| ? | home | about | productions | partners | fw channel | contact |
|
| ?FocusWest > Energy > |
|
Transcript: Nuclear Nuclear is perhaps the most controversial energy source we have. On the positive side, it doesn't create the greenhouse gases that burning coal, oil, gas, or wood does. It doesn't block fish runs like dams do. On the other hand, critics are still skeptical that reactors are safe enough, that processed fuel won't be used for weapons, or that radioactive waste won't contaminate the ground it's stored on for thousands of years. These are selections from the whole transcript. Some comments will also occur on other themed pages because they cover more than one topic. Michael Grainey: Well, I, I'd like to address that because in Oregon we've seen a lot of public acceptance and a lot of individual decisions by individual businesses, consumers, homeowners, individual schools, . . . conservation and renewable resources. They've had over 5,000 business invest over $100 million dollars in each of the last two years on energy efficiency measures. That helped them weather the enormous price fights [hikes] we had in the power market and stay in business and keep people employed, keep their jobs. We've had over 100,000 energy efficient appliances replaced in Oregon through our State Tax Credit program. We did upgrade our building code, but in both residential and the commercial code with the upgrades we've made over the last 20 years series of time the residential code is helping consumers save $100 million dollars a year in energy costs and our businesses through the commercial codes $75 million a year. And in total Oregon consumers are saving over $400 million dollars in energy bills. Energy bills that otherwise go out of the state and in some cases go out of the country. We have no coal in Oregon, we have no petroleum, we have a little bit of natural gas, we have no uranium, well we do have a little bit of uranium and we're still cleaning it up from the mining experience 50 years ago. So all of these sources of energy that play a role will continue to play a role, we think it's very important in Oregon that they be used wisely and efficiently and it doesn't mean doing without, but it means doing better with what we have. Even with the new energy code that we built we have new schools being built now with the design being built in right to new sustainability standards they use less than half the energy that buildings built to the new energy code can do, there's an awful lot that can be done through energy conservation, energy efficiency. Joan Cartan-Hansen: We're talking about new technologies. Nuclear power's not a new technology . . . Jim McClure: It can be. Joan Cartan-Hansen: It can be . . . it is an industry . . . that is overshadowed by its past, but it is one that in the energy bill there's money to push for that. Kathryn McCarthy: Uh huh absolutely and one of the things I wanted to point out is while all of the discussion earlier on conservation efficiency is extremely important, it absolutely is, thinking parallel to that we really do need to look at new generation and I think we have a tendency to look five years ahead and think, Gosh, that's a long way away, and we don't plan beyond that. We've really got to look beyond that. And in nuclear power, one of the things that we're doing right now -- we've got our national program, actually international program: the U.S. is a part of the Generation IV nuclear reactor research -- and the whole idea is to develop the next generation of reactors that have advantages over existing reactors and will come online about the time that the existing reactor licenses expire. So we're, we're working to, to get ready for that and have a lot of activity going on in that area right now. Jim McClure: That's why I injected that it can be new technology, it isn't just old technology, because I don't think anybody is really suggesting today that we go ahead and expand the current generation or the past generation of nuclear power plants, but I do believe that there are a lot of people that are looking at the development of new technologies that achieve our objectives in the more economical and acceptable way then the old technologies did. Kathryn McCarthy: Well, the current generating, the current nuclear reactors are run extreme safely and what we're doing is looking at ways to, to improve that and it's a, it's a, an industry that has continuously worked to improve itself. And one of the things that we're trying to do is with this new generation of reactors we have goals to make them, to make the safety case more simple that makes the whole regulatory process easier, quicker and it results in better economics. Jim McClure: And I think one of the comparisons we can make from our past experience is that the Russian designed reactors were inherently less safe then the ones that were built in the rest of the world, and we can do more in the future to make them even safer than the current generations of reactors -- as safe as they have proven to be. Kathryn McCarthy: Yes. Michael Grainey: I guess I have to note a voice of skepticism. I worked for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 7 years, so I'm certainly not a rabid anti-nuclear person. But I've been hearing talk for 25 years about a new generation of nuclear reactors -- new, safer, less expensive, more efficient generation -- and we haven't seen any. We haven't seen one new nuclear power plant since Three Mile Island, and I'd be very surprised if we see a new generation anytime soon. I think we really need to focus instead on renewable energy resources like wind, solar, geothermal biomass. We have limited federal budgets, in the history of energy in this country has been it does need federal support it needs federal support for exploration in the case of fossil fuels for development, for technology, and I see the, the energy bill pending before Congress as not providing enough of the support that it needs for renewable resources to make them more competitive. Wind is essentially competitive now in many circumstances with natural gas and other fuels, but we need continued federal support there. Given the fact we have limited federal funds I think putting much money into new nuclear research at the expense of those renewable energy resources is a mistake. Jude Noland: What makes me uncomfortable is that we still don't know what we're going to do with the nuclear waste that we've generated from the existing power plants and I have a real problem with even discussing building more plants that are going to generate more of that nuclear waste until we've figured out what we're going to do with what we have. I've been covering energy issues since the '70s and we've been fighting over whether we're going to put the stuff at Yucca Mountain since then and it's still not there and I just read recently that even if we did open that nuclear waste repository it will be full by 2010. So I just have real kind of I think that's a big issue. Jim McClure: We haven't talked about fish issues, but a red herring just floated by. Jude Noland: Let me, let me address the waste issue for a minute Yucca Mountain is, is coming close to being licensed and will be the repository for commercial fuel and we are looking at ways to best utilize that space, both in terms of dealing with the commercial waste that already exists and minimizing the mass or the volume that needs to be disposed and the toxicity of that waste and then looking at with the next generation of reactors how do you minimize the waste that actually needs to be disposed of for those also. So you know we're doing things in parallel with what's going on at Yucca Mountain and now I for one am perfectly comfortable with how that is progressing and the advantages that we see from nuclear energy from an environmental point of view absolutely outweigh the, the issues that we need to deal with, with the waste, but technically we know how to do. Jude Noland: I'm not sure the American public is there yet. Corbin McNeill: The American public doesn't have to be there, alright? The policy decision makers have to be there, this is an issue in which as many other issues whether its conservation or, or other things not all the American public is, is in with conservation, but the reality is, is that we have people that claim that coal fired generation is killing people because of asthma, that natural gas has explosive characteristics to it that blows up apartment houses in New Jersey the reality is that nuclear energy has in fact killed no person in the United States, the, the Three Mile Island accident a person that had the most exposure in the civilian populous had the same exposure that they would've gotten if they moved from Pennsylvania to Denver, Colorado, that's the reality of the situation and we have to make sure that people are informed, but in fact we don't build things are reject things because of some specific individual being ill-informed about things and that's why you have a regulatory process. Jude Noland: Well, we do that all the time. I think we reject things all the time for people being ill-informed. Jim McClure: Well, you that's, that's the reason I made the comment I did a moment ago the, I'm not one of these guys who believe that science and scientists can solve every problem in society, but our scientists can solve some problems, they can do better in many areas than we do today. The fact of the matter is nuclear radioactive waste is not a technological problem; it's a political problem, and if the public understood what that problem is and how it could be managed with existing technology they would be much less inclined to say hey wait a minute it's too dangerous let's don't do it. You're right, nobody's built a plant a nuclear power plant recently, but there are regulatory reasons why. Kathryn McCarthy: Nobody in the U.S. Jim McClure: Nobody in the U.S. Who, who in the U.S. would undertake to build a nuclear plant today with the political and regulatory climate that we have? Michael Grainey: I think it's a financial climate. Jim McClure: Well it's a financial climate that was driven by regulatory policy. Michael Grainey: Well I think it's, I think it's the direct result of the risks and the impacts of Three Mile Island 25 years ago. Jim McClure: There were, there were nobody was hurt. Michael Grainey: Nobody was hurt, but . . . Jim McClure: The systems worked. Kathryn McCarthy: They worked exactly as they were supposed to. Michael Grainey: The cleanup costs of that reactor ran into the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars to that utility, lost to the damage caused by the meltdown. I think that there's certainly not a utility in the United States that's been willing to take that kind of risk since then and for a new generation of reactors I think it's going to be a very hard sale. You know I think we also need to recognize that any resource has environmental impacts, even renewable energy, and I admit that, that there's adverse impacts. I think there's less and I think they're easier to control, but they all have impacts and I think that's why energy efficiency is really fundamental. Whatever resource we use we need to use wisely. Jim McClure: I want to get back for a moment to the promise of nuclear power because we're going to be there, you just look at all the alternatives what has to be done over a period of years and whether its next year or five years or 10 years or 50 years from now we, we will have nuclear power so I think these people that say hey no we can't do that are, are delaying the time when we will find that the answers that we need to find and we need to find them there's no question. Corbin McNeill: The issue is not so much in the United States as it is on an international scale because you have the underdeveloped region of the world as they come up to the same electricity consumption standard that the developed countries have, they have energy needs that far, far, far outweigh the energy needs of the United States. And too they are not all susceptible to using solar voltaic they're not all in wind areas, they are going to have to have a diversity of sources and, and some of that has got to be nuclear or in fact you are not going to be able to have the international climate environment change the way the international policy agents would like it to be done. Ralph Cavanagh: I, I'm just reminded I always, nuclear power is fortunate in its champions and it has many and they're eloquent and effective. In the end you don't want the enthusiasts making the decisions on any of this it seems to me. What you want is a hard-headed process that looks at all the options and picks the best buys first and what I've got to say for me what's, what's at least eloquent in terms of the record of nuclear is that the region of the country with probably the strongest nuclear culture and the strongest nuclear technology culture. The region of the country with the most rigorous system for picking winners and losing on the merits over the last 25 years has . . . nuclear plants, and that's the Pacific Northwest. That could change if the technology gets much better, if it gets faster, if it gets more nimble, if it solves some of these problems and I don't want to rule out the possibility that any of these technologies could break through, but let's stay, let's make sure we have an honest way of picking on the merits, let's make sure we have Peter Johnson's calling the shots at the end of the day who have to look at, I mean and Peter you had to make some of the toughest choices in the history of the nuclear industry. Peter Johnson: Very difficult, very difficult. Ralph Cavanagh: Extraordinary, you had to go into the communities that were hurt and face them and you did. But you were in the end calling the shots as an investor for the larger society. Peter Johnson: We were driven by fiscal circumstances. Ralph Cavanagh: Exactly. Peter Johnson: The cost of these plants as were out of control they were just going to the point where they were going to literally sink this federal agency and so I had to act it was a fiscally driven decision rather than a technology driven decision, but I'm going to come back and ask you're right in the middle of the INEEL program looking at new potential nuclear options. I can remember there was a 1,000 megawatt unit that was twinned in order to get construction you know advantages of scale then I served on the committee of the National Academy of Sciences looking into the future of nuclear power in 1990, 93 and we came up with a 500 megawatt light water reactor with passive safety features. It was going to have passive methods by which it would you know turn itself down in the event of an incident. Then I read here just recently where the Nuclear Energy Institute is recommending in this new energy bill 1,000 megawatt plants, again apparently twinned and it's going to require federal financing to get 'em going. So here we. And then in the meantime there's been some fluidized bed techniques or technologies and now we're talking about gas cooled if I understand correctly. Why, tell us why can we feel better about the science behind nuclear today then we could earlier? Kathryn McCarthy: Well we've learned a lot over the years and if we talk specifically about what are we looking at in the nearest term of generation four, what we're looking at one of the six reactor types that, that's being investigated is a very high temperature reactor now this one the idea is you have a dual purpose, it does both electricity production plus hydrogen production which imposes certain requirements has far as outlet temperatures and temperatures that you need to actually do the hydrogen production. The gas cooled reactor this is one that's referred to specifically in the energy bill, what we're looking at in this particular incidence is deployment, operating at about the 2015, the year 2015 right around there and would then feed into the President's hydrogen initiative. Now we've done a lot of work looking at passive safety for example which is one of the goals for these generation four reactors and this reactor in particular would if it were to lose all cooling basically shut down cool off you know you don't have the severe accident. It the idea is you would license it by the nuclear regulatory commission and that would show licenseability and then show the utilities that yes you know we can do this, we can do this cheaper, better, faster we're looking at various sizes on the order of 500 megawatt thermal to higher than that depending on what the application is and so for this particular one the VHTR its on the order of 500-700 megawatts thermal and then because you really want to have small modular units that you can deploy in countries that don't need a, a 1 gigawatt electric power source. Corbin McNeill: If I can interject. I just got back from South Africa last week, and I've been involved in the development of one of the competitive designs for this for four years now 200 basically 200 million dollars to build 160-170 megawatt plant, two year construction time, competitive with natural gas at prices at $3.50 a million BTUs. And cannot have an accident similar to Three Mile Island. Peter Johnson: What's that technology? Corbin McNeill: It's high temperature gas. Peter Johnson: High temperature gas. Corbin McNeill: It's a spin-off of a proven German design that has been enhanced by South African engineers such that it instead of using a steam generator and steam turbine you just like in a natural, in a natural gas plant you go directly to a gas turbine. Joan Cartan-Hansen: But how do you convince the public? Corbin McNeill: I argue that you don't need to do it, you need to have an economic design that a somebody's willing to invest in. The public, public, my argument is, is that public confidence will be built over a period of time by the successful operation of current plants, by the licensing of Yucca Mountain, and then 50 years from now from the potential non-proliferation resistant reprocessing of fuel. Mark Maher: But you have to site that plant somewhere. That's where the public opposition is going to be. Corbin McNeill: The public opposition, we're running into public opposition in putting windmills on one of the islands off the Massachusetts coast I mean. Ralph Cavanagh: But 160 megawatts of wind just went into operation in the San Francisco Bay area. Corbin McNeill: I understand. Ralph Cavanagh: The . . . you can't site anything [everything??]; there is a palpable difference. Corbin McNeill: There, there, there is, but I am going to bet you that you are going to run out of places to put windmills in within 10 years. Michael Grainey: I don't think so. We've had just sited 300 megawatts on the Oregon/Washington border. We've been approached by two developers in Oregon who want to . . . megawatts site. Corbin McNeill: I hear you, but people are going to get . . . Michael Grainey: I think the prospects are very promising, and I guess I'm still very skeptical about utility executives and you know the industry better than I you, you were there. Corbin McNeill: Well no I, I . . . Michael Grainey: Is willing to invest in your nuclear power. Corbin McNeill: And in fact it's not clear to me that the first, the first investors in new gas turbines were not traditional utilities, they were the upstart, independents like Calpine, Dynagy, and I'm not so sure that the new nuclear plants are not going to be built by a non-traditional utility company. Jim McClure: Well I'm very skeptical that you can uh, you can see much done in the an emerging nuclear technology field until the public is brought along. Jim McClure: I've been involved in politics all of my adult life. Don't ask policy makers to do what the public won't tolerate. Corbin McNeill: Jim, let me point out to you that in the middle of the California energy crisis there was a survey done that showed 64% of the people supported new nuclear plants now that number has re, has gone back to the. That's exactly right, gone back to it is a variable kind of thing and, and my view is that you have about 20% of the public is adamant against nuclear, you've got about 30% that's very supportive, you have a broad general base in the middle that swings back and forth with time depending on circumstance. Joan Cartan-Hansen: But the public is very pragmatic. Corbin McNeill: And is very influencible based upon whatever the existing conditions today area. But the reality is, is that nuclear would, would only be a component of a diverse energy supply. ???: I agree with that totally. Corbin McNeill: If you put all of your eggs in one basket, whether it's natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind. I'll give a nice example here. Part of the California energy crisis was in fact a failure of renewables -- the lack of rainfall and snowfall in the Northwest created a shortage of available hydropower. The city of Fairbanks, Alaska, has a very unreliable power supply today, and if you want to build a big system of renewables you've got to have an energy storage mechanism. Well, the city of Fairbanks, Alaska just put in a large battery. It takes up a whole building; it lasts for seven minutes. Corbin McNeill: You know in transition so that if you have to have base load thermal source of energy you cannot build a system in reality today maybe for another 100 years that's totally based on renewable sources. ???: And nobody's suggesting that. Corbin McNeill: And, but, but you also need to understand that the more you build alternate sources of you know a windmill in the United States has a capacity factor of about 18-20 percent which means you need to build five times as many. Ralph Cavanagh: Oh no, no, northwest, here in the northwest they're at 35%. Corbin McNeill: Sorry 35% on a nationwide basis it's like 18% and which means that you need to build three to five times more generating capacity than you need in a thermal plant and, and the result of that is, is that you escalate the cost with time and while you have to take into account the environmental differences. Ralph Cavanagh: And the fuel cost in wind, which isn't any. Corbin McNeill: Well you're correct, but in fact what I'm saying is that you cannot build a system fully on variable sources of . . . Ralph Cavanagh: You need a portfolio. Corbin McNeill: You're exactly right, you need a portfolio. Ralph Cavanagh: But the fact that you need a portfolio doesn't mean you need everything, and this is the challenge -- you can't afford everything. When Congress passes an energy bill -- I don't fault this Congress; every Congress for a quarter century's done this. Congress never saw an energy source it didn't like. Congress's solution to a comprehensive energy plan is give something to everything. Senator, you know this to be true. Ralph Cavanagh: The great exception was the Northwest Power Act where Congress actually set up a system for letting the winners and losers emerge on their merits, but that's rare. And I'm just saying we don't have unlimited money in this society; we actually do have to pick the best buys, and the question for nuclear's going to be at the end of the day: can it do all the things Corbin describes better than alternatives? And there are alternatives and we'll see. Jim McClure: There's one other thing that I have to respond to when you say Congress didn't ever see anything they didn't like. Ralph Cavanagh: Right. I can't think of anything. Jim McClure: Well, there's another side to that, and that is as far as I was concerned I was quite willing that we put money into research and development of a lot of different kinds of technologies because we didn't know which one would have the best pay-off. The very point you're trying to make is what I in the Congress and many other Congressmen tried to, to implement. Wind wouldn't be where it is today if we hadn't been supporting investment in wind technology. Michael Grainey: I agree. Corbin McNeill: Gas turbines wouldn't be where they are today if we hadn't put money into gas turbines. Jim McClure: But and, and the there has been a very substantial question as to whether we put too much money into nuclear research. Jude Noland: Uh huh. Jim McClure: And I think that's a legitimate question that needs to be discussed and decided or at least acted upon I don't suppose it'll ever decided. But one of the reasons why that was done is there's, there are other policy reasons to be concerned about as a conservationist, as a person interested in, in the utilization, efficient utilization of our natural resources. It's offensive to me to believe that we take natural uranium, we mine it, produce yellow cake, put it through a process and build fuel rods and then at the end of the life of the fuel rods we throw it all away and we've utilized 7% of the potential energy in that uranium ore and thrown 93% away. Now, is that waste of a resource good public policy? I think not. Ralph Cavanagh: But let's remember why we do it and this, an MIT study in the last three months reminded us. The reason we do that is we are concerned about the global risks of weapons . . . Jim McClure: That's one of the reasons. Ralph Cavanagh: Biggest reason I think. Jim McClure: Well and that's a false one because there are things we can do in our technology to consume those products which are of proliferation risk. When we abandoned reprocessing as a, as a policy and we did that in the early 1980s in this country we, we locked the door against creating the means by which we took care of those radioactive wastes in a more economic and environmentally efficient way. And there, there's a place where public policy closed its door on investment in technology where we should've opened the door, left it open. Not to say we shouldn't put more money into, into biomass, into geothermal, into wind energy. Wind energy is today a marginal winner; it's not the sole source nor the sole answer, but it would never have gotten there without the investment of federal research dollars. Ralph Cavanagh: And I think the question then goes when you, when do you decide? At some point you've got to pick the winners and losers and all I'm saying is it's not clear that the Congress is very good at that. For, for every for every good investment there's a magnetohydrodynamics, there's a synfuels project -- I mean there are a host, you know this. And you were one of the people who insisted to your great credit that at some point the pork barrel had to come to an end. Peter Johnson: When nuclear was first approved the Congress was behind it solidly, reprocessing of the fuel rods and one thing another, there were a number of other technologies that were taking a great deal of money. But I think what we have to look at today is the fact that we've run out of money. Our federal government's run out of money. I think our utilities have run out of money; they can't even finance, for heavens sake, what they need today. There's going to have to be a selection made of the premier options and again I believe that demand-side management, conservation, efficiency has to be right up at the front because I think there is, that's one of the best ways we have. The title of our program, the Price of Power, if we want to keep the price down I think it will do a better job of it by putting a great emphasis right now. We can buy some time until the money catches up with those three or four technologies that should lead us into the future, but I think that, that one of the reasons we haven't gotten very far with several of 'em is simply because we were trying to do too many and we don't have the money to do that anymore. Ralph Cavanagh: Well, see I think this is, this is precisely the wrong way to look at it because then you have quotas for everybody, like in the relative level of enthusiasm and political clout and I still think we are best off if we have an honest process that has all of us theologians in there. I'm going to push for all efficiency and Corbin is going to be in there with every nuclear plant he can muster. But Peter is right there isn't, the fundamental problem is one of economic scarcity, and my biggest concern right now is the, the institutions that are most important in making these decision are our utilities. We haven't talked enough about them. Because they have one fundamental problem if you want to take Peter's advice that efficiency and demand side solutions are the best it is a problem as Corbin mentioned that most utilities profits are tied to increasing sales. The good news is we know how to fix that. Like you know Oregon pioneered rate reforms that break the link between utilities profits and the amount of electricity and natural gas they sell. The problem is those reforms have not been executed across the west and in fact virtually every utility in the west now has its profits tied directly to increases in the use of gas and electricity and that throttles investment inefficiency in demand side. The most important message for me to leave with folks is we know how to fix that problem, it is not inherent in the utility business. There are utilities that have solved that problem and become international leaders in energy efficiency and an overriding priority for the west right now ought to be solving that problem so the financial interests of the utility system are aligned with the interests of their customers in greater efficiency. Corbin McNeill: And if you looked at one of the results of natural gas expansion there are 13 liquid natural gas facilities under plans for licensing in North America today. They each of those implies, importing more natural gas to this country and making us, and displacing our current dependence on oil with dependence on natural gas and part of that is because we don't have the, we have opposition toward utilizing existing resources in the country valid or invalid, but just saying we have debates on that issue in the United States. There's a book coming out later this year that really looks a paradoxes that we deal with as a nation. You know with the fact that we want cleaner and cleaner water and cleaner and cleaner air, but at the same time we have tremendous increases in life span. The fact that we had objection to building the pipeline in Alaska because we were going to decimate the caribou herds, and the caribou herds have grown by something like 200% in the time that, that's been there. This issue of what happens when you have a nuclear accident is another one that has you know a great deal. And we really struggle as a nation to some extent with these things, it's not unnatural, but in fact its probably good for us to debate those kinds of issues as we go forward, but there is a lot of paradoxical outcomes that come from, from these debates. Ralph Cavanagh: A final constraint that certainly bears mention and here I might actually drag Corbin along with me. I think we are all increasingly concerned about the gigantic experiment that we're collectively conducting with the atmosphere in terms of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. I'm sure this panel is all over the place is terms of how it feels about climate science, but it has to be cause for at least alarm that in our lifetimes the atmosphere is changing in ways that we have reason to think have, have significant implications for the climate of the country and the earth. And I think all of us would like to see that climate experiment suspended if it could be done at a reasonable cost. That will enter into the equation about what to do and it will influence the development portfolios. It will help nuclear, but it will also help energy efficiency and renewable and my own view is that they will end up prevailing, but that's part of the competitive equation that we haven't mentioned yet. And I think for the public and for policy makers an increasingly important part. Kathryn McCarthy: I would certainly agree with that. It's interesting somebody I think maybe it was you Joan who had mentioned green power, and I would argue that nuclear is green power because it is an environmentally benign energy source . . . gases and I think more and more environmentalists are starting to realize that. Ralph Cavanagh: Or dependent on utility contracts to do anything and so I think as, as the public tries to sort out how is this going to play out, what's going to happen the big utilities of the west -- the Idaho Powers, the PacificCorps', Pacific Gas and Electric when it emerges from bankruptcy in the wreckage of the California restructuring -- what decisions they make, what incentives they face and how they figure out to bring their customers into some of this, that's why this is really going to play out and happily everybody has a hometown utility and sometimes the hometown utility's policies are a whole lot easier to influence as you know Senator then a distant capitals on the east coast. And I think all of us would encourage folks who care about these issues to learn more about what the local utility's doing, what is it investing in energy efficiency, what efforts is it making to tap into those opportunities that Peter Johnson identified. What renewable energy options is it seeking. What's its long-term perspective on nuclear and fossil? These issues are being played out in every hometown utility in the west and that's where the real action will be for the foreseeable future on all of this. Kathryn McCarthy: Right people, people really do need to become better informed and part of the burden for that is on those of us in the nuclear industry to help them to do that. |
Navigation Links Video segments " "The Price of Power" [Windows Media format] Studio discussion " Nuclear " Gas Nuclear News Utah-based nuclear waste company makes leadership changes Appeals court rules NRC must revisit nuclear fuel storage issue Idaho's 1995 deal with federal government best line of defense on nuclear waste Lawmakers, industry support Obama's nomination for NRC chairman Idaho governor says he's not budging on 1995 INL agreement Nuclear Regulatory Commission director announces resignation Idaho National Laboratory seeks stronger ties with state Groups, tribes protest plan to use Green River water in proposed Utah nuclear power plant Utah hosts international nuclear conference Idaho National Laboratory to begin another waste-disposal project in May
|
?
