Skip to main content

Budget Details on GNEP

By Eric McErlain
From Bloomberg:
The Bush administration, reversing a 29-year-old government policy, is seeking to reprocess the waste produced by nuclear reactors in the U.S. and other nations.

The administration requested $250 million in the budget it unveiled today for development of a process to reduce and recycle radioactive waste. The process would foster expansion of nuclear power in the U.S. by reducing by 80 percent the amount of waste sent to the storage site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

The proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would also take spent fuel from other nations, addressing growing concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons by keeping the capability to enrich and recycle nuclear material in U.S. hands, according to budget documents released today.
For our previous posts on GNEP, click here and here. And it looks like Russia might be interested.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Japan may be welcome to GNEP. However, it may be risky to transport apent fuel and MOX over Pacific Ociean. Furthermore your nation may not allow to recieve Japanese nuclear waste in Mt.yukka.
February 6, 2006 at 7:01 PM
Matthew66 said…
Japan and Australia have been sending spent fuel, power reactor fuel from Japan and research reactor fuel from Australia, to Cogema in France for reprocessing for many years. Under the current arrangements, France ships vitrified high-level waste to Japan/Australia aboard one of two specially designed ships, escorted by Japanese/Australian/French warships. The ship unloads the waste in Japan/Australia and loads spent fuel for return to France for reprocessing. The amount of waste shipped to Japan/Australia is the amount that would result from the reprocessing of the fuel to be sent to France. Neither Japan or Australia has a problem with accepting responsibility for the high-level waste they produce.

Under its agreement with the USA, Australia is not permitted to ship US originated fuel elements anywhere but the USA. Until the USA decided to repatriate US sourced research reactor fuel, these spent fuel elements were safely stored at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney.

Australia reprocesses spent fuel elements to minimize the volume of high level waste to be disposed of, and to enable the recovered uranium and plutonium to be reused in power reactors. Australia considers this to be the most environmentally ethical approach to the disposition of spent fuel, notwithstanding that it is an expensive option.

There have been no incidents related to the shipping of spent fuel or vitrified high level waste, save for some protests by the usual anti-nuclear suspects.
February 7, 2006 at 9:41 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more