Skip to main content

Bush Administration to Back Reprocessing

From today's Wall Street Journal (free feature):
The Bush administration plans to announce a $250 million initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, a first step toward reversing a 1970s policy that rejected reprocessing as too dangerous to pursue.

The administration's decision to put the money into its fiscal 2007 budget to test new technologies is part of an effort to jump-start the nuclear-power industry at a time when energy prices are high and concerns about global warming make nuclear power plants more acceptable.

According to nuclear industry officials and others briefed on the proposal in recent weeks, the program could be announced as early as next week in President Bush's State of the Union address. If the technology works, it could vastly reduce the amount of spent nuclear waste that would have to be buried in underground storage, such as at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, set to open after 2012.
More later.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,


shusurvey12 said…
Please participate in a new energy issues survey--UNIDO-ICHET survey

Dear All:
We are currently launching a poll sponsored by UNIDO-ICHET to study public opinions and attitudes towards hydrogen energy related issues. We are also looking for feedback related to UNIDO-ICHET's website. Would you please logon to one of the URLs listed below (you can logon either site we offer). Your answers will produce valuable information for our researchers. (UNIDO-ICHET homepage, please log on and click 'for UNIDO-ICHET survey' button) (questionnaire web pages)

And please forward this meaningful survey message to anyone whom you know is also suitable to answer this questionnaire. Thank you.

Project leader: Mavis Tsai, Ph. D. Shih Hsin University
Jim Hopf said…
I’m not sure what my feelings are on this proposal. I’m all for increasing funding for long term fuel cycle and waste management research, but rushing into reprocessing (especially if that means settling for PUREX) would be a huge mistake. Any reprocessing technology that does not reduce the heat/bulk of the final waste stream enough to avoid ever having to build multiple repositories (such as PUREX) is simply not worth pursuing. It must be stressed that, since Yucca is able to take all the existing reactors waste (even assuming 60 years of operation), and because new reactors are not coming on line until ~2015 (most after ~2020), we don’t need to start reprocessing until ~2050 in order to avoid additional repositories. We shouldn’t be rushing to deploy inferior reprocessing technologies before then.

As far as UREX+ is concerned, will this require the use of exotic reactors? If so, how many? Does it have to be a significant fraction of overall nuclear capacity, or will a few GWe worth of (say, fast reactors) do the job. What is the consequence of a sub-optimal ratio of reactor types? They stated that UREX+ could reduce waste bulk/heat by a factor of 100. How great a reduction could be achieved if fast reactor capacity were limited to, say ~5% of LWR capacity? Could you still get a factor of ~10 reduction (which would still be enough to avoid additional repositories, at least in this century). They mentioned a system that focused on separating out individual isotopes for separate treatment. Some (like 90Sr) could be surface decayed. Perhaps this technology would allow strategic use of limited non-LWR reactor resources (which could be employed at govt. sites).

I bring all this up because I am very wary of grandiose plans/schemes that require complete, long-term central planning (by government, basically) of the entire nuclear enterprise. A “100-Year Plan”!! Puts the Soviet’s old 5-Year Plans to shame! This plays right into the anti’s argument that nuclear is fundamentally a large scale, government, socialized enterprise that could never survive under a liberalized, free market system. For nuclear to thrive, individual companies and/or communities have to be allowed to make individual decisions, and be able to build a reactor whenever they want, wherever they want, and of whatever type they want (i.e., what most meets their needs and is lowest cost, basically). The government’s waste management program simply has to take whatever waste results, period. You can develop whatever reprocessing technology you want, but having the waste management system dictate what reactor types people may build is letting the tail wag the dog, and will greatly diminish the success/expansion of nuclear. Any future waste processing plan should have to address the possibility of a future commercial plant fleet that is virtually all LWRs. (Assuming that the LWRs would use MOX fuel would be acceptable.)
Jim Hopf said…
More on the proposal/article:

My reaction to the concept of importing other countries’ waste (for reprocessing) is; “Great, after all our successful efforts to build public support for nuclear in this country…”.

Talking about this possibility, especially at this premature date, is a huge political loser for the industry, right at this critical juncture. One step at a time, guys. Before proposing grandiose schemes, we need to strive for simpler accomplishments, like restarting the industry and getting some new plants (LWRs) built. In addition to being extremely unpopular, this proposal carries the implied suggestion that nuclear power has these huge proliferation risks, that are so bad that we will have no choice but to take other countries nuclear waste if we proceed down the nuclear path. The fact is, commercial nuclear power has few, if any, real proliferation risks, especially if one does not insist upon every single tiny, undeveloped country having a nuclear program. We should focus on getting nuclear re-established in the developed world first, before trying to solve the developing world’s problems.

Another annoyance was the reference to “Energy Department Officials” being worried about nuclear waste stores at several sites relatively near to large cities. Who are these “officials”, and what exactly are they trying to accomplish? Yes, we need to push for centralized storage (Yucca Mtn.), but resorting to scaremongering (to counter that of the anti’s) will be counterproductive in the long run, as it serves to amplify the public’s nuclear fears. The fact is that no event (accident or attack) involving dry storage casks, or even spent fuel pools, could have any significant effect on any major city. The cities are simply too far away, by a wide margin. Effects (if any) would be limited to the local area.
Anonymous said…
Why not have the government return to the utilities the $24 billion that has so far been paid for a national geological repository owned and managed by the Federal Government, and tell the utilities to solve their own waste problem? Also include in such a bill before Congress a requirement for coal and natural gas plants to secure and safely dispose of their waste, too, including COx, SOx, NOx, mercury, etc. In that way government involvement in nuclear power generation can be removed, the regulatory playing field leveled among the different types of electricity generators, and the Free Market can decide on what's the best, most economical path to take. Of course, this means that anti-nukes can't be permitted obstruct progress on local spent fuel repositories or local spent fuel reprocessing facilities indefinitely when safety reviews verify compliance with applicable regulation, especially because such obstruction hinders the Free Market system with no added value to public health and safety.

I really like what Rod Adams writes about this issue at:

Yucca Mountain:
Right Answer; Wrong Question

Common myths . . .Is Nuclear Waste A Huge Problem?


Paul W. Primavera
Anonymous said…
What is UREX+? How different is that from Purex? Although UREX+ is said to be for extracting uranium from spent fuel, MOX fuel is recycled to LWR and uranium is storaged, according the recycle scheme published.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…