It’s weird to think about “nuclear renaissance” as San Onofre disappears piece by piece and the federal government dithers over a permanent home for radioactive waste.
But California has declared war on fossil fuels and committed to going fully green by mid-century; Russia’s war in Ukraine underscores the dangers of relying on fossil fuel (heck, OPEC tried to teach us that same lesson back in 1973, but we’re a bit thick); and suddenly, in all this chaos, nuclear power is getting a second look, at least as a bridge from one fuel era to the next.
More than half of Orange County residents are inclined to agree. Fifty-seven percent said we should revisit nuclear energy in the last Orange County Annual Survey out of Chapman University — but, of course, they don’t want nuclear plants near their homes.
Problem is, we’ve focused on the desired ends but haven’t given ample thought to the means required to get there, said Fred Smoller, Chapman professor, OC Annual Survey head and co-founder of the California Sustainability Decathlon.
“The state is between a rock and a hard place,” Smoller said by email. “On the one hand, we are an electricity-dependent society (one which came within a whisker of rolling blackouts in the latest heat wave). On the other, we’ve set world-class goals for battling climate change — such as the mandates requiring that all of our electricity be generated by non-fossil fuel sources (2045), phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars (2035), lawn equipment (2024), and natural gas stoves (2030).
“Solar and wind will certainly play a big role, but I don’t see how we can satisfy the demand for electricity and end our dependence on fossil fuels without revisiting nuclear power.”
New sheen
Despite the very real issues posed by toxic radioactive waste that will last thousands of years, Pacific Gas & Electric has formally asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend Diablo Canyon’s operating license to 2030 to boost grid reliability, with the blessing of Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Two new plants are slated for Georgia — the first to be built in the U.S. in more than 30 years. Japan is restarting reactors. So is France. And, worldwide, some 55 reactors are under construction in 15 countries, most in China, India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, according to Enerdata.
No new nuclear plants can come to California, however. State law mandates that a permanent repository for nuclear waste must exist before new reactors can be built here. Lawmakers, of course, could change that — though the wise wouldn’t hold their breath. The world, though, is inching closer to figuring this out, and the U.S. and California may benefit.
Scientists have long known that burial deep within the earth is the answer, but politics is apparently more complicated than science. Yet there is hope: Construction on Finland’s geologic disposal facility more than 1,000 feet below ground is nearly complete, and the first waste is expected to be placed inside in 2024. Switzerland has chosen the site for its deep geological repository. Canada has completed a full-scale demonstration of an engineered barrier design in Oakville, Ontario. A license application for a French repository is expected to be submitted soon.
Here, the Biden administration will spend $38 million to fund projects to recycle nuclear waste through reprocessing, a technology used in other nations that hasn’t been adopted here because of concerns about costs and proliferation. It has also jump-started a “consent-based” process for finding a permanent, deep geologic disposal site for the nation’s commercial nuclear waste. That would include San Onofre’s 3.6 million pounds of waste, now encased in concrete on that lovely bluff overlooking the blue Pacific.
In Berkeley, Deep Isolation touts itself as “the first and only private company commercializing a new solution for spent nuclear fuel,” and the answer to the disposal stalemate. It has raised tens of millions of dollars for its deep borehole technology, and envisions a public-private partnership with the U.S. government. It received its first-ever round of funding from the Department of Energy for two projects worth $8.6 million in March.
Nuclear energy is “absolutely critical” to addressing climate change, but the nation can no longer ignore the conundrum at the back end of the fuel cycle – how to dispose of the waste, said Kathryn Huff, principal deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy with the U.S. Department of Energy, when the push was announced in November.
Homefront
Meantime, at San Onofre, the teardown continues.
More than half of the plant’s structures have been demolished, and more than 130 million pounds of waste has been shipped off-site to licensed facilities, operator Southern California Edison said in its “Decomm Digest.”
U.S. Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, has introduced a bill that would require a design life of 100 years for canisters that hold nuclear waste, more than double the current 40-year requirement; as well as a bill to establish an “Office of Public Engagement and Participation” at the NRC to help folks better understand its proceedings.
Many here fear the danger posed by 3.6 million pounds of radioactive nuclear waste in an earthquake zone within 50 miles of some 8 million people. They want it removed as quickly as possible.
That, experts and observers have said many times, will require voters to demand that Congress do what it promised to do nearly four decades ago: Find a permanent home for America’s commercial nuclear waste.
Source: Orange County Register
Be First to Comment