Sen. Graham: MOX Plant Construction at SRS Will Begin Before End of 2006

If U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has his way, construction of a mixed-oxide, or MOX, plant at Savannah River Site will begin before the end of the year.

''History will judge us poorly if we let this moment pass,'' Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told the attendees at the luncheon.

"The need for MOX is greater today than the day we awarded the project," said the South Carolina Republican, who spoke Wednesday at the Greater Aiken Chamber of Commerce meeting.

The MOX project would convert at least 34 metric tons of plutonium into reactor fuel for commercial nuclear power plants.

Congress is divided over funding for the project. The Senate voted to spend $419 million in the next fiscal year on the facility, but the House did not allocate any funding for the project.

As part of the MOX proposal in 2000, Russia also would build a facility to dispose of 34 metric tons of nuclear waste.

However, progress in Russia also stalled, and that country recently decided to develop alternate technology.

Nevertheless, Mr. Graham said a successful collaboration with Russia would be historic.

"History will judge us poorly if we let this moment pass," he said.

For our previous posts on the MOX program, click here.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Electricity, Environment, South Carolina, Georgia, MOX Fuel, Plutonium

Comments

Anonymous said…

This is a bad idea, because all MOX fuel plants I know of use aqueous reprocessing regimes which do little but increase the volume of waste and are never cost effective. Aqueous regimes must be dynamically cooled, have massive infrastructure, and are quite prone to exposure scandals. We should either use molten salt regimes or just send the spent fuel to dry storage casks, because MOX the old fasioned way does little but bolster anti-nuclear arguments.

August 17, 2006 at 4:26 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog