IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v61y2013icp1521-1528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

U.S. spent nuclear fuel management: Political, fiscal, and technical feasibility

Author

Listed:
  • Singer, Clifford

Abstract

Successful U.S. spent nuclear fuel management policy must satisfy political, fiscal, and technical constraints. Technical requirements have been thoroughly investigated in the United States and Nordic countries for volcanic tuff, salt, and granite. Fiscal planning requires an inflation-adjusted revenue stream and predictable real interest rate earnings on fund balances. A prompt solution satisfying political constraints requires compromise between the overlapping but distinct goals of seven different sets of interests at the federal level. Absent such compromise, there will be delay until sufficient support for one of three strategies evolves: (1) force the Yucca Mountain repository on Nevada, (2) open a centralized storage facility without coupling to repository licensing, or (3) follow a “consent-based” process for repository licensing. Formulations of each of these strategies to overcome impediments to their success are described.

Suggested Citation

  • Singer, Clifford, 2013. "U.S. spent nuclear fuel management: Political, fiscal, and technical feasibility," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1521-1528.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:61:y:2013:i:c:p:1521-1528
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151300534X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucena, André F.P. & Clarke, Leon & Schaeffer, Roberto & Szklo, Alexandre & Rochedo, Pedro R.R. & Nogueira, Larissa P.P. & Daenzer, Kathryn & Gurgel, Angelo & Kitous, Alban & Kober, Tom, 2016. "Climate policy scenarios in Brazil: A multi-model comparison for energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 564-574.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:61:y:2013:i:c:p:1521-1528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.