enforced by the NRC can be found below:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-appa.html

These laws are the result of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) which was enacted by Congress in 1978.  This act is broken into two titles:

Title I: Reclamation Work at Inactive Tailings Sites

“Two sites in North Dakota were withdrawn and tailings from some sites were combined, resulting in 19 tailings disposal sites.”

“By August 1999, 17 more sites were completed and brought under the general NRC license, including sites at Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico; Burrell, Pennsylvania; Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; Durango, Colorado; Falls City, Texas; Green River, Utah; Gunnison, Colorado; Lakeview, Oregon; Lowman, Idaho; Maybell, Colorado; Mexican Hat, Utah; Naturita, Colorado; Rifle, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah; Shiprock, New Mexico; Slick Rock, Colorado; and Tuba City, Arizona.  The only remaining sites are those at Grand Junction, Colorado and Moab, Utah.”

“DOE initiated the groundwater cleanup phase of the UMTRA Project in 1991.  It has completed all of the 20 scheduled baseline risk assessments for the groundwater cleanup phase and has transmitted them to concerned parties.  Two sites did not have groundwater contamination.  DOE has developed Groundwater Compliance Action Plans for demonstrating groundwater compliance at 13 sites and submitted them to the NRC for concurrence.  DOE has demonstrated groundwater cleanup compliance at eight of those sites.”

Title II: Licensed Uranium Recovery Facilities and Mill Tailings Sites

“Of 16 uranium recovery facilities currently licensed by the NRC under its regulations (10 CFR Part 40), there are 12 conventional uranium mills and four in situ leach (ISL) facilities.  There is also one former conversion facility under reclamation for 11e(2) byproduct material.  Two of the conventional mill site licenses have been terminated and the reclaimed tailings areas transferred to DOE for long-term care under the general license provisions of 10 CFR 40.28.”

“No NRC-licensed conventional uranium mills are operating.  One mill is in stand-by status and will likely resume commercial operation in the future.  The remaining conventional uranium mill sites have completed, or are completing, reclamation activities to provide long-term stabilization and closure of the tailings impoundments and the sites.  Two of the four ISL facilities are presently operating, one is on stand-by status, and one will likely resume operations in the future.  The NRC inspects these sites at semiannual to three-year intervals depending on the operational (or stand-by) and reclamation status.”

These quotations from the NRC site describe in detail the activities nationally for ALL uranium mining operations. These results show tremendous effort and progress with this issue.  The number of sites that are now rehabilitated and under continual monitoring is impressive.

The law also covers requirements for capping, ground water monitoring, and rainfall runoff standards.  Again, these requirements must be addressed before a company receives its permit from the NRC to build and operate.  This involves a detailed review by the NRC of every aspect of the mines design and construction.  Review and monitoring persists not only through the design stages, but through operation and decommission.  Any new mine in Virginia is most certainly accountable to these standards.

Conclusion

It is very important for the public to be aware of the facts.  While neither advocating for or against uranium mining, this blog’s purpose was to inform.  The nuclear industry has traditionally kept a shroud of secrecy around its operations and inner workings.  It is time to get the facts out in the open, and let the public decide for itself.  This is especially true for the rural communities in Pittsylvania County, VA.  Is anyone giving them the real facts?

( By AQG )

Hyperion Power Module (HPM)

In the midst of what many are calling the dawn of a Nuclear Renaissance, nuclear power has become the center of discussion for many proponents of “green” or “clean” energy.

Currently, 104 nuclear power plants across the nation contribute to around 20% of the United States national electricity generation.  This share in production is supplied by the traditional, large nuclear reactors constructed throughout the 60’s, 70’s and into the part of the 1980’s.

The existence of these operating plants has not come without considerable resistance.  Opponents of nuclear power have for many years argued the overall safety and reliability of the industry, citing accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as their source of concern.  However, as facts become more evident to the general public and the impeccable safety record of the industry continues forward, more and more people are expressing their support for the industry.

One particular obstacle is that of the not in my back yard (or NIMBY) concept where a group or community that may not necessarily oppose nuclear power, does not warm up to the idea of building such a large facility close by.  This article, from the Wall Street Journal, discusses the emerging interest in small reactors that could provide additional versatility or leverage for the industry to appease such groups, while offering a cheaper, and arguably safer alternative for remote locations or areas of less than dense population.  Interesting to say the least.

“All of the new start-up reactors are tiny compared to the 104 old ones, each of which was custom designed for and constructed at the site of its utility power plant. Small enough to fit on a large kitchen table, the new reactors can be manufactured at very low cost and shipped by truck to power-plant sites.

These new small reactors meet important criteria for nuclear power plants. With no control rods to jam, they are far safer than the old models — you might well call them nuclear batteries. By not using weapons-grade enriched fuels, they are nonproliferating. They minimize nuclear waste. And they’re economical.

The start-ups estimate that it will cost each of them roughly $100 million and five years to get their small reactor designs certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. About $50 million of each $100 million would go to the commission itself.”