Skip to main content

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

From today's Augusta Chronicle:
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: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Paul Primavera said…
Hooray! "The MOX project would convert at least 34 metric tons of plutonium into reactor fuel for commercial nuclear power plants." And that plutonium will forever be unuseable for nuclear weapons.

Peace and low cost energy - we can have BOTH!
Dezakin 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.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …