An article titled “US sweetens pot to study siting for spent nuke fuel storage” was published in the January 26, 2023 edition of the Washington Post. The article included a paragraph that credited “environmentalists” as being the main source of opposition to construction of consolidated interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities that are either licensed or in the final stages of the approval process.
“Despite opposition from environmentalists, Biden and his top energy officials have pointed to nuclear power as essential to achieving their goals of producing carbon-free electricity over the next decade.” (Emphasis added)
The Post’s article didn’t mention that the oil and gas industry is a major participant in the fight against construction of CISFs in the Permian Basin. It acknowledged that oil and gas dominate the local economy (and presumably the local politics.)
Southeastern New Mexico officials testified that building the complex would bring jobs and diversify the region’s economy, which is fueled now by oil and gas development that spans the Permian Basin.
Washington Post “US sweetens pot to study siting for spent nuke fuel storage” Jan 26, 2023
The article didn’t remind readers that oil and gas have strong economic motives to fight facilities that help nuclear energy to address “the waste issue.” That topic comes up in almost every conversation about nuclear energy; it is often used to discourage new nuclear power plant projects. Oil and [particularly] gas compete with nuclear energy for shares of the lucrative electricity and heat markets.
“Companies representing New Mexico’s nation-leading oil and gas industry in the Permian Basin became the latest opponents of nuclear waste storage in the region as two private companies proposed to do so.”
There is a growing public record of communications between oil and gas interests and the Nuclear Regulator Commission on the topic of CISF licensing.
On April 1, 2021 a spokesperson for NRC Chair Chris Hanson responded to an email from a representative of an oil and gas production company. That email included a clear statement about concerns of “fossil fuel folks” regarding spent fuel storage in the Permian Basin.
It’s probably kind of odd – having a meeting with all fossil fuel folks – but they have their concerns. I look forward to hearing from you! Let me know if you have any questions or if I can get you any additional information.
NRC ML21091A088
To its credit, the NRC denied the request for special access and attention.
Fasken Oil and Ranch’s opposition to Permian Basin CISFs is nothing new. They formally registered their opposition in a July 30, 2018 letter to the NRC Office of Spent Fuel Management.
There is a slowly growing pile of evidence showing that openly antinuclear groups meet with oil and gas interests to plot strategies and coordinate political activities. There is some irony in having “environmentalists” openly align with oil and gas interests.
Two activists have met with Midland leaders, including representatives from Fasken Oil and Ranch, County Commissioner Randy Prude and U.S. Rep. August Pfluger, to discuss what they see as the solution to Texas’ nuclear waste problem.
All too often, publications like the Washington Post repeat incorrect, but conventional wisdom statements indicating that “environmentalists” are the sole source of organized nuclear opposition. Whenever appropriate, people that support nuclear energy and favor fair competition among energy sources should seek to correct the error of omission.
“Environmental” NGOs are often loud and visible opponents of nuclear energy, but oil and gas interests know that nuclear energy poses a far greater economic threat to their wealth and power than do other alternative energy sources.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.
9 Comments
I don’t understand the desire to put all the casks in a single consolidated location. How does that solve any issue? It’s good business for Holtec. Holtec is not a publicly traded company (neither is Behtel). I’m philosophically opposed to private companies becoming sole suppliers for government contracts. At least BWXT is traded and I can invest my money in stable, incredibly expensive weapons systems. Leae the casks where they are…. moving them to NM does nothing.
Depends on whether and for how long there will be room where they are. Locations like VY and Indian Point are required to go greenfield ASAP.
@Michael Scarangella
I tend to agree with you. I’m not a big fan of spending money to move inventory around. Used nuclear fuel is a stockpile of material that might be a useful input to a manufacturing process someday.
There is some logic in moving spent fuel casks away from sites where the existing reactors have been decommissioned. Those so-called orphan ISFI’s are considered to be problematic for local communities because they effectively prevent development of the site for uses other than nuclear facilities.
IMO, a good answer to that is to redevelop those “orphan” sites by building new nuclear power stations. It’s possible to view spent fuel storage facilities on old nuclear plant sites as serving as unplanned placeholders.
‘Required to go greenfield ASAP”
By state mandate no doubt.
Guess they’re not going to get what they want now are they? I’m quite tickled by that. Welcome to the club NY and VT.
The other advantage of not moving the casks to a purpose built site is that they should be easier to access for future reprocessing, which in my opinion, should be the final destination for spent LWR fuel.
@jon grams
I hear what you’re saying. But I’ve also heard from people who work at certain long-view companies that gathering used fuel onto a single site MIGHT make it easier to set up an efficient recycling program.
All recycling systems I’m aware of work on a significant scale and have a large input inventory before scale up.
That makes sense. I suppose that as long as the storage system allows for relatively easy access to the casks, that would be better logistically.
How much work is it to move the fuel from those huge ungainly casks to a central location in US? Years ago, I used to see them moved by crawlers that moved at walking speed. This doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence that the whole cask would be shipped. Will the fuel have to be removed and put into a shipping cask?
I’ve seen videos of the accidents that shipping casks can survive and they are impressive. However, it the fuel has to be unloaded from existing casks at each site and loaded into another cask, it would cost many millions. I would guess a separate structure for this activity would need to be built at each site.
If my idea is out in left field, just let me know. I have full confidence that it won’t be the last time.
Hard to see the case here. CISF is a surface facility. At most a few meters cut out into the grade for Holtec’s latest system, that is basically a concrete slab with silos in it.
Surface facilities have no impact on oil in reservoirs.
Holtec’s planned facility also looks extremely rugged. Sealed fuel rods in a sealed stainless steel canister in a steel silo in a concrete slab. Nothing is ever going to escape that let alone get into the soil. They are rated for fire, flood, etc. The site is a desert in the middle of nowhere. The nearest villages are positive.
On August 13, 2011, I braved the 13.5 hour time difference between Adelaide, South Australia and Lynchburg, VA to record an interview with Ben Heard, the force behind Decarbonise SA and Dr. Barry Brook, the well respected climate scientist who blogs at Brave New Climate. Aside: I used the phrase “braved the time difference” because…
The ‘smoking gun’ series on Atomic Insights provides links to articles that describe a direct anti-nuclear statement from someone who is openly supporting a competitive energy source. This afternoon, I received an anonymous tip with a link to an article in The Australian dated July 30, 2007 and titled Nuclear threatens our jobs: union. Here…
I have just spent a pleasant hour perusing a fascinating site called Decarbonise SA (where SA = South Australia). Ben Heard, an Australian who operates a consultancy named ThinkClimate Consulting is the force behind the site. He is a man on a mission – to move South Australia’s electric power system to zero carbon dioxide…
On June 13, 2012, Allison Macfarlane will be a witness in her confirmation hearing as a new commissioner and the prospective Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Commissioner Kristine Svinicki will also be a witness in her quest to be confirmed for a second term as a commissioner. In June 2007, I had the opportunity…
I just received my copy of Plentiful Energy: The Story of the Integral Fast Reactor. The complex history of a simple reactor technology with emphasis on its scientific basis for non-specialists by Charles Till and Yoon Il Chang. There is no doubt that it is going to be a fascinating read, but I had to…
I have always tried to be clear when I talk about how fossil fuel interests have been responsible for much of the success of the organized anti-nuclear movement. Many people in various discussion forums have misinterpreted my words “fossil fuel interests” as meaning just major oil companies, but I am trying to encompass a larger…
This site uses a cookie for Google Analytics. Accept or decline — your choice.
I don’t understand the desire to put all the casks in a single consolidated location. How does that solve any issue? It’s good business for Holtec. Holtec is not a publicly traded company (neither is Behtel). I’m philosophically opposed to private companies becoming sole suppliers for government contracts. At least BWXT is traded and I can invest my money in stable, incredibly expensive weapons systems. Leae the casks where they are…. moving them to NM does nothing.
Depends on whether and for how long there will be room where they are. Locations like VY and Indian Point are required to go greenfield ASAP.
@Michael Scarangella
I tend to agree with you. I’m not a big fan of spending money to move inventory around. Used nuclear fuel is a stockpile of material that might be a useful input to a manufacturing process someday.
There is some logic in moving spent fuel casks away from sites where the existing reactors have been decommissioned. Those so-called orphan ISFI’s are considered to be problematic for local communities because they effectively prevent development of the site for uses other than nuclear facilities.
IMO, a good answer to that is to redevelop those “orphan” sites by building new nuclear power stations. It’s possible to view spent fuel storage facilities on old nuclear plant sites as serving as unplanned placeholders.
‘Required to go greenfield ASAP”
By state mandate no doubt.
Guess they’re not going to get what they want now are they? I’m quite tickled by that. Welcome to the club NY and VT.
The other advantage of not moving the casks to a purpose built site is that they should be easier to access for future reprocessing, which in my opinion, should be the final destination for spent LWR fuel.
@jon grams
I hear what you’re saying. But I’ve also heard from people who work at certain long-view companies that gathering used fuel onto a single site MIGHT make it easier to set up an efficient recycling program.
All recycling systems I’m aware of work on a significant scale and have a large input inventory before scale up.
That makes sense. I suppose that as long as the storage system allows for relatively easy access to the casks, that would be better logistically.
How much work is it to move the fuel from those huge ungainly casks to a central location in US? Years ago, I used to see them moved by crawlers that moved at walking speed. This doesn’t give me a whole lot of confidence that the whole cask would be shipped. Will the fuel have to be removed and put into a shipping cask?
I’ve seen videos of the accidents that shipping casks can survive and they are impressive. However, it the fuel has to be unloaded from existing casks at each site and loaded into another cask, it would cost many millions. I would guess a separate structure for this activity would need to be built at each site.
If my idea is out in left field, just let me know. I have full confidence that it won’t be the last time.
Hard to see the case here. CISF is a surface facility. At most a few meters cut out into the grade for Holtec’s latest system, that is basically a concrete slab with silos in it.
Surface facilities have no impact on oil in reservoirs.
Holtec’s planned facility also looks extremely rugged. Sealed fuel rods in a sealed stainless steel canister in a steel silo in a concrete slab. Nothing is ever going to escape that let alone get into the soil. They are rated for fire, flood, etc. The site is a desert in the middle of nowhere. The nearest villages are positive.