Bush Administration to Support Nuclear Recycling

Ironsides writes "The Washington Post is reporting the the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors. Included in the plan is a proposal to take spent fuel from other countries and re-enrich it for use as well as domestic spent fuel. This would be a break with a policy set forth by President Carter in an attempt to discourage nuclear proliferation. Currently $250 Million as been proposed for FY 2007 to start developing the technology."

Comments

stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[Thud457]

Just build a proper breeder reactor program, you stupid nancies!

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[argosian]

Exactly!
Our current methods for nuclear generation and the treatment/disposal of spent nuclear fuels is short-sighted, wasteful and environmentally irresponsible. Anti "nook-yoo-ler" sentiment aside, nuclear generation is potentially far safer and far less environmentally devastating than fossil fuel generation. IANANE, but I'm at least moderately conversant for a lay-person and it seems to me that there are numerous options, including various types of 3rd and 4th generation breeder/fast reactors, that will result in greater safety (the Integral Fast Reactor design is virtually melt-down proof), less waste (virtually zero transuranics and actinides ever leave some types), higher output, higher fuel efficiency (from about 1% in current thermal reactor designs up to 95%+ for IFR and some other types) and significantly reduced expense (there is at least one lead-cooled design that is intended to be a turnkey operation for small-grid/developing country type deployments, requiring very little maintenance and with a 15-20 year refueling interval)

There was an interesting article on this subject in the December Scientific American and wikipedia( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor )has numerous articles, if you want a quick rundown on the operation, advantages and disadvantages of various designs.

Large-scale transition to safe, efficient, modern reactors could break the stanglehold that the #@$&ing oil companies and OPEC (Organized Petroleum Extortion Cartel) have on the energy market and, by extension, on much of the world's economy. Further, introducing smaller, inexpensive, self-contained designs could go a long way toward elevating living standards in much of the developing world.

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[dbIII]

Just build a proper breeder reactor program, you stupid nancies!

You mean like Superphoenix? The simple answer gets complex when it hits reality. Handling hazardous materials by remote control was far more expensive than was expected - which has caused the shutdown of a few fast breeder programs (as well as polical pressure from the USA in the case of the Japanese program).

Makes sense

[lilmouse]

This fits in with Bush's disregard for the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are), and even demonstrates he has a basic understanding that oil won't last forever. Of course, conservation would never cross his mind - we must find a way to consume more :-/ Sorry - too easy to rant here!

It does a lot of things:

1. We have control over all this wonderful nuclear stuff.

2. Encourages more Nuculear power.

3. Reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

4. Hey - we're recyling!

--LWM

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are)

I don't think anybody argues that nuclear power isn't dangerous. Only that modern nuclear power technologies are less dangerous than our current fuel of choice: Coal.

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

This fits in with Bush's disregard for the dangers of Nuclear Power (which are there, however big one thinks they are)

This fits with the man-on-the-street's poor understanding of nuclear dangers (of which they are overstated, no matter which way you try to twist it), and even demonstrates that the parent poster has been watching too many movies.

The truth of the matter is simple: Nuclear power is one of the safest options on the planet. Coal (of which America burns a LOT of) spews radioactive nuclear contamination all across our cities and country-side, yet everyone is worried about the tiny amounts of nuclear waste which are (all things considered) quite safe. The problem is that the media has played up the whole "Radiation == EVIL" to such a degree that the populace is scared stiff at the very idea. If they had it their way, nuclear materials wouldn't even be kept on this planet.

Yet these same materials happen to exist in your backyard, your body, your car, your house, and millions of other locations all around you! As long as the spent materials are kept in properly shielded containers, there is no danger. Even if you're standing right next to it.

But what of the waste that will last millions of years? All that's needed there is a bit of common sense. If the material is going to be radioactive for millions of years, then it can't be very radioactive to begin with, can it? If it WAS highly radioactive, then it would convert all its mass to radiation in a very short period of time.

So I personally think Bush is on the right track here. The previous non-proliferation attempts were poorly conceived and implemented. If Bush can change that around, then I salute his attempts.

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

Reason? Bush is an asshole.

Seems to me more that he is being practical instead of making emotional decisions. Almost universally, people who oppose nuclear power don't understand the tradeoffs, or refuse to believe the reality.

Surely we need to conserve, but that only gets us so far. Nuclear fission is currently safer and far cleaner than what we use now (coal), plentiful enough to reduce our oil consumption while we figure out practical alternatives, and capable of providing us with enough power to transition to renewable sources without reduced economic output of quality of life.

We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president: We can continue to pollute and rely on foreign sources for energy with increasing competition from Asia. We can cut energy consumption to the point where our GDP is reduced, jobs are lost, and people's lifestyles are altered. Or, we can build nuclear power plants, reducing coal emissions, generating hydrogen to ease off oil consumption, and grow economically. Not only that, but it's stupid to let the highly radioactive waste products of older reactors just sit around. We're not going to build bombs with the output, so why not generate more electricity with it instead of burying it in the desert (which the people who oppose reprocessing oppose as well).

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, conservation would never cross his mind - we must find a way to consume more :-/ Sorry - too easy to rant here!

Of course, everyone always talks about conservation. However, I say it starts with an individual. You can be pro energy conversation, but if YOU don't put in the effort, why would you expect anyone else to?

Conservation policies pushed by governments are usually wasteful and are more problematic. It takes more enegy and money to recycle almost everything than to make/harvest it again.

Recycling subsidies don't work.. They are wasteful. The only recycling program that pays for itself is aluminum cans. People will pay you for those. Everything else, is a failure

Re:Makes sense

[Savantissimo]

This unilateral abandonment of primarily peaceful use of nuclear reprocessing was never a long-term strategy, and it created loads of radioactive "waste" which, except for a government label could be reprocessed into fuel. Further, if we'll do the reprocessing for other countries, ans sell reactor-grade rather than weapons-grade material, they will have no reason to have such facilities themselves except to make weapons. That should make things clearer in the UN.

Re:Makes sense

[LordVader717]

It's not a problem of putting out radioactive material into the environment so much as the dangers involved with storing and handling the highly-concentrated stuff we get from nucear power.
If you can be sure that the waste will be stored with care at proper facilities with no leakage problems, then there's not much of a problem.
But as long as there are kilograms of waste "disappearing" from these facilities all the time, I'd opt for coal anyday.

Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

Re:Makes sense

[BitGeek]

Conservation is evil. Efficiency is good. You want to make your process more efficient, great.

If you want to say that I can't be allowed to buy the power I need to do what I want, then you are denying me the most basic right in existance.

If someting is rare, then let the market determine its price. Market forces will cause people to find alternatives.

Conservation-- government mandated rationing-- causes people who could even afford the high price (Because the benefit to society is so great) to be denied the opportunity to provide it.

Conservation is bad for society. Energy is the currency and the source of growth, and growth is the ONLY way to improve the standard of living.

Conservation is the path to soviet russia style living.

Re:Makes sense

[sacdelta]

One big problem with radioactivity is that people can't see it. That makes it scary. Coal might be worse for us, but people can see it and the smoke that it produces. Also, coal has been around a lot longer, people are used to it. Most people understand the basic idea of coal. You burn it. Just like wood. It's something they can do themselves. Nuclear power requires people with PhDs. While it may be an evil, it's a familiar evil. People fear change and people fear those things they cannot see or understand.

Plus add the association with nuclear weapons. While is may be safer overall, if something goes wrong it affects a large area. It's similar to airplanes vs. cars. While air travel is statistically safer, people are more scared of it partially because it takes out more people all at once.

Air disasters also get more news coverage than auto accidents. Similarly, the news rarely covers ongoing coal fires but any little thing happens at a nuclear power plant and it goes on for weeks.

Things like this add to the overall attitude against nuclear power.

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident would have huge impact and could make huge areas uninhabitable for decades.

Like what various purely chemical disasters have done? All of the various superfund sites?

Truth is, nuclear power would need several accidents on that scale to even catch up with coal.

"What if" is generally all I hear out of those who oppose nuclear power. My first thought is generally "Stop being a luddite and examine the evidence".

For example, look at Bush's decision. We're going to spend some money, and rather than mine more radioactive materials, we're going to take it out of the storage pools and recycle it into more fuel, thus reducing the amount of hazardous stuff around. And we get nice clean power out of it!

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Although it is safe in normal operation, things can always go wrong, and they do. Even if the risks are small, a largescale accident could wipe out populations and make huge areas uninhanitable for decades.

While I agree with the latter part of your argument, the former part is incorrect. The worst nuclear accident in history (Chernobyl) failed to "wipe out" even the population of the local city. A total of 56 people have died to date, with an expected final death rate of 4,000 due to Chernobyl-related illnesses. There were about 1,800 documented cases of Thyroid cancer from the event. FAQ/Findings

Current radiation levels are actually lower than the natural background levels for areas like Norway. However, the higher content of radioisotopes in the soil makes it unwise to live there. Despite this, many residents have moved back into the area.

The Chernobyl event is quite comparable to the 5-day, 1952 London incident where 3,000 people died from coal pollution.

The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.

It's not the radiation you should be concerned about. It's breathing the radioisotopes into your lungs and blood stream. Once there, the radioisotopes have a chance to do the MOST damage by hitting the soft tissues with direct doses of radiation. Normally your skin provides a great deal of protection, but large internal doses tend to circumvent that protection.

But the way it's handled is what makes nuclear power so dangerous, and that's the reason so many people oppose it.

The way it's handled is what makes coal so dangerous. That's the reason why so many people should be opposed to it.

From the University of Michigan: "Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning."

I think the results are clear. Coal is FAR more dangerous than nuclear.

Re:Makes sense

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

We have three choices essentially, and the best scientists and engineers in the world are explaining this to the president:

You obviously haven't been paying attention to Bush's appointments to science related positions. Bush has the best lobbyists and old friends explaining it to him.

Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[aelbric]

It is about high time countries started giving serious attention to nuclear energy as an option and the research required to make it safe and effective. I have never been a very strong believer in human-caused global warming. I believe something is happening but was skeptical about us being major contributors.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it is January 26 in Detroit and there still hasn't been a single piece of ice in the river. Something is up. Moving from fossil fuels to nuclear may not fix the problem long-term, but it definitely won't make it any worse.

Get us over to a nuclear/renewables/hydrogen economy and another side benefit would be no one giving a crap about how much oil is in the middle-East.

Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[harlequin516]

Meanwhile Iran is forbidden by the USA to even talk about doing similar. I'm tired of the hypocracy. Give every nation control over their own destinies. This administration's policies are just plain ridiculous. I'm not sure why exactly the rest of the world hasn't stepped in to claim that the current administration is as evil as the Nazi Party was during Hitler's reign. I say if Saddam Hussain had just threated to use a nuke we'd not be in this mess. I'm with the NRA on this one... If you arm everyone there would be less crime.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

I agree with you completely on the point of hypocrasy.

Let's see how the U.S. stacks up to the rest of the world with regard to nukes:

1. The U.S. has more nukes than anyone else on the planet. Check.

2. The U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons. Check.

3. Not only that, we used them on an entirely civilian population. Check.

4. As recently at 2 years ago the U.S. was still trying to develop nuclear weapons (nuclear bunker busters). Check.

So, given those points, what gives the U.S. any right to tell the rest of the world what they can and can't do with nuclear weapons?

That's not to say that Iran et al should just have free reign to do whatever they want, but every country on the planet should play by the exact same rules when it comes to nuclear technology. Including the U.S.

The nuclear double standard is a breeding ground for hatred and animosity towards the U.S., and we don't need anymore of that these days...

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[twoallbeefpatties]

Mod parent down for near flamebait, maybe, but he's got a point. Right now, the administration is trying very hard to persuade European countries to sign on on keeping Iran at an embargo over its nuclear production capabilities. I'm not going to violate Godwin's Law like the OP just yet, but certainly this announcement could stir up sentiment further against the U.S. in a region of the world where we're trying to "win over hearts and minds." I'm not personally afraid of nuclear power, at least not in comparison to other power sources, but I'm not sure that this is the right time to be pursuing additional nuclear facilities when there are parts of the world that want us to let them do the same.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DurendalMac]

Ugh, the usual bullshit again. Allow me to elaborate:

1. Yep, we do. It comes from being the first to have them and the arms race between the USSR. We don't have as many as we used to, though. The number is dropping.

2 & 3. Try to find anyone that's proud of it. However, in the big picture, the bombs, horrid as they were, stopped the war short of an outright invasion that would have resulted in far, far greater casualties on both sides. Japan was going kamikaze left and right and almost didn't surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

4. Yep, they were talking about it, and that's as far as it went. Modern technology and materials means "safer" mini-nukes, but they never materialized, which is probably a good thing. A lot of stuff gets discussed and dropped when it comes to military weaponry.

You know what the most telling thing is? After WW2 ended, we were the only ones with nukes. We could have held the whole damn world hostage if we'd wanted to. We could have run right into Russia and nuked Moscow, and they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. But we didn't, and we have never used a nuke since. I think that gives the US a little credit, don't you?

And the US isn't a fundie Islamic state (no crap about Bush, he's a twit, but he's nowhere near as bad as Iran) hellbent on wiping another country off the map. The US has checks and balances to prevent the use of a nuke. Iran could lob one and tell the people that it was the will of Allah. Should Kim Jong Il have nukes as well? You can't measure all countries by the same standard. We have multiple elected branches in the States to balance each other out. Iran and Korea are dictatorships with maniacs at the helm.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

1. So my initial statement was exactly true.

2 & 3. Whether the nukes were needed is a matter of opinion and speculation. Personally I think the evidence says they weren't needed, but that changes nothing and is still just an opionion. There is no reason to discuss these points further. My original statements are still exactly true.

4. The ONLY reason we don't have nuclear bunker busters being used in Iraq right now is because there is still enough collective brain power in congress to keep Bush and his chosen idiots in check. Period. So yes, the checks and balances worked. But that doesn't mean our wanna-be dictator is any less dangerous than Iran's dictator.

However, NONE of what you said explains why the same rules that apply to them shouldn't apply to us. Yes, Iran and North Korea are dangerous now and would be more so with nukes. We are clearly more dangerous with a nuclear aresenal as well.

The fact of that matter is, no country needs nuclear weapons, and almost every country need nuclear power.

It is ludicrous for the U.S. to play Nuclear Police and thumb its nose at the rest of the world when it serves no ones purpose but ours, and in the long run is bad for us, not good.

It would be far better, in every way, for there to be a governing body (yes, it would probably need to run by the U.N., as much as I dislike the U.N.) and for there to be a specific set of guidelines governing the development and use of nuclear energy, and the complete removal from the planet of nuclear weapons.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[MightyYar]

Take a deep breath and read what you typed. Forget the US for a moment - is it in the world's best interest for Iran or North Korea to be nuclear armed? Do you really want Iran to be nuclear armed just so the US does not appear to be "hypocritical"?

Now lets get back to the US... Iran and North Korea are working to build nuclear weapons, while the US is actively reducing the number of weapons it possesses. Will you at least give the US credit for moving in the proper direction? Past actions of a state, unlike an individual, should not make it hypocritical. For instance, the US once had slavery. The people involved with that have been dead for 100 years, and I see nothing hypocritical about the US opposing slavery. Likewise, everyone involved with the decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan is dead - it is hard to hold the current US administration responsible for that!

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

I didn't say that Iran and North Korea ~should~ have nuclear weapons. I believe that they shouldn't (and neither should anyone else).

But the same rules that apply to them should apply to everyone.

It's not just nuclear weapons that are affected. We are telling them they can't have anything nuclear in any way, shape, or form.

Policies should be put in place that govern the safe use of nuclear technology in EVERY country. That way we can tell countries "Play by the rules or not at all" instead of "You can't play, period".

I have an idea!

[ivan256]

Let's not have rational debate and instead make fun of somebody's accent!

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is it that we're allowed to enrich nuclear fuel for supposed power generation but the Iranians aren't?

Remember, the US is the ONLY country to have a track record of using nuclear weapons against civilian targets in war.

Re:Wait...

[IvyKing]

Remember, the US is the ONLY country to have a track record of using nuclear weapons against civilian targets in war.

Ask the Chinese about how nicely the Japanese treated civilians in Nanking in 1938.

Ask the POW's who weren't executed by the Japanese how they were treated in captivity.

FWIW, the Japanese were preparing to use bubonic plague infested fleas in 1944 - fortunately for the Japanese the submarine carrying the fleas was sunk - had the Japanese used those fleas as intended the US would likely have retaliated with massive uses of chemical and biological weapons.

One more thing - was being the target of a nuke all that much worse than being a target of a fire-bombing raid (think Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo...)??

Energy Needs

[jgardn]

I don't think your criticism of Bush's policy of expanding America's energy production are completely valid. President Bush has supported measures to reduce the energy needs of America through conservation and efficiency. He admits that that alone is not enough, however.

As a trained physicist, I learned that there is one universal currency: energy. In fact, it can be said that energy is the only thing of value to us. One of our jobs as a trained physicist is to discover new and better ways of accessing the vast resources of energy available in the universe and provide that to the masses. With energy safely harnessed, the imagination is the boundary of possibilities.

What would you be able to do if you could get gigawatts of electricity for pennies? What would you do if you had access to safe chemicals that had energy outputs similar to rocket fuel? I can barely imagine it. What if we could access this kind of energy safely, in an environmentally friendly way? Would you do it? Of course.

I don't think all the advances of the past century would've been possible without the efficient production and distribution of energy at the scale we had. We couldn't have a cost-effective aluminum industry without tremendous amounts of electricity to power the chemical refinement process. We couldn't build airplanes to travel across the continents without jet fuel and the machines that can turn it into thrust. We wouldn't have a lot of the modern conveniences and even necessities without all the energy we have available to us.

I hope the next century sees America and the rest of the world producing several orders of magnitude more energy and using it efficiently for new things we can barely imagine today. President Bush is right to explore all --- and he is exploring all --- viable sources of energy.

Re:For the record

[AKAImBatman]

I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard

No, but there's plenty of Uranium. Plutonium should be burned up rather than stored as waste.

It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of

Bullshit. It doesn't rate even close. Let me ask you, which would you rather ingest: 20 grams of caffine or 20 grams of plutonium?

If you value your life, you'll go for the plutonium.

What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.

Safe from what? Your overactive imagination about glowing mutant babies? Most of the stuff they (will) stick in Yucca Mountain isn't even dangerous enough to shield against. Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so. (Which will stay in cooling pools until it cools off anyway.) The only real danger posed by the spent fuel is if it makes its way into the water table. That could cause an increase (not an epidemic, mind you, an increase) in the cancer rates.

If you have a SPECIFIC concern, please share it with us and I'll be happy to refute it. Otherwise stop watching so many bad movies.

Re:White House

[Martin Blank]

Term limits aren't always that cool. The California legislature has become an even worse place for actual business to be conducted since we (including my vote in favor) brought term limits to its members. Unfortunately, instead of doing things to stay in power for 20 years, they now do things to set themselves up to make the jump from one house to the other, and then a move into a senior elected or appointed position. It's become a pool of kindergartners -- and like such a pool, there are things in the water you just don't want to touch.

At one time, I was very much in favor of term limits, but now I approach them with a great deal more caution.