Bush Admin = Nukes t3h good!

[Lonestar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...29.html?sub=AR

Nuclear Energy Plan Would Use Spent Fuel

By Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A01

The Bush administration is preparing a plan to expand civilian nuclear energy at home and abroad while taking spent fuel from foreign countries and reprocessing it, in a break with decades of U.S. policy, according to U.S. and foreign officials briefed on the initiative.

The United States has adamantly opposed reprocessing spent fuel from civilian reactors since the 1970s because it would produce material that could be used in nuclear weapons. But the Bush program, envisioned as a multi-decade effort dubbed the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, would invest research money to develop technologies intended to avoid any such risk, the officials said.

The program has been the subject of intense debate within the administration, and although a consensus has been reached about the direction, a senior official said it will not be ready for Bush to announce in his State of the Union address Tuesday. Even the discussion has stirred concerns among nuclear specialists and some members of Congress who consider it an expensive venture that relies on unproven concepts and could increase the danger of proliferation.

The notion of accepting other countries' spent fuel at a time when the United States has had trouble disposing of its own nuclear waste could also prove highly controversial.

But a small initial investment of money has been programmed into the administration's federal budget plan to be sent to Capitol Hill in two weeks. Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) said yesterday that he expects the White House to send accompanying legislation in February.

"I expect a draft bill from the administration next month on spent nuclear fuel," he said. "I will introduce that bill on behalf of the president, hold a hearing on it and mark it up in committee this spring. I hope it will include a nuclear fuel recycling component. If it doesn't, well, I have been a career-long proponent of nuclear fuel recycling and I intend to pursue it aggressively."

Advocates use the word "recycling" to describe an advanced form of reprocessing that, instead of separating plutonium that can be used in bombs from spent fuel, would produce a mixed-oxide fuel too radioactive for terrorists to handle. Such fuel, called MOX, could be used in special reactors that exist in France but not in the United States.

Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit think tank that studies environmental and security issues, said U.N. nuclear inspectors would not make a distinction between that material or the kind of separated plutonium the world is worried Iran might get.

"We think they are putting a fig leaf on it by calling it proliferation-resistant and saying that it's not really reprocessing, so concerns about proliferation risks won't be valid," he said. "But if we develop something that we call proliferation-resistant and it really isn't, then other countries are going to claim rights to this technology. If it's really proliferation-resistant, would we let Iran have it?"

The fuel proposal is part of a broader push by the president for domestic and global nuclear energy. With worldwide energy demands on the rise and U.S. reliance on foreign oil increasing, Bush has held out nuclear power as a solution that will not affect global warming. "We ought to have more nuclear power in the United States of America," Bush said in a speech last week in Loudoun County. "It's clean, it's renewable, it's safer than it ever was in the past."

In a modern version of the Atoms for Peace program during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration, officials said the administration envisions helping developing countries build small nuclear reactors that would produce about 5 to 10 percent of the energy generated by a typical reactor now on line in the United States. Some in Congress believe a global nuclear energy program is aimed at aiding the U.S. effort to build an alliance with India, which is eager for U.S. civilian nuclear technology.

Two senior U.S. officials traveled last week to several countries, including Japan and Russia, to brief them about the initiative. At one session, according to a source who was present, the administration officials said the United States has finally moved on from the Three Mile Island nuclear incident in 1979 that paralyzed the industry for years.

Bush has been briefed on the plan but has not given his final approval while diplomats consult with other nations, a senior administration official said. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman hinted at the initiative in a November speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

"The world will need much more energy in coming decades," he said, citing projections showing global demand increasing as much as 50 percent by 2025. "How do we meet this demand? How do we do it in a way that leaves all the nations of the earth safer and more secure? The search for answers to these questions increasingly points in one direction: nuclear energy."

Rather than just provide nuclear fuel to other countries that want to have their own reactors, Bodman suggested, the United States would also take back the fuel once it has been spent. "In the longer term, we see fuel-cycle states offering cradle-to-grave fuel-cycle services, leasing fuel for power reactors and then taking it back for reprocessing and ultimate disposition."

The main purpose for reprocessing spent fuel is to extract the radioactive plutonium within it and use that to fuel a reactor. But the process is considered dangerous, and many countries gave up civilian reprocessing years ago.

Officials briefed on the Bush plan said $250 million -- less than requested by the Energy Department -- will be included in the fiscal 2007 budget in a down payment on what they expect to be billions of dollars of spending. Among other things, it would pay for a pilot plant, possibly at the department's Savannah River facility in South Carolina, to test chemical reprocessing. If the program goes forward as planned, the domestic nuclear industry stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars.

U.S. officials said they are interested in developing reactors that would not produce spent fuel that could be accessed by recipient countries. One model is a self-contained reactor that cannot be opened, is never refueled and is removed when it runs out of energy. Another, known as a pebble-bed reactor, has been under development in Germany and South Africa and likewise would not have fuel that could be used for weapons.

Staff writer Justin Blum contributed to this report.

The AECCP ApolyKitty aproves.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Lonestar


The AECCP ApolyKitty aproves.

How odd that I can see the AECCP Kitty. Guess I'll have to use the stand in.

[GePap]

Ugggh, its horrible to agree with the Bush admin. on anything, but the fear of nuclear distasters is overblown- if built competently, nuclear reactors are safe, and certainly make far more environmental sense than most other forms of non-renewable energy. And I support recyling the stuff between reactors as much as possible.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Ugggh, its horrible to agree with the Bush admin. on anything, but the fear of nuclear distasters is overblown- if built competently, nuclear reactors are safe, and certainly make far more environmental sense than most other forms of non-renewable energy. And I support recyling the stuff between reactors as much as possible.

Well, everything that any admisnistration does can't be all good or all bad. Good of you to finally recognize it.


It is time that the US stepped up in the development of peaceful nuclear energy both here and abroad. This energy source has been on the back burner for far to long here. Recycling fuel is a good step to bring this incredibly beneficial source of energy to the forefront.

[realpolitic]

Just when I thoght Bush couldn't do anything worse. How long before terrorists train themselves to refine Plutonium oxide? The Iranian President must be planning to give a little "gift" to Israel. GePap, wake up and smell the coffee: it wasn't grown in a nuclear power plant, there's a little power source called the sun.

[Terra Nullius]

"We ought to have more nuclear power in the United States of America," Bush said in a speech last week in Loudoun County. "It's clean, it's renewable, it's safer than it ever was in the past."

Umm, right,..

Renewable fissionable material. I'd like to see that.

[Chemical Ollie]

His friends in the oil industry must cry blood over this.

[Thue]

Nukes do seem to be the best energy source available. And reprocessing does seem like a good idea. I guess it is possible for the Bush administration to do something right .

[Lawrence of Arabia]

+ you can dump it all in Nevada, since they only have two votes in the senate and like 5 in the House, and since no one else wants it in their backyard, they will all vote for the Yucca.

[Jonny]

It's about time we got serious about nuclear power generation again.

[GePap]

Originally posted by realpolitic
Just when I thoght Bush couldn't do anything worse. How long before terrorists train themselves to refine Plutonium oxide? The Iranian President must be planning to give a little "gift" to Israel. GePap, wake up and smell the coffee: it wasn't grown in a nuclear power plant, there's a little power source called the sun.

First question:

Never. It takes huge resources to get any fissionable material. Only states have shown themselves capable of creating the sutff in any worhtwhile amount, and no, I don;t care about the scare tactic of "dirty bombs" any more than about regular old fashioned bombs. Any group capable of creating the infrastructure necessary to refine fissionable materials could hardly be covert.

As for solar energy-WHEN solar energy can supply just 1/10 the same number of megawatts worldwide as Nuclear energy does, I will give you a cookie. BUt the sad fact is that we asre nowhere near replacing other forms of energy, and if the issue is limiting environmental damage, better nuclear than hydrocarbons or hydroelectric.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jonny
It's about time we got serious about nuclear power generation again.

[Oncle Boris]

WRT nuclear power, France is rolling on good times apparently. They privatized the national power company, along with the 30 year old nuclear plants. Hopefully no dividends will be made a the expense of maintenance.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
+ you can dump it all in Nevada, since they only have two votes in the senate and like 5 in the House, and since no one else wants it in their backyard, they will all vote for the Yucca.

We can stick it in Dis' backyard...he was a nuke technician in the Navy anyway.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jonny It's about time we got serious about nuclear power generation again.

Except when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong...as in the Enrico Fermi plant near Detroit, Three Mile Island and especially Chernobyl.

And where oh where can we store all the highly toxic nuclear waste for the 1/2 million or so years it takes to become non-radioactive??

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Except when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong...as in the Enrico Fermi plant near Detroit, Three Mile Island and especially Chernobyl.

And where oh where can we store all the highly toxic nuclear waste for the 1/2 million or so years it takes to become non-radioactive??

Erm...that's why we're reprocessing the waste, so we cna use it again and again...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Terra Nullius
Renewable fissionable material. I'd like to see that.

France has been doing that for decades.

However, you can't recycle 100% of the material (only 96%), so you do end up with some radioactive garbage. But still, nuclear energy is infinitely clear than fossil energy.

[chequita guevara]

Wave generators will make nukes obsolete.

[Zkribbler]

Erm...that's why we're reprocessing the waste, so we cna use it again and again...

4th paragraph of the article:

The notion of accepting other countries' spent fuel at a time when the United States has had trouble disposing of its own nuclear waste could also prove highly controversial.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Except when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong...as in the Enrico Fermi plant near Detroit, Three Mile Island and especially Chernobyl.

And where oh where can we store all the highly toxic nuclear waste for the 1/2 million or so years it takes to become non-radioactive??

The Enrico Fermi power plant was not only an early design, but no radiation was released from the builiding into the enviroment when it had its accident. Three Mile Island posed no risk to the general public and is an example of a vastly overhyped nuclear accident. Chernobyl was the result of a vastly unsafe Soviet design where they did something increadibly stupid to boot, and doesn't resemble current US nuclear reactors, let alone ones we can build today. With a modern design, its practically impossible to have a serious nuclear meltdown.

As far as storing the radioactive waste goes, you might want to consider how much uranium and thorium gets released into the atmosphere each year due to coal burning power planets!

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html

When you consider the effects on the enviroment from fossil fuel power plants emmiting greenhouse gases, storing the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is by far the lesser of the two evils. The reprocessing Bush is talking about by the way vastly decreases the amount of nuclear waste we have to deal with. We can do the storing of the waste fairly safely, while continuing to rely on fossil fuels guarentees that the bad things I already talked about will continue to happen.

[Jonny]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Except when it goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong...as in the Enrico Fermi plant near Detroit, Three Mile Island and especially Chernobyl.

Enrico Fermi and Three Mile Island weren't exactly "very, very wrong" incidents. Both of those incidents introduced miniscule, almost to the point of being insignificant, amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. Their only true victim was support for nuclear power in the U.S. The impact of Chernobyl would have been much less if the Soviets had built a complete containment building for the reactor (as was and still is standard essentially everywhere else in the world), thus prohibiting the escape of radioactive particles directly into the atmosphere.

Newer-design plants are safer than those based on 30-40 year old designs, anyway. For example, new pebble-bed reactors are designed so that not even a coolant failure will result in a meltdown.


Edit: x-post with Mordoch. I see that the others have addressed the waste situation, so I won't comment for the time being.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Wave generators will make nukes obsolete.

Doubtful. They are expensive to build and many designs potentially pose barriers for shipping. They also are not really viable for areas well away from the coast, due to problems transporting electricity over really long distances.

Regardless, we shouldn't wait for renewable energy to be able to solve all our problems when we can do something about fossil fuel burning power plants right away.

[chequita guevara]

New wave generator design is extremely efficient. We just need to work on tranmission problems.

As for nuke tech, my buddy in the navy told me that the problem with all private U.S. nukes is that they are all prototypes. Unlike in the military or Japan, France, etc. Every new nuke plant in the U.S. is a new design, so there's no standardization. He was a nuke tech for a boomer.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Mordoch
its practically impossible to have a serious nuclear meltdown.

It's the "practically impossible" part that scares the #@^&&!! out of me.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
It's the "practically impossible" part that scares the #@^&&!! out of me.

Let me makes things more clear then. A worse case nuclear meltdown in the US would release way less radiation into the general enviroment than any coal power plant releases every year. Three Mile Island should be held as an example of how even when things go terribly wrong with US nuclear power plants, there isn't any real risk to the general public.

The only reason Chernobyl caused so many problems was that the Soviets failed to have a proper concrete containment vessal for the plant. Trying to compare that situation to the risk of nuclear power in the US is an apple and organges situation.

[Zkribbler]

Okay...you now have your happy little nuclear plant perculating along, producing nuclear waste. What do you do with the waste??

[chequita guevara]

I should be the government why? They've lied about everything else related to nukes.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Okay...you now have your happy little nuclear plant perculating along, producing nuclear waste. What do you do with the waste??

And we are doing what with all the toxins that a coal plant produces?

At least we have a plan to safely bury nuclear waste and are willing to spend billions to make it as safe as it can be.

[chequita guevara]

The toxins from a coal plant degrade a lot more quickly than nuke waste.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The toxins from a coal plant degrade a lot more quickly than nuke waste.

Flagrantly wrong actually. Check out the half lives of uranium and thorium, which I already noted get emmited by the ton each year from coal power plants, its actually much greater than the half lifes of the various nuclear reactor waste products, especially compared to the most dangerous ones.

Basically instead of going into our lungs, the waste products from nuclear power plants can be carefully stored in one place with safety measures taken to make sure they stay there.