• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives
  • Links

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Open Letter to Interim Storage Partners and Holtec – please find better locations for your CISF projects ASAP

November 7, 2020 By Rod Adams 19 Comments

Image from Holtec submission to US NRC ADAMS ML16133A100) (Credit to Neutron Bytes)

Dear Holtec and Interim Storage Partners:

Both of you are actively pursuing permission from the US Nuclear Regulatory to build consolidated interim storage facilities in an area of southwest Texas and southeast New Mexico that seemed well suited for the purpose at the time that you began the process.

Times have changed since then. One of the primary changes is that a technological revolution has converted the Permian Basin from a region with steadily depleting oil and gas production into one of the world’s most productive sources of oil and gas.

A hard, questioning look at the current situation would reveal that it is time to abandon the current applications in favor of finding better locations.

Stubbornly continuing your current projects will impose significant damage to the future of nuclear energy in the United States. Since both of you have major business interests in this industry, you will be damaging existing and future profit centers within your enterprises for the sake of individual projects with uncertain profit potential.

Neither proposed poses an actual physical risk, but they are both creating new political and public perception risks for an industry that needs to be repairing its image and building constructive alliances.

The material that some call spent nuclear fuel, some call “nuclear waste” and some prefer to call future nuclear fuel is safely and affordably stored already. Cancellation of your current projects will not impose any significant additional delay in addressing the “nuclear waste problem.”

Sincerely, Rod Adams

Why would I write such a letter?

On November 3, Texas Governor Greg Abbot sent a letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission that urged the agency to deny a license to Interim Storage Partners for the facility that would be located in his state.

On July 28, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham sent a much shorter letter to President Trump expressing her opposition to the Holtec project that would be sited in her state.

Both letters claim that consolidated interim storage facilities for used nuclear fuel would pose unacceptable risks to the Permian Basin, which has recently become the most productive oil and gas extraction region in the United States. That region is near the top of the worldwide list of oil and gas production.

Both governors (one Republican and one Democrat) raise the specter of terrorist attacks and describe the financial harm that would be imposed if radioactive materials were to be forcefully distributed across areas that annually provide their states with billions of dollars in tax revenues from resource extraction.

In my opinion, it is counterproductive to stubbornly pursue speculative projects in the face of such strong opposition.

Opposition has deep pockets

Protect the Basin isn’t a typical antinuclear organization. It is an initiative of the Permian Basin Coalition of Land & Royalty Owners and Operators. Their financial resources are, for all practical purposes, infinitely large.

They are legitimately worried about becoming the resting spot for material that experts in the field have called “ultra-hazardous” and whose current caretakers believe needs to be moved to allow more productive uses of existing sites.

Because they have legitimate concerns, they have decided to go “all out” in an effort to make sure the facilities never get built. Even if licenses are awarded they will make every effort to ensure that no material is ever moved and placed on the proposed sites.

Their actions include frequent appearances by spokespersons on local radio and television talk shows. But they aren’t limiting their communications efforts to invited appearances or public meetings; they are buying air time and running scary commercials.

Arguments touting the safety of the cask storage systems or the unblemished history of moving nuclear waste are unconvincing because opponents have a extensive bibliography available that documents concerns and scary analysis from experts in government and from within the industry.

Permian Basin residents are justifiably offended by any implication that their area is desolate, needs jobs, or is better suited for storing used nuclear fuel than current sites. They adamantly disagree with any assertions that it would be logical to move fuel from a place like the coast of Maine to west Texas or New Mexico to free up “valuable” land for development.

The campaign to inform the public about their views about risks will continue as long as the controversial projects remain active.

Spokespeople for the opposition have told me personally that they are not opposed to nuclear energy. They assert that it is an important energy source that needs to be maintained, improved and developed further.

Member of Protect the Basin might someday become valued allies that will actively support long term waste disposal or interim storage projects located in better spots. But until the current projects are cancelled and there is no longer a perceived threat to their livelihoods, they will be firm and loud about their opposition to being the site for hosting used nuclear fuel.

Their professionally-designed and well-supported communications efforts will persuade even more people that the nuclear industry has no viable plan for its waste products. More people will be taught to believe that waste is a big enough reason to avoid nuclear energy and forgo its numerous advantages.

There are better locations and better paths to a future that diminishes the false perception that nuclear waste is an unmovable obstacle to further nuclear energy development. We need to abandon our current path and move towards a more productive one.

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fossil fuel competition, Nuclear Waste

Atomic Show #273 – Liz Muller, Deep Isolation

April 23, 2020 By Rod Adams 7 Comments

Liz Muller, co-founder and CEO, Deep Isolation

Liz Muller is a co-founder and the CEO of Deep Isolation, a company that makes the modest claim of having invented a solution to nuclear waste.

The politically unsolved waste issue has plagued nuclear energy development since the mid 1970s. That was when it became abundantly clear that the original plan to recycle used fuel wasn’t going to be easily achieved.

During the intervening half century, it’s accurate to declare that there has been essentially no measurable progress made. Steps have been taken to move forward, but just as many steps have been taken in the opposite direction.

Until recently.

Inspired to think differently

The bright idea that forms the basis for Deep Isolation came to Richard Muller when he heard that there was interest in using boreholes as a way to achieve geologic storage. That is the solution path that most responsible scientific organizations have recommended.

In lingo common among my former shipmates, Muller experienced a BFO – blinding flash of the obvious.

But soon Muller realized that the people who had restarted the discussion about boreholes, a rather old idea for nuclear waste disposal, weren’t planning to use horizontal drilling. Instead they were thinking of very deep vertical holes.

He had initially thought they were taking the obvious – to him – step of capitalizing on the refined technology used in almost all state-of-the- art oil and gas wells in the United States.

Though he had not previously considered how boreholes might help solve the nuclear waste issue, he recognized that horizontal laterals mitigated most of the challenges that plagued vertical holes.

Partnering with a specialist in community engagement

Once Richard Muller had been inspired to think of using horizontal drilling to address nuclear waste disposal, he turned to Liz Muller, who was a specialist in environmental issues and related community engagement.

After several months of focused technical evaluation efforts, the pair realized that their concept had sufficient merit and patentable intellectual property to turn it into a company.

Deep Isolation believes that its solution is not only technically sound, but it is uniquely well-suited to deployment. It’s a modular, local or regional solution to an often contentious problem that is gains political complexity when handled on a national level.

From a project management point of view, boreholes can reduce costs, risks, and schedules compared to a centrally sited repository. From a community point of view, they can address issues of equity, proof of safety, and community benefits.

Acceptance building rapidly

Like all newly formed companies with a great idea, Deep Isolation realized there was no direct linkage between having a uniquely valuable idea and achieving success in implementing that idea.

During the past year, however, the company has been successfully attracting a talented team, building an impressive roster of advisors, obtaining $14 million in seed capital and attracting solid partners in the form of Bechtel and NAC International.

Liz Muller joined me on the day after the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day to describe the company that she and Richard have co-founded. She explained the technology, spoke about the continuing efforts to engage with communities and Deep Isolation’s approach to meeting customer needs.

She told me a bit about the company’s finances and provided a direct point of contact to her for people who listened to the Atomic Show. To protect her from spammers, I won’t include that information here, but it’s in the audio.

I hope you enjoy the show. As always, feedback is welcome.

I’d also like to encourage Atomic Insights listeners, especially those who love to get into technical details, to take Ms. Muller up on her request for comments and feedback about their recently released safety calculations.

Here’s a link to a video that illustrates Deep Isolation’s technology.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/AtomicShowFiles/atomic_20200423_273.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 38:26 — 44.1MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | RSS

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Innovation, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Waste, Podcast

Radioactive isotopes are too useful to waste

July 10, 2019 By Rod Adams 32 Comments

Forgive me. It’s been almost three months since I last wrote a long form blog or article about the importance of atomic energy as a useful tool for solving many of the world’s most complex and pressing problems. I’ve been stimulated to take a partial break from my blissful state of being a mostly retired […]

Filed Under: Fuel Recycling, isotopes, Nuclear Waste

“Waste issue” continues to be part of antinuclear movement strategy of constipation

May 4, 2018 By Rod Adams 43 Comments

(Reprint. Originally published September 17, 2013. During the 4.5 years since the original appeared, the licensing moratorium mentioned has been lifted, and the confidence rule has been replaced by Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel [NRC–2012–0246] but stubborn opposition arises in response to any proposed solutions.) During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective […]

Filed Under: Nuclear Waste, Atomic politics

Time to Re-examine Alternatives for Plutonium Disposition – Dr. Peter Lyons explains why dilute and dispose is wasteful and unworkable

February 24, 2018 By Guest Author 31 Comments

By Peter Lyons Somewhere in Russia, 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough material to make about 10,000 weapons—are awaiting disposal. Moscow was supposed to start destroying this stockpile, but has yet to start, leaving a huge threat lurking in an unknown location. If even a tiny fraction of this material fell into terrorists’ hands, they […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Fuel Recycling

Rep Shimkus, a conservative market proponent, recognizes that “the waste issue” imposes a financial risk and cost on nuclear energy

February 10, 2018 By Rod Adams 15 Comments

During a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing titled DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure there was an important exchange between Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) and Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. So you don’t have to scroll through 4 hours of video, I […]

Filed Under: Nuclear Waste

Spent Fuel Pools Protect The Public. Don’t Believe Skeptics

June 20, 2017 By Rod Adams

A two-page Policy Forum opinion piece titled Nuclear safety regulation in the post-Fukushima era: Flawed analyses underlie lax U.S. regulation of spent fuel by Edwin Lyman, Michael Schoeppner and Frank von Hippel appeared in the May 26, 2017 issue of Science Magazine, an outlet that has a public reputation as a reliable source of technical […]

Filed Under: Antinuclear activist, Nuclear regulations, Nuclear Waste

Commercial supplies of HALEU needed to enable advanced reactors

May 15, 2017 By Rod Adams

Jake DeWitte and Caroline Cochran, the cofounders of Oklo, a start up company that is developing a 1-2 MWe nuclear reactor-based power system for remote areas, have been credited with drawing attention to a problem that can be solved by a government policy decision. “Nearly all advanced reactors have a need for low enriched fuel […]

Filed Under: Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Advanced Atomic Technologies, Fuel Comparisons, Fuel Recycling, Nuclear Waste

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry visits Yucca Mountain and talks with Nevada Gov Brian Sandoval

March 28, 2017 By Rod Adams

Yesterday, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry toured the Yucca Mountain site to get a first hand look at the current state of the facility. Following the site tour, Sec. Perry met with Gov. Brian Sandoval. Here is what the Department of Energy press release said about that conversation. “Governor Sandoval and I had a frank […]

Filed Under: Nuclear Waste, Nuclear regulations, Politics of Nuclear Energy

Trump Budget Blueprint For DOE Will Revive Yucca Conflict. Does Little To Enable Nuclear

March 27, 2017 By Rod Adams

Short section of 5 mile long access tunnel at idle and far-from-complete Yucca Mountain site.

The first few words of the first bullet in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) section of the Trump Administration’s Budget Blueprint seem purposely chose to instigate maximum conflict. Provides $120 million to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository This phrase, describing a spending item that represents just 0.4% of a $28 […]

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Nuclear Waste

U.S. Shouldn’t Depend On Russian Reactors. Restore Our World Class Fast Flux Test Facility

March 10, 2017 By Rod Adams

Senator Carper (D-DE) asked each witness at a March 8 hearing about NEIMA – Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act – to give one suggestion for improving the bill. If asked, my answer would be to include findings that emphasize the importance of U.S. government-owned testing facilities that are capable of supporting the NRC licensing […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, FFTF, Fuel Recycling, Irradiation, Liquid Metal Cooled Reactors

Potential for Korea, Japan, U.S. to Collaborate on Pyroprocessing Under Trump

February 18, 2017 By Rod Adams

South Korea (ROK), Japan and the United States all have large nuclear energy programs that are facing a variety of challenges limiting their growth, namely opposition by the nonproliferation industry to wider deployment of enrichment and recycling technologies. There is interest and opportunity to collaborate in developing solutions in areas where challenges overlap. The Global […]

Filed Under: Advanced Atomic Technologies, Atomic politics, Fuel Recycling, International nuclear

  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Why did the US Atomic Energy Commission kill Daniels Pile in 1947?

How did an oil shale investor hamstring his atomic energy competition? (Ancient but impactful smoking gun)

Improved atomic energy offers a pathway that Princeton’s Net Zero America failed to acknowledge

Adams Engines™: Design Concepts

Will heavy nitrogen become a widely used fission reactor coolant?

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy