Breaking down DOE Secretary Chu’s Testimony: Why so Nuclear?

Op-Ed from Dan Yoken

On February 4, 2010, Secretary of Energy Chu testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to discuss the President’s FY2011 budget request. While we agree with many of Chu’s commitments to clean energy and environmental cleanup, the focus on nuclear energy projects, the imbalance of the Nuclear Waste Panel and the hefty commitment to MOX in the Nonproliferation budget present problems that could lead to debilitating results in coming years.

Energy

“The President and I are committed to restarting our domestic nuclear industry. Our budget request includes an additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority for the nuclear power sector to help construct the first new nuclear plants in decades”

The $36 billion in additional loans will help support an industry that simply cannot exist without massive government aid. As Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated during the hearing, “these loans come on top of an already existing $18.5 billion that has not yet been used”, and the risk of default on these loans is projected by the CBO at “above 50%.” The Department of Energy should not support these risky loans when the private sector is unwilling to invest. Rather than giveaways to nuclear producers, DOE should extend this additional loan guarantee to real clean technologies that simply do not result in radioactive waste.

Yucca and the Waste Commission

“Both the President and I have made clear that Yucca Mountain is not an option. To deal with our nuclear waste management needs, the Administration has brought together a range of experts to conduct a comprehensive review of the back end of the fuel cycle. The Blue Ribbon Commission announced last week, and co-chaired by General Brent Scowcroft and Congressman Lee Hamilton, will provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and its nuclear waste.”

The Administration’s efforts to shut down Yucca Mountain and build a comprehensive waste disposal plan are indeed worthy. However, the imbalance of the Nuclear Waste Commission cannot be ignored. While there are known supporters of nuclear power on the panel, there is no community representation or anti-nuclear voices to be considered. The Commission must consider Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS), a safe and relatively inexpensive waste disposal method, as an interim method of storage. By storing the waste in hardened, camouflaged on-site containers, HOSS is a viable method to store waste for decades. Additionally, General Scowcroft’s expertise is in the area of international relations rather than waste disposal.

Non-Proliferation and MOX

“The budget provides $2.7 billion in FY 2011, and $13.7 billion through FY 2015 to detect, secure, and dispose of dangerous nuclear and radiological material worldwide. This request is an increase of 26 percent or $550 million from FY 2010.”

At first glance, this increase in funding for nonproliferation appears a win-win investment in America’s security. However, 38.3% of the nonproliferation budget for FY2011 is dedicated to Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) projects that are not a part of nonproliferation activities. The MOX program has been unable to dispose of a single gram of plutonium. DOE should dedicate these funds to security, surety, and verification goals rather than research into a dirty and dangerous technology that puts communities at risk.

This article is the opinion of DC Days Coordinator Dan Yoken. Dan can be reached at dyoken@ananuclear.org