Skip to main content

Budget Details on GNEP

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.
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.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…