Skip to main content

Reaction to GNEP Proposal

By Eric McErlain
There's plenty of reaction to yesterday's news concerning the Bush Administration proposal for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, including this AP account that quotes NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer, Marv Fertel:
"Reprocessing could help avoid or delay the need for a second repository," Marvin Fertel, a senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying group, told a congressional hearing last March.

But Fertel emphasized that the nuclear industry views fuel reprocessing as a technology that is still decades away from being economical - and won't be as long as fresh uranium is plentiful and relatively cheap.
More later, as we pile through the coverage.

UPDATE: American ex-pat Jim Freeman has some thoughts.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Reprocessing may not be an economical source of reactor fuel, but I believe that it is an economical method of waste management. Reprocessing reduces the volume and radioactivity of the spent fuel. The MOX and recovered uranium should be viewed as by-products that can be sold to partially offset the cost of recycling.

We began recycling aluminum, paper and plastics, not because recycling these is cheaper than using raw materials, but because we needed to reduce quantity of material going into landfill, and because we have legitimate environmental concerns about disposing of material that can be reused. Why on earth would we view the recycling of used nuclear fuel rods any differently?
January 27, 2006 at 11:30 AM
Anonymous said…
Partitioning alone won't reduce the need for additional repository space. We're going to have to go to actinide recycle to get the heat load down as well.
January 27, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Anonymous said…
It was pointed out at a LANL shindig
fifteen years ago that CANDU (fast
shuffle) reactors can reburn spent
light water pellets after simply de-
and re-cladding. No need to qualify
by adding "if they work"--and if they
aren't economical why are they so
popular outside the USA?

Not Invented Here Syndrome!

They also will burn unenriched U but
you would never know it from reading
press accounts: it is accepted as
"common knowledge" that generation
*requires* enrichment. Very handy
for Iran...
June 3, 2006 at 12:31 AM
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

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

By
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...
7 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