Skip to main content

Report: Energy Considering Recycling Fuel from Closed Reactors

By Eric McErlain
From Energy Daily (Subscription Only):
In next year's budget request, the Energy Department is planning to ask Congress for authority to take title to spent nuclear fuel stockpiled at closed U.S. nuclear plants and to reprocess it, most likely in France, sources tell The Energy Daily.

DOE officials in recent years have resisted congressional pressure to move spent fuel stockpiled at U.S. reactors to regional storage facilities, saying the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) bars them from taking title to the fuel until the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada is granted a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license.

Now, sources say, the department is planning to ask Congress to amend the NWPA to remove that limitation as part of its fiscal 2009 budget request to Congress, which DOE is in the early stages of preparing.

However, DOE's goal is apparently to transport it for reprocessing, most likely at La Hague in France, not to move the spent fuel to regional storage facilities in the United States as some lawmakers have requested. It is unclear whether DOE intends to ask for authority to take title only to fuel from closed plants, or to spent fuel stockpiled at operating U.S. reactors as well.

A DOE spokeswoman Tuesday would neither confirm nor deny that DOE was considering the recycling plan, but noted DOE was pursuing recycling options through its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative.
Labels:

Comments

Joffan said…
The nuclear industry needs to put together and propose a plan to take spent fuel handling out of the operational hands of the government. There is $20 billion sitting in the fund to deal with commerical spent fuel. The use that money could be put to in building an actinide burner and reprocessing facilities along with medium-term localized storage is just incredible.

Yucca is not interesting. Yucca is making the whole damned process too hard. Shelve it, come back to the idea later when needed. Take away the "waste" stumbling block that gets thrown again and again in front of nuclear power projects.
November 7, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Matthew66 said…
Theoretically, the used fuel levy is set aside in a trust fund invested in US Treasuries and earning interest, and is to be used solely for dealing with used fuel. In reality however, the levy is a tax, the money goes into treasury coffers, must be appropriated by Congress, and the trust fund is nothing more than a ledger entry in the government accounts. Don't expect Congress to pony up any of the cash anytime soon.
November 8, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Anonymous said…
Joffan is correct.

Sadly, neither Hillary nor any Democrat candidate for President will support Joffan's proposal which ultimately is the correct thing to do.
November 9, 2007 at 6:57 AM
Pamela said…
The problem is, that money is not just sitting in a fund. It can't just be pulled out and handed over like a bank account. Congress has spent it already, as soon as it was received. And of course, DOE will probably be denied their funding request or have it reduced, even though there was money collected for the purpose of dealing with used nuclear fuel.

I do applaud the DOE for taking this step, if that is indeed what they are attempting to do. Time for another letter writing campaign to make sure congress knows their constituents approve of this.
November 9, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more