[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]
We need to solve the problem with nuclear waste. As we all know nuclear fuel is recyclable with only 4% of each fuel assembly being actual waste that can’t be re-used and the other 96% can be recycled and used again. As the government technically owns the fuel it also owns the problem of disposal, and the government must provide the solution. The problem is that we know who runs the government and their ability to make a coherent, timely, or realistic solution. I’m not sure how many blue ribbon panels will be formed to study this issue before they come to a recommended solution that will likely not be followed.
In brief, here is the real solution:
One, we recycle the fuel at one centralized or two regional locations. The fuel is re-used and then re-cycled again as many times as technology allows.
Two, we store the unusable waste at the Yucca Mountain site that has been selected and is in the process of being licensed. The design of the facility would not need to be modified nor would the license require any serious amendment. The capacity problem that would have previously come up with Yucca Mountain would go away with fuel recycling, as the amount of waste would be much less. The site could be used to store the waste for many decades or even centuries before it would be filled up. Also, with the current construction schedule, the first batch of waste would probably be ready a little after Yucca would be ready to receive it.
And that’s it. Any blue ribbon panel members out there feel free to copy this solution.
Gentlemen: I would encourage you to review Ted Rockwell’s testimony before the Republican caucus on nuclear energy, which is posted on his website: http://www.learningaboutenergy.com. Here he explains his perspective on the nuclear “waste” issue. As someone who has been involved with the industry since nearly the beginning, he has much to share on this topic.
I think we do the public a bit of a disservice by emphasizing the “waste” theme, although you do an excellent job on today’s post clarifying the energy remaining in the once-through fuel cycle. So much misinformation surrounds nuclear energy — proliferation concerns, radiation exposure, spent fuel, water usage, etc — that “we” need to do more educating about the nebulous nature of atomic power. It’s nebulous because it’s invisible, as opposed to a windmill whirring or a solar panel, um, not whirring. And as a reminder, I’m involved in the solar arena from an installation standpoint, and possibly manufacturing.
Just my two cents worth, for what that’s worth today. LOL.
The author has identified both the problem, and the solution, although he is more polite than myself in stating the obvious. This is not a technlogy problem; it is a political problem. A presidential administration will only remain in office for eight years. We do NOT want to change that fact. It takes more than eight years to build either a nuclear power plant or a reprocessing facility that can be used to extract the abundant fuel and minimal waste that these plants generate. Since a president cannot expect to see his support of a nuclear program to come to fruition within their term in office, they avoid supporting the much needed development of nuclear power. Fears of cost over-runs and bad publicity during their office term(s)overshadow the looming energy shortage that will exist when they return to private life. Politicians worry about the next election - leaders worry about the next generation.
President Bush attempted to show leadership by establishing the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to address the international issue of recycling spent nuclear fuel. President Obama quickly showed his political cowardice by cancelling that proven technical solution in favor of a fake blue ribbon panel, which will chase windmills and polish solar panels. This is just a carbon copy of Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s Energy Bill in 1977 that advised us to wear thicker sweaters to conserve. Based upon his limited nuclear experience in the navy, and his substantial political fears, President Carter torpedo the nuclear industry by making reprocessing illegal in the United States. He served only one term - take heed Mr President. But our dire energy situation thirty years later is President Carter’s legacy to the United States from his (only) four years in office. Oh yeah - he also brokered a deal that gave North Korea the bomb when President Clinton was in office; with the help of now New Mexico Governor, then DOE Secretary Bill Richardson, of course. Why else would North Korea send delegates crying to NM three times when President Bush was in office and ended the nuclear blackmail deal that the Clinton Administration had given North Korea?
We need to establish a reprocessing facility that can be completed
within eight years while a single president is in office. Otherwise they will never have the cajones to support solid, proven nuclear technology. Let AREVA build a copy of their French reprocessing facility here in the USA. You can take my few billions of stimulus dollars for starters on that project. And start writing your congressman and vote the cowards out of office - We need leaders, not politicians!
The author of this article is in good company, as these references clearly illustrate.
Ditch the DOE:
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=188&storyCode=2053402
The Blue Ribbon Panel DOE proposes:
http://nuclearstreet.com/blogs/nuclear_power_news/archive/2009/08/27/splitting-hairs-and-atoms-with-randy-brich-the-great-technology-race-part-i-1882.aspx
My personal opinion:
http://friends.redorbit.com/group_features.php?gid=0e01938fc48a2cfb5f2217fbfb00722d
I am with you on the recycling part, but I do not understand why Yucca would still be required. There are few components of used nuclear fuel that are truly waste; those can be easily stored above ground without going to the trouble and expense of moving them to a remote area in Nevada.
If we really and truly need some place to store materials that we think are simply dangerous and have no potential use for humans, we already have a suitable location in operation and receiving materials today. It has the misnomer of Waste Isolation “Pilot” Project, but WIPP has plenty of available capacity for any materials that may need to be stored. All that is required is a fairly simple change in New Mexico state law and a modification on the license.
Though I do not agree with the political statements of dellaguya, I would like to emphasize that President Carter’s naval experience with nuclear power was not only limited, but VERY limited. He started nuclear power training in March of 1953, but left the Navy in early October of that same year to go home to run the family farm. His father passed away in July 1953.
Based on my experience in the Navy, I would bet that he spent most of the time between July and October working on the paperwork to allow the separation to occur. He might have been a far better student than I, but I can tell you I knew very little about nuclear energy when I was only part way through the academic phase of the training pipeline and had not yet attended practical prototype training. In fact, I learned most of what I know while operating submarines at sea, something that Jimmy could never have done since the very first nuclear powered submarine did not report “Underway on nuclear power” until January 17, 1955 - about 15 months after Carter had resigned his commission and returned to the peanut farm.
One more thing - if people think Republicans are so favorable to nuclear power, please answer why there have been no nuclear plants ordered and completed in the US in the past 30 years despite 12 years of Reagan/Bush I and 8 more years of Bush II.
Although it is not applicable to the original article, I would like to respond to Mr Adams’ question as to the Republicans being supportive of nuclear power. You Sir, are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! No politician from either side of the aisle has shown true leadership in bringing our country a strong energy policy that relies on the only sensable solution, nuclear power: Reagan/Bush only gave lip service to the technology and Bush II (your terminology) quitely started some useful but isolated programs. It is only now when we are posed upon the brink of a nuclear rennaisance, public opinion is starting to sway in our favor, and the timid politicians are thus starting to vocalize support of the nuclear industry. We now need a LEADER, regardless of party, to issue a reasonable energy policy.
Thank you also Mr Adams for the background information on President Carter’s nuclear training. I was not aware of those facts. I just remember the President showing up at Three Mile Island claiming to be a nuclear engineer after what I knew was a short stint in the navy. The nuclear navy’s safety record is impeccable, however, and has produced many shining stars for the commercial nuclear industry as well.
I would take some issue with storing the 5% of liquid waste from reprocessing sepnt fuel at WIPP. I worked on the design of the WIPP facility more than twenty years ago, and “Pilot” was not a misnomer. The original intent was to study the low level waste disposal (LLW)issue. It has never even been evaluated for high level waste (HLW). Our critics warned that we intended all along to make it a HLW dump. So I would not give them anymore ammunition, as they already mistrust our industry. And the shallow salt beds of WIPP are far less suitable geologically than the deep shafts at Yucca, which has ALWAYS been touted as the ultimate repository for this material. But if completed without reprocessing, Yucca would be full shortly after it was completed. It is also interesting to consider the potential benefits of the radiosotopes we currently deeem as waste and intend to bury. We may indeed be digging this stuff up for use as medical isotopes in a few years.