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

White House

[lawrenqj]

I still like the idea of burying it under the white house...

Re:White House

[Spy der Mann]

I still like the idea of burying it under the white house..

No way! Can you imagine what will happen if we get a radioactivity-fed BushZilla? :-S

Re:White House

[oliana]

Nah, under the congress. The White House already has term limits.

Re:White House

[Oldsmobile]

I think they have it worked out already:

1. Start war with foreign country
2. Go to said country
3. Destroy everything with depleted uranium rounds
4. Go to 1.

Re:White House

[Deliveranc3]

Not a bad idea, this would enforce the 2 term limit.

No more dictators in the white house...

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.

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!

[argosian]

Oops
I tend to think much faster than I type and forget to include the whole thought process sometimes...such as how safe, clean, inexpensive and efficient power generation leads to cheap hydrogen production, which leads to hydrogen burning engines, which leads to less dependance on petroleum for power, which is how OPEC and big oil either get into other markets or find themselves pushed out of the picture.

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[Acer500]

Damn, beat me to the punch (and to the wikipedia link, was to be MY karma whoring :-P ). Well, on to the point:

It is interesting to note that recycling nuclear fuel, while increasing the points of failure (that is, relatively increased), does reduce nuclear waste dramatically, as an IAEA scientist explained to me.

This publicly available PDF from the IAEA offers an in-depth (maybe too in-depth) view of the progress so far in recycling, and its benefits, up to the 4th generation systems that will form a closed-cycle with full actinide recycling http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2004 /gcsfSess2-Bernard.pdf

Notable point: "drastic minimization of ultimate waste :

- Very small volumes,
- Decrease the heat loading
- hundreds of years versus hundreds of thousands"

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).

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[iq in binary]

There are other issues to consider as well. Think the "Big One" scenario.

The way things are now, mankind is SCREWED if society collapses in any way, shape or form. WW3, aftermath; everything's gone to hell in a handbasket and the people left are trying to put the pieces back together. Problem, no way to resurrect infrastructure. Energy is provided via a very complicated, specialized process, maybe only %.5 of the population is able to facilitate it. After swimming out of arizona bay, there's no power to keep you warm; what for lack of coal supply chains and personnel able to run the plant. Wouldn't be the case with advanced nuclear power, turn-key operated reactors would be infinitely easy to get up and running and *keep* running until more personnel can be trained to handle it.

Nuclear energy is a good way to go in regards to keeping mankind alive in a near-extinction scenario. Now if we could come up with an easily maintained method of transportation.........

Re:stop worrying and learn to love plutonium!

[adpowers]

Now if we could come up with an easily maintained method of transportation.........

The bicycle is easy to maintain.

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

[Kelson]

As if we don't have enough ways to get weapons-grade material already?

I'm not a fan of Bush either, but the main concern here isn't that we'll make weapons-grade nucelar material -- we have plenty of that -- it's that other countries who don't have nuclear weapons yet will say, "Oh, yeah, we're just recycling the same as you are" and secretly build up a stash of material to start their own weapons program.

It's not about what Bush and/or the US will do. It's about minimizing nuclear proliferation, i.e. minimizing the number of factions (countries, in general) that are armed with nuclear weapons.

Re:Makes sense

[Acy James Stapp]

Hell Yeah. Coal puts far more radioactives *into the air* than nuclear produces in a compact, easily stored form. Americans living near coal plants are exposed to *more* radiation than those living near nuclear plants. For a good summary, see
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

Acy

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

[Valdrax]

You're forgetting the reprocessing is a great way to harvest fuel for nuclear weapons (in particular plutonium).

Also, while it does stretch our supplies of fissile materials, it produces a hell of a lot of radioactive, liquid, toxic waste that has to be stored until its safe to solidy and bury. There have been large leaks and spills of this material before.

Nuclear reprocessing in its current form is a bad idea and makes it harder to discourage in other states. Then again, it goes along great with the current President's "Do as I say, not as I do" foreign policy.

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Seems to me more that [Bush] is being practical instead of making emotional decisions.

I think the grandparent was trying to be sarcastic toward the great-grandparent's post. i.e. He agrees with you.

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

[RingDev]

Not quite. The US has coal. we have lots of coal. we have an ubsurdly large amount of coal. we have enough coal to not have to worry about centralized generation supplies, ever.

We even have technology (gasification, scrubbers, etc...) to make coal burning pass Kyoto.

Nuclear on the other hand, has some issue that have been glossed over. First off, spent fuel storage. This program would actually reduce that problem, so I think it's a great idea. Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures. Third, existing Nuclear power plants are heavily susidized by the government, which means the power they generate is not as cheap per kW as they claim.

I'm not saying Coal is perfect either, it is still significantly more dirty (even with gasification), it takes huge tracks of land to mine coal, and is getting more expensive as requirements to cut emissions and mercury are being increased.

Me, I like nuclear, but our current system is an accident waiting to happen. We should take after the French [shudder] and design the nuclear infrastructure of our country with safety and security in mind.

-Rick

Re:Makes sense

[cmowire]

Not necessarily.

Encouraging other countries to send us their nuclear waste is a great way to reduce proliferation.

See, if you run a nuclear reactor rod through the normal power-generating fuel cycle, by the time you reprocess it, you will have plutonium that's so contaminated with Pu-240 that you cannot use it in nuclear warheads.

Remember, enrichment seperates U-235 from U-238. That's easy -- three atomic numbers apart. Seperating Pu-239 and Pu-240 is hard because that's one atomic nubmer apart.

If you want to get bomb grade plutonium out of a reactor, you need to have each rod in the reactor for only a month or two and then reprocess it, to reduce the percentage of Pu-240.

The problem is, our current model, which is that we don't reprocess fuel and try to get other countries to not reprocess fuel, hasn't worked out so well. Iran, North Korea, and plenty of other countries have their own reprocessing plants for their nuclear power program. We should have just offered to reprocess their rods, free of charge, all along.

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Second, corrupt, incompotence, and lack of over sight. Check out the nuclear energy system in France. It's heavily governed, has strict regulation, design requirements, etc... In the US we have reactors that are in use beyond their expected life, storing significantly more spent fuel then designed, cutting corners on down time, bribing inspectors, and of all different designs and natures.

In analyzing this point, it's very important to ask the question, "Why is the system this way?" The answer is quite simple: Almost no nuclear reactors have been built since the 80's. The last one was made operational in 1996, ten years ago. This situation is caused by the politcial football that Nuclear Power has become. Any new nuclear plants must face thousands of regulatory issues, environmentalist protests, impact statements, and political resistance. The resistance is so high to opening new plants, that the cost and time required to open a new plant makes it impossible.

Meanwhile, plant operators struggle to keep their existing plants online well past their expected lifetimes. Nuclear Plants continue to close left and right, and it is only slightly less problematic to replace them with dirty coal fired plants. One way or another energy producers are losing. Demand continues to rise while generating capacity lags behind. Someone has GOT to shove through the cruft and make it profitable again to open power plants. Unless that happens, Americans will not see any new nuclear power, especially not safe nuclear power.

Re:Makes sense

[AKAImBatman]

Don't forget that as a bonus, more PU-238 becomes available for use in Space Probes and other radioisotope thermal generator applications. Once the Pu-239 is burned up in the reactors, the remaining Tritium, Strontium, Cesium, Americanium, and other materials can then be divied up and resold for medical and industrial use.

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

We even have technology (gasification, scrubbers, etc...) to make coal burning pass Kyoto.

None of that technology would change the fact that half of our carbon gas emissions come from burning coal. Which would you rather get rid of, cars and trucking, making a 20something% dent in our emissions, or coal, getting rid of 50% of our emissions?

Not only that, but it's still unsafe. There have been more deaths by coal mine accident than nuclear power accident by far.

We should take after the French [shudder] and design the nuclear infrastructure of our country with safety and security in mind.

I completely agree. Though South Africa has some interesting technology going too.

Re:Makes sense

[ivan256]

India and Pakistan are on the verge

Actually, both countries have performed successful tests. I'm not sure how you get to eight without counting those two... Even then I still only count seven...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_wit h_nuclear_weapons

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

[LordVader717]

I just posted a similar comment up above, but just for the sake of it:

Nuclear power is potentially very safe, just as it's potentially very dangerous. Depending on how carefully you store it, and use it.

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.

The differnce to coal is that you've got highly concentrated radioactive waste, which you want to store in one place. Even if you don't mean it to go anywhere, it's just sitting there posing a potential hazard.

The radiation released by coal is not that significant, and blends into background levels.
And I agree with you that there is alot of misinformation about radioactivity. People don't realise just how radioactive volcanoes are, for example.

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

Re:Makes sense

[josecanuc]

Remember, enrichment seperates U-235 from U-238. That's easy -- three atomic numbers apart. Seperating Pu-239 and Pu-240 is hard because that's one atomic nubmer apart.

Those aren't the atomic numbers, they're the atomic weights. U has an atomic number of 92, Pu is 94.

You're correct, though, that the difficulty in separating isotopes of the same element (same atomic number, different weight) increases with decreasing atomic weight differences. It's like buoyancy: oil and vinegar separate more readily than vinegar and water because the densities of oil and vinegar are more different than the densities of vinegar and water.

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

[johndeerejedi]

Not only that, but if they are using the reprocessing technology I think they are, they will be reducing dangerous nuclear waste in the process. The Dec 2005 issue of Sci Am discussed a fast reactor type similar to what is alluded to in the article linked to the main article. This reactor would "burn" all the Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium, leaving waste that only lasts about 300 years instead of 10s of thousands of years, like trace Plutonium left in today's reactor products. Imagine, disposing of nuclear waste that you don't have to worry about outliving civilization.

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

Maybe this sounds wierd to people, but what about oxygen depletion if we keep burning coal and just burying the CO2?

I remember reading somewhere that oxygen levels are measurably lower now than they were a hundred years ago.

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

[multiplexo]

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

Hey, why don't you practice what you preach and conserve energy by turning your computer off?

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

And I replied to your post up above, and I will do so again.

Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.

Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.

Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors:
1. Dangerous experimental design

• it's RBMK design had a positive void coefficient, and quite a high one. US reactors, other than some small early test reactors are not allowed to have this. In US reactors are designed so that the loss of cooling results in the reactor shutting down. In the RBMK design, the opposite happened.
  
• It was a weapon reactor, power was to be a side benefit

2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences.
3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems.
4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.

More at Wikipedia

Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.

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

[LordKazan]

agree with everything you said

here is a good example of an excellent reactor design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

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.

Re:Makes sense

[name773]

well the shipping is expensive and leaves the possibility of accidents during transport. nations other than the u.s. will probably start building their own breeder reactors too.

Re:Makes sense

[name773]

and, oddly enough, coal plants release more radiation in their operating vicinity than nuclear plants, due to the bits of radioactive material in the mined coal that are not filtered for.

Re:Makes sense

[drinkypoo]

And besides that, the radioactive material we spew into the air, if used as nuclear fuel, would actually provide more energy output than burning the coal! It's all bad.

Re:Makes sense

[name773]

or we could just plant more plants/trees/shrubs/etc. to convert the CO2 back into O2. they also look nice

Re:Makes sense

[drinkypoo]

We're killing the oceans. Even if you don't like seafood you should be concerned, because oceanic algae is the single largest contributor to oxygen levels. The rainforests, all put together, don't even begin to come close, because decomposition takes oxygen and the rainforests grow super fast, then fall down super fast (well, trees and other plants in them do anyway, they have much shorter lifetimes than your average european or north american forest-dwelling plants) and decompose. This enriches the soil, because some of the plants fix valuable nutrients.

And, if you're wondering why we care about them, rainforests act as filters (all that activity means there's more plant respiration per square foot there than in any other land-based environment) and they also help cool the globe. Plus, if you slash and burn, and then grow crops or graze food animals on the land, then you're depleting the topsoil which will eventually blow away after depletion and uncovering (and plowing) and leave us with desert where the rainforest used to be. This happened a whole lot in Egypt...

Re:Makes sense

[name773]

i think that also has something to do with solubility (the oil/vinegar/water)

Re:Makes sense

[WindBourne]

The hallmark of the Carter administration.

Amazing the amount of ignorance that prevades here. Carter was busy pushing nukes back then. He did oppose breeder for power, but was never opposed to further studying of them.

In fact, under Carter, he started our drive towards alternatives AND helped push towards LWR, which he believed were safe options. Considering that Mr. Carter IS a nuclear engineer, I think that he had a better understanding of the technology back in the 60's/70's, then all most poster here have today.

Too be honest, if we had stayed on the course, our economy would be heavily invested into Nukes and alternative energy. The problem is that reagan backed out of support for alternatives and nukes (but not necessarily to oil), bush and clinton did nothing to move our society towards non-oil, and GWB helped push us back to it.

Re:Makes sense

[amliebsch]

So Coal does not produce as much radioactive waste as Nuclear

The claim is not that coal produces more radioactive waste, it is that it disperses more radioactive materials into its environment. Considering that virtually 100% of the spent fuel from a reactor is retained in solid form and carefully contained, and that the majority of coal wastes are spewed into the air, I'd say the claim still holds.

Re:Makes sense

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Even if you don't mean it to go anywhere, it's just sitting there posing a potential hazard.

Hrm... which would you rather take? The potential hazard posed by nuclear disasters which very rarely become actual, or the actual, real hazards created by coal plants?

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Re:Makes sense

[whit3]

This argument, "one big problem with radioactivity is that people can't see it"
is insidious and evil. It's the sort of fall-back statement that CAN NEVER BE
COUNTERED, but has no other merit, logically, whatsoever.

It's like the old story of an argument between a white politician and a black one,

Bystander to reporter: "What's happening?"

Reporter to bystander: "He's still black."

It is evil to think energy policy depends on the limitations of human sight and taste
as applied to sensing radioactivity, just as it is evil to think a politician is
at fault for his race (or any other non-negotiable accident of birth).
Both arguments are flawed in the same way, and both do clarity an injustice.

For a good (though depressing) treatment on the subject at length, check
out _The_Fight_Over_Nuclear_Power_ by Fred Schmidt et al. The foreword is VERY
insightful.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=8&q=http://ww w.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0878430024&e=9797

Re:Makes sense

[dbIII]

Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear.

As distinct from a background of judging horses.

Re:Makes sense

[StikyPad]

Well, one of the other problems is concentration. Coal may do a small amount of damage on a global scale, but a nuclear accident would do a large amount of damage on a local scale. Overall, the effects may be less damaging to the environment, but that doesn't help the people who are affected locally. And people in general will always extrapolate large local damage to be large overall damage. IE (no disrespect to the victims), twin towers disaster = we're all gonna die.

But that view isn't entirely without merit. A small change on a global scale can be less damaging than the equivelant cumulative change in one region. Sort of like a bed of nails.

I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but Murphey's Law is a bitch.

Re:Makes sense

[SEWilco]

How does the US running a breeder affect what other governments do? Or rather, how does the US not doing something stop other countries from enriching nuclear material?

Re:Makes sense

[michael_cain]

Not quite. The US has coal. we have lots of coal. we have an ubsurdly large amount of coal. we have enough coal to not have to worry about centralized generation supplies, ever.

If you use EIA figures from 2000 for US coal reserves and rate of consumption, the reserves were sufficient for 255 years -- not forever, but a long time. We get about 25% of our total energy use from coal today; assume that we double our demand due to growth, CTL for transportation fuel, etc; so call it enough coal for 125 years. Now apply what we know about producing mineral resources. We dig up the easy stuff first, then we get around to the less convenient bits. It's too deep, it's out of the way, it's lower-quality fuel, and so on. We've already dug up a considerable amount of the easy high-quality coal. Consistently, over a wide range of resources, a good rule of thumb is that the extraction rate will "peak" when just about half of the resource has been extracted. Applying that rule, and making educated guesses about how fast demand will increase and peak coal production appears to fall somewhere between 2040 and 2060, more likely sooner rather than later. So you get to 40 years from now and coal production starts to fall. Still lots of coal left in the ground, you just can't dig it up as fast as you might like. If it happens in 40 years, I just might live to see it.

Re:Makes sense

[name773]

from what i had read here earlier, i got the idea that the u.s. was trying to discourage other nations from starting breeder reactors to limit proliferation of weapons grade fuel. if the u.s. starts their own breeder reactor, it will be much more difficult to discourage other countries from doing so

Re:Makes sense

[Firethorn]

I tried to reply earlier, but lost my post to a 500 error.

Of the two major meltdown accidents, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl, but involved crews mostly experienced with coal power. This is fine for dealing with the steam side of the house, but in 3MI they didn't realize the importance of maintaining cooling flow to the reactor. They starved the reactor of water, which then started to boil, forming voids and hydrogen gas.

The accident did spur a requirement for another level of security. It relives me to know that, even in a chernyobl full meltdown situation that radiation would have been far more contained at 3MI, because of the extra containment structure.

Re:Makes sense

[kalayq]

Hydro is great, but it has been implemented in just about all the places it can be. To make more hydro power we need to artificially create more suitable areas. The problem with this is that you have to flood HUGE areas which totally destroys large tracts of forests and wetlands. Here in Canada the last few proposals for new hydro plants do just this, and most of the energy they want to produce is meant to be exported to the U.S anyways.

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.

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[Eightyford]

Actually, this thing here heats up the river a little bit!

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Indeed. In fact, if a solution could be found to protecting reactors against high-seas piracy, I'd love to see our merchant ships switch over from fossil fuels. I mean, these big suckers burn through gallons of fuel per foot, and burn some of the dirtiest crap left over from the petroleum distillation processes. In addition, these fuels take up a significant chunk of the ships' cargo capacity, meaning that more trips are needed to carry the same amount of cargo as a nuclear powered ship. This also means that the ships can be made safer as they won't rise in the water so high as they burn through the fuel. Rather, they'll stay at the same low-level throughout their entire trip, ensuring that the ship is kept stable even in poor weather.

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[porcupine8]

You've got to be kidding. I live in Ann Arbor, and there has been ice and snow all over the place since late November/early December. Not constantly, but most days. I even have whiplash from falling on the ice the other day.

Maybe it's not global warming, but pollutants in the river that are keeping it from icing?

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[aelbric]

Well, it's definitely more than the river. I don't know how Ann Arbor could be so different, but there hasn't been a snowflake on the ground anywhere in Metro Detroit in weeks. In fact, I think since the beginning of the year, I've worn a jacket to work twice. Definitely uncharacteristic of Michigan in January.

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[RingDev]

Global warming is having a very minor effect on local environment(what, 1 degree C over 10 years?). Not enough to keep your river from freezing. What is more likely is that the air/water currents are changing and the jet stream is coming south from canada further east, leaving michigan is the duldrums or being heated by southern air.

-Rick

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[Ironsides]

This also means that the ships can be made safer as they won't rise in the water so high as they burn through the fuel. Rather, they'll stay at the same low-level throughout their entire trip, ensuring that the ship is kept stable even in poor weather.

Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water. This is partly why an oil tanker doesn't bob like a top when crossing the ocean empty.

As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this. I think that the next gen (and possibly the current gen) are just as large as the current class of nuclear supercarriers. So, it would help. The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire. The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[porcupine8]

Wow, that's odd. It's snowed several days this week here, although it's supposed to be in the 40s tomorrow and Saturday. Uh... Lake effect?

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[aelbric]

Well, I'm definitely not a climatologist so I will concede your point makes sense. My support for this still stands though, the nuclear/renewable/hydrogen power combo is better than coal/oil no matter how you slice it. Is it without costs/problems? Of course not. Does it reduce our emissions, encourage energy independence, and eliminate the importance of Middle-Eastern Oil? Without question.

In fact, I'm failing to see the downside.

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[AKAImBatman]

Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water.

Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.

As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.

I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah, a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The ship was part of the Atoms for Peace campaign, and was intended to show off how Nuclear Power could change things forever. Unfortunately, the ship suffered from a few problems:

1) Her streamlined hull (designed more for showcasing purposes than realistic usage) made cargo loading difficult.
2) She needed nuclear facilities all to her own. This added significant expense that could have been marginalized by producing more than one ship.
3) Fuel was extremely cheap when she was constructed. Had the ship remained in service for a few more years, her costs would have been extremely competitive.

If we learn from these experiences, I (and many others) see absolutely no financial or technical reason why nuclear merchant ships cannot again enter service. Especially with the prices of petroleum being as high as they are now. In addition, the Navy's use of nuclear power (as you mentioned) has given us a tremendous amount of experience to draw from.

The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire.

In fact, this has been considered an excellent idea. Most other areas of the service already have this sort of option. For example, Navy pilots often go to work as civilian pilots after they complete their tour. Their experience means that they can command high wages in the civilian market. To date, naval operators are often forced to work as land based nuclear operators if they want the full benefit of their experience, a market that is constantly shrinking. Merchant plants would provide excellent jobs for these operators, as well as reduce the overall costs to merchant fleets.

The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)

Electric drives are actually becoming quite common in the civilian market as well. The Queen Mary 2, for example, went for all-electric propulsors rather than the standard direct drive configuration. This allowed her to mount two directed thrust propulsors in addition to two fixed propulsors.

In any case, multiple screws can provide more maneuverability, but are not an outright requirement. The NS Savannah only had a single screw through which to direct the entirity of her 74MW of power. AFAIK, this was never a major issue. :-)

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[RingDev]

Switching Coal to Nuclear will not have any effect on foreign oil. Switching natural gas to nuclear would help a tad (most replacing golf/central/south american oil). But most of that foreign oil is going into gas tanks, not power generation.

-Rick

Re:Excellent, get us the hell off fossil fuels

[WindBourne]

True, but with nukes, we can do a number of things.

1. Synthasis methane.
2. Go after a high speed maglev (along the lines of our highway system)

Everybody say it with me...

[skraps]

Everybody say it with me... NUKE-U-LER

Mr. Burns

[truthsearch]

Mr. Burns: A lifetime of working with nuclear power has left me with a healthy green glow... and left me as impotent as a Nevada boxing commissioner.

Re:This is very frightening.

[R2.0]

Too bad no one was making this joke decades ago when Carter set policy based on politics - maybe he wouldn't have made such a lame ass decision in the first place, what with all the folks making fun of the way he said "nucular."

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...

[FooAtWFU]

The problem is that when you give "every nation control over their own destinies", you get nations which, say, go off in the corner and say, to use the Nazi reference you brought up, round up Jews and put them in death camps. Or engage in any other of amazing variety of human rights abuses. Or just sit around burning tons of smoggy coal and ruining neighbors' environments. And you will have some nation who thinks its destiny is to go and take over their world (oohheynazis), or their neighbors, and are unwilling to leave those nations to control their own destiny.

The current administration is not evil. It's one thing for you to think of them as stupid, wrong, or misguided, but they're not evil and certainly not as evil as the Nazis; you're only cheapening your own position against them if you start saying they are.

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...

[timster]

You forget that the US is a democracy and democracies never start wars, by definition... at least according to the US government.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

*cough* 2002 *cough*

That's the problem, check your source... at least according to the US government.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[TexVex]

Iran has expressed that they wish to possess nuclear weapons.

You forgot the rest: "...so that they can annihilate Israel."

Say whatever you want about the U.S. and Bush, but we don't have any desire to commit genocide or set a world-destroying nuclear exchange in motion. We aren't insane. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Hitler, folks. If history repeats itself again, we might not survive WW III.

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...

[timster]

Yeah well, according to the US government, that war was started by the terrorists.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[harlequin516]

The choice is basically between suppressing an entire people, or letting them suppress themselves. I'm for the latter, no blood on my hands. Thank You.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

Again with the source.

I think history clearly shows that 9/11 was directly brought about by Al Qaeda and that Iraq and Sadaam had exactly nothing to do with it. I think history also clearly shows Bush and his administration knew this before going to Iraq.

I'm not saying Sadaam didn't have to be removed from power. But saying that has anything to do with 9/11 or was high on the list in the war on terror is just wrong.

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...

[Ironsides]

1) no we don't. Russia still has more nukes than the US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4586829.stm

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...

[amliebsch]

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.

It would also be far better, in every way, for magical unicorns to fly me to a happy candy land where everything is free and dogs never die. But so long as that's not credibly happening in the foreseeable future either, I'll plan accordingly.

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".

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[drinkypoo]

How many of those nukes are still viable? How many functioning delivery systems do they posess? Etc.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[Ironsides]

Who knows? Neither country has tested one for several decades. As is, Russia has about double the number the US does when including the ones in reserves. As to functioning delivery systems, nuclear capable bombers, fighters, ships and subs are operated by both countries.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[MightyYar]

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

Okay, good, I'm glad we agree on THAT.

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.

That is not true! The U.N. (note that this is not only the position of the U.S.) is saying that they cannot enrich uranium. Highly enriched uranium can be used as a bomb fuel. The problem is that the same technology used to make enriched uranium for reactors can be used to make the highly enriched uranium used in bombs. You don't actually need plutonium to make a bomb. The U.S. has repeatedly supported a civilian Iranian nuclear program where the enrichment of the Iranian-mined uranium would take place in Russia. This is why it is so clear that they have weapons ambitions. I mean, why would such an oil-rich state want civilian nuclear reactors? For energy? C'mon...

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 think that the problem here is that you are not actually informed of the issue. No one is trying to prevent Iran from using enriched uranium for research. No one is trying to prevent Iran from building a nuclear power plant for energy (though no one thinks they would actually bother). What everyone is fighting over is the construction of facilities that can enrich uranium - which can be used to make a bomb. A civilian plant or plants would just be cover to explain the enrichment process (and then later they could use them to make plutonium, which is a better bomb material).

There IS a uniform set of rules, called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed by every country on the planet except for Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan. Iran and North Korea both signed it, and both are violating it. Notably, North Korea - who signed in 1985 - re-affirmed their commitment to the treaty in 1994, and then started violating it again! There are "bad guys" here, and they run Iran.

The U.S. and Russia current have the largest nuclear arsenal, by far. However, both sides are steadily reducing the stockpile - by about 3000-4000 over 10 years. Presumably, this will continue after the current treaty is fully implemented. I don't that it is realistic to expect Russia, the U.S., India, Pakistan, etc, etc to fully disarm anytime soon, but it is worth noting that the U.S. and Russia are currently the only nuclear powers actively reducing their arsenal (if also improving it).

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[Jumperalex]

Too bad you have this only half right ... the COMPLETE statement is:

Democracies do not start wars WITH EACH OTHER. And so far history has born that out.

And that is not just the US government saying it, it is pretty much the opinion of every political science expert.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[DigitalRaptor]

I'm familiar with the NPT, it's the same treaty that Bush thumbed his nose at for 2 years while trying to get nuclear, excuse me, "nucular" bunker busters in the name of the are on terror.

We'll just agree to disagree. Good day.

Re:Iran Forbidden to do the same...

[iq in binary]

I'd mod you insightful if you weren't a moron.

Let's start off by getting one thing out of the way: I would love nothing more than to turn that monkey of a president we have into a red stain in the wall behind him, but I'm intelligent enough to know that would do more harm than good. I hate the war in Iraq, the pipelines in Afghanistan, the people we trained running all around Mexico, Morocco, UAE and London; after Russia's foray into the middle east failed. I hate the fact that good Marines and sappy-ass Army Reservists are dying for a cause they don't feel too strongly about, that my tax dollars are paying for roughly 1,200 Americans a year to die bloody or painful deaths; but that's reality.

Now let's get another thing out of the way. We are the top dog. This country is king. As such we are exposed to greater threat and even more animosity than the rest. Iran is one of those rabid dogs you shoot on sight. Problem is, we can't justify it until we see them frothing at the mouth. Put it this way, it's a people most proud of a heritage, a heritage that just happens to be one of the bloodiest and most violent peoples ever the walk the earth. We're talking about the Persians, people. The very same that wooped some crusading ass, invented the best steel of it's time strictly for the purpose of cleanly taking off spaulded arms, and currently talks of armageddon and ruling the earth. Yeah, the next door neighbor you always see polishing his rifle and drinking a beer. Scary. Do you want that crazy, eccentric, opinionated biggot with a nuclear weapon? Hell no.

Not the same

[Erioll]

This is taking stuff that would basically have to be stored as pure waste a purpose once again.

Iran wants to enrich the stuff in the first place to create more nuclear waste later from power production (ya right).

I have an idea!

[ivan256]

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

about freakin' time

[phlegmofdiscontent]

I'm glad we're finally going to reprocess this waste rather than letting it just accumulate. In the long run, reprocessing will reduce the amount of waste that would need to be put in Yucca Mountain (or wherever). Unfortunately, it looks like they're going about it half-assed. They'll be reprocessing waste, but the reprocessed uranium won't be usable by our own reactors. That's kinda like taking Europe's used beer cans and our own and turning them into chain mail for the troops. It's expensive and is pretty much useless. It would probably be easier to reprocess most of it into something usable in our own reactors and the rest into something "secure" for foreign reactors.

Re:about freakin' time

[johndeerejedi]

Read the article more closely and you will see that we will process and burn their nuclear waste. There was a good article in Scientific American in Dec 05, and I'm hoping that's the technique they are talking about. After reprocessing, the waste from other countries reactors and our own will be useable in this type of reactor discussed in the SciAm article. If not, other countries can use the fuel in their reactors, but not make bombs out of it.

Re:about freakin' time

[(H)elix1]

. In the long run, reprocessing will reduce the amount of waste that would need to be put in Yucca Mountain (or wherever).

The thing about parking these waste products in the Yucca Mountain style storage is folks tend to think we are planning to store it there until time/decay makes it safe again - requiring centuries, millenniums, etc.... I strongly suspect we will have the technology to do something meaningful with the current by products in the next 50-100 years (possibly less) as we figure out how matter works. Storing it in a geologically stable area should not that big of a deal.

Re:about freakin' time

[Ironsides]

As I understand it, if we re-enrich the nuclear material, the left over waste products will be about as radioactive as uranium ore. In other words, we can store the waste in the same mines we took it out of. Additionaly, the waste will decay to "safe" levels in about 100 years or so. Much less than that tens of thousands that current "waste" would last.

SciAm Article: Smarter Use for Nuclear Waste

[johndeerejedi]

There was a good Scientific American article in December 2005 about using fast reactors to use waste fuel from other reactors to produce power using pyrometalurgical techniques to process the fuel. I'm sorry but all Scientific American has is a preview of the article, entitled http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D556 0-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa00 6 "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste". The gist of the article is that current thermal reactors use only 5% of the enriched nuclear fuel (U235) and the waste includes a lot of Plutonium, U238, and other actinydes that the process in the article would consume. This pyrometalurgical processing also prevents taking out the Plutonium--it takes out the waste products, like Strontium. Since it can consume U238, Thorium, etc. it would be able to "burn" something like 95% of the nuclear fuel and the waste products would be short lived radioactive waste. I hope this is the procedure they are using, and not breeder reactors or conventional reprocessing.

Re:Inspection

[ivan256]

Why do we need inspections? The US isn't hiding anything. We're pretty up front with telling everybody we've got the bomb. Plus it should be fairly obvious, since we actually used a few of them.

Inspections are to make sure that people who say they *don't* have WMDs aren't lying. If a country admits to having the weapons, you don't need any inspections.

Re:Inspection

[toleraen]

Considering the US already has thousands and thousands of known WMDs, would a few more really matter? Gotta give the WOPR something to do!

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...

[Licorice101]

We were the first, and we intend on making sure we are the last.

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...)??

IFR

[tsnorri]

According to Wikipedia, research on the Integral Fast Reactor was cancelled due to non-proliferation. Could the work continue now? To me, it seems quite an achievement, that the waste elements produced by the reactor had half lives of only a few decades.

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.

Cognitive dissonance... Hurts head... Ack!

[pla]

the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors.

Owwwwww, make it stop!

I loathe the current administration. Everything about him/them. I look forward to the impending impeachment proceedings, led most satisfyingly of all by the Republicans.

But...

I agree with this one! I've argued that we need to recycle spent fuel for years.

So this confuses me and hurts my head. Bush double plus bad, but recycling good... Bush bad, recycling good...


Ahhh (breathes a sigh of relief)... No doubt he'll mention next week that in order to guarantee that no baddies get ahold of spent fuel, we'll all need to install "the eye" in our homes. Now it all makes sense.



Do it for the Children, you terrorist scum!

Re:Cognitive dissonance... Hurts head... Ack!

[The Fun Guy]

Don't worry... this is just a trial balloon before the State of the Union address. He wants to be able to say, "Which do you want? A thousand oil wells in ANWR or a thousand new reactors in the lower 48?"

Personally, I'd go for the fast-neutron reactors.

Re:This is very frightening.

[Guppy06]

And according to the blurb, he's reversing the policy of another president who said "nukular," and that one even worked on nuclear reactors for a living.

Reprocessing and efficiency

[The Fun Guy]

I feel like I'm psychic... just in case you missed this incredibly prescient rant on reprocessing, I'll repost a summary of it here since it is so germaine. It was in response to the item about Sweden weaning themselves from oil in 20 years, because the oil is running out. ...everyone else have to get over their reluctance to embrace nuclear power... Sooner or later, somebody is going to wake up to the fact that breeder reactors that use fuel recycing produce less than 3% of that high level waste that would go into Yucca.... encase the waste in 5-ton concrete casks...("physical security")... Call it a "Temporary Cask Transit Facility" ... "Renew the lease" on the land every 10 years to give you an opportunity to re-bribe the new set of elected officials in town... cheaper than Yucca Mountain, while offering 1000x the storage capacity.

American mods...

[McGiraf]

eh! mods! flaimebait ??? no sense of humour i see ....

So the question is...

[T-Ranger]

If you CANDO it?

The next Sellafield?

[Reverse Gear]

I am not all to certain of what technique is to used here and maybe I should RTFA (I will eventually but it looks at a first glance like a newspaper story without all that much real info in it), but I can't help but wonder is what they are going to do not something similar to what is being done at Sellafield in England and La Hague in France?

I have not done all that much research on this, but from the little I have done the problems that have been at these two "enrichment plants" are not something that makes me think that more of this would be a good idea.

How about a nice game of chess?

[Licorice101]

Power it up! I don't have the special handset cup modem anymore though, so not sure how I can play Global Thermonuclear War.

Re:This is very frightening.

[tbone1]

The pronunciation of "nuculer" is a regionalism; it's fairly common in the speech of the southern US, particularly near the 'southwest', ie Texas and Oklahoma. As someone pointed out, President Carter pronounced it the same way, and he'd been a nuclear engineer in the navy.

While we're at it, let'd criticize Howard Stern for how he pronounces "mall", Ted Kennedy for how he pronounces "water", or Clarence Thomas for not speaking English as a first language. Oh, wait, people have done that.

Recycling...

[Firethorn]

Not entirely true. There are a few more products that are commercially viable. Car batteries and steel cans come to mind, even cars can be 'recycled' at junk yards.

Anytime you come up with a fairly large mass of fairly pure metal it's worth it.

Paper, glass, and plastic are tough.

Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[Firethorn]

But it's my firm belief that 9/11 delayed Iraq, rather than spawning it. Our move into there was spurred by Saddam's continual disregard of the conditions of the ceasefire. The WMD, which I'm more of the opinion was moved out of country or destroyed before we found it, the human rights violations, the genocide. Those are the reasons for Iraq.

Even Bush said that Iraq and Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in 9/11.

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[DigitalRaptor]

9/11 was the excuse to invade Iraq. I believe it was always Bush's intention to do so at some point. I think he felt the need to be a war-time president (since it's clear from all of his other agendas and flops that he has nothing else to offer).

But invading Iraq was sold 100% as part of the war on terror, when in reality it was a major distraction to the war on terror.

If you have 2 neighbors, Dan and Sam, and Sam's dog bites your daughter, do you go and kill Dan's dog, even though it's the one you dislike more and that howl's every night? No, the disconnect there is clear.

That is no different than Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacking on 9/11, and we all but ignore them and invade Iraq instead.

In all reality Iraq posed almost no threat when we invaded. They were so broken down by years of sanctions they couldn't have mounted an effective attack against Kuwait again if they wanted to, let alone the U.S.

Does that mean Sadaam didn't love what Al Qaeda did? No. But if the war in Iraq was really to stop those that were harboring and supporting terrorism, we would have invaded Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or any one of a dozen countries with far stronger and better documented ties to terrorism.

But Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Aside from the fact that it has created and inspired far, far more terrorists than it has killed or hampered.

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[drinkypoo]

Moving things around inside of a country is a whole HELL of a lot easier than moving things out of the country. The closest thing we found to WMDs was a single artillery shell that contained traces of sarin gas. Are you seriously telling me that the most technologically advanced nation in the world, a country that had spy satellites that could read the headline on a newspaper lying on the ground by the 1980s and probably earlier, couldn't find any real WMDs over there if they were, in fact, to be found? I mean shit, we can do radar surveys from space. We should be able to find some serious weapons.

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[Firethorn]

No, 9/11 was not the excuse to invade Iraq. WMD's were the excuse for invading Iraq.

In this case, We beat up Sam(his dog ran away and hasn't been found yet), for his dog, and we beat up Dan for not letting us check his garage for dangerous chemicals like he agreed to because he's dangerous with them.

As for invading Iran or Saudi Arabia to get the terrorists rather than Iraq, again I'll say that Iraq wasn't about terrorism, though it has become a magnet for terrorists in the region. It's yet another proxy war. Back on the subject of invading Saudi Arabia or Iran, well, one is a major supplier of our oil, and the other is militarily far more capable than Iraq was at any point. It's kinda like how going in and taking out Kim Jong of North Korea would be nice, but he's got enough military power to make that a far more expensive proposition.

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[mr100percent]

If Iraq was under attack by America, and had WMDs to repel those invading troops, then why didn't they use them? Why are the former nuclear scientists like Imad Khadduri coming forward and saying that all along there was no WMD program, it was abandoned in the 1990s.

Besides, where would they be moved to? Iran and Iraq were enemies in a war with millions of casualties, they cheered loudly when Saddam was captured. Syria didn't like the Ba'ath party of Iraq, and they didn't support one another and still don't. Saudi Arabia didn't like Saddam Hussein and felt threatened by him, to the point where they had thousands of US troops protect the border from him. Who else would take the WMDs from him then, if Iraq had any?

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[Firethorn]

Cause he hadn't weaponized them yet, because we had protective equipment, because he was afraid that we'd nuke him if he tried it? The options are numberous. Bush's reason to invade Iraq wasn't that Iraq 'Had' WMD's, it was to get him before he could complete them. Seems like that worked.
Honestly, I'm disappointed that our intel wasn't that good, just like I wish we could have intercepted 9/11.

Re:Sorry, I'm not going to produce any sources...

[mr100percent]

... or maybe Iraq just didn't have any? Honestly now, what is the proof that WMDs existed? Sarin decays after a few years, if Saddam Hussein stockpiled any after the first Gulf war, it would have been water by 2002.

You can't have it both ways. If Saddam Hussein was smart enough not to use WMDs on us because he knew we'd retaliate, then why was he labeled such a threat by Bush and why did we invade? Wouldn't that be forcing his hand if he had WMDs but knew better than to use them? You're saying he's too smart to use them, you mean risk getting tried as a war criminal or killed by the US? By not using them (IF he had them), wouldn't it be obvious that he'd be trapped and stuck in his current fate?

If Saddam Hussein was such a lunatic as Bush led some to believe, why didn't he actually use the WMDs? You're trying to push two conflicting rationales on me.

For the record

[lilmouse]

Yet these same materials happen to exist in your backyard...

I hate to break it to ya, but at least one of the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium) isn't around in your backyard (or if it is, you're in trouble). It also happens to be one of the most toxic substances we know of (ok, inhaling pure cesium is probably pretty bad as well), and that's before we consider that it's radioactive. Nasty stuff.

Anyway, I have a very hard time swallowing "safest options on the planet."

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.

What happens if there is a plage in 2300? We're still paying for those guards on the storage sites, right?

We're gonna have the capital on hand to refurbish the storage containers in a thousand years? Have we made provisions for this?

Burning coal can only cause so much cancer before we run out of the stuff to burn. Nuclear waste is still gonna be dangerous tens of thousands of years from now. Over its entire history, I'll say nuclear is probably more dangerous.

Anyway, changing our lifestyle would be good for us.

--LWM

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:For the record

[AKAImBatman]

Blech. This, "Most of the stuff is only dangerous for the first month or so." should read, "Most of the stuff that is dangerous, is only dangerous for the first month or so."

Re:For the record

[IvyKing]

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

I hate to break it to ya, but 5 tons of Plutonium was released into the atmosphere between 1945 and 1963 - so some of that is in your backyard.

Nuclear waste is still gonna be dangerous tens of thousands of years from now

After a few hundred years, the waste is about the same danger as the original ore.

Re:For the record

[lilmouse]

After a few hundred years, the waste is about the same danger as the original ore.

The original ore was buried underneath the plains of Africa (or whereever). The waste is much more easily accessible to terrorists.

--LWM

Obligatory SNL quote

[The_REAL_DZA]

"You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor."

Wait... wait... don't tell me...

[argent]

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

Ooh, yeh, if the US did that, they could develop atomic weapons!

Wait a sec...

Short sighted...

[benjamindees]

we have enough coal to not have to worry about centralized generation supplies, ever.

Overheard 100 years ago: "We have enough food to last forever!!!one!eleven"

And 50 years ago: "We have enough oil to last forever!!eleventy!!!"

And 500 years from now: "How are we going to feed 150 billion people without nuclear fuel?"

Re:Short sighted...

[RingDev]

I am FOR Nuclear power. I was just saying that coal consumption is not a concern. Maybe my phrasing was a bit strong. "...the Energy Information Administration (1995) estimated that the United States has enough coal to last 250 years" as per: http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/nca/nca.html

So yes, there is a finite limit to our coal supply, but if we are still primarily powering our country with coal 250 years from now, we will have other issues.

But as great as nuclear is, I think distributed generation is and true Green power is the way to go. For instance, if properly developed, the state of South Dakota could generate enough electricity from wind alone to power the entire western half of the country. Installing integrated photo voltaic roofing shingles (ie: Solar power) in all new residential buildings could reduce demand growth by 75%. Using bacterial scrubbers on coal plants can not only dramaticly cut emissions but they can also be recycled into low emission bio-diesel.

There are many great solutions, and I think Nuclear is one part of the puzzle, but anyone who immediately discredits a form, or puts all of their hopes on one form is either stupid, or has an agenda.

-Rick

Yay for reprocessing!

[eagle52997]

Many people may not realize that since reprocessing was not carried out from the carter administration until recently, the US has relied on foreign countries for many important nuclides. There are also other advantages to taking this approach.
Tc-99m is a medically important nuclide. Depending on what molecules it is attached to, it can be used in heart scans to detect dead tissue areas, or it can be used to detect different kinds of cancer. This is the most commercially important example, and we have relied on Canada for our supply since the 70s.
Even when only partially "fissed", the energy output of say 1 kg of enriched uranium compared to 1000kg of coal/petroleum is still an awesome amount. And with no atmospheric pollution! Did you realize there is more radioactive pollution from coal plants than from any nuclear power plant? http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html Reprocessing would allow even more energy to be extracted through fusion.
If you took the amount of waste from a nuclear power plant and scaled it to say 100 barrels, reprocessing will reduce this to about 3 barrels. Because useful isotopes can be removed, and short-lived isotopes can also be removed, only the very long-lived stuff has to be buried-or vitrified-or transmutated. The point is reprocessing will reduce the net radioactive waste generated by nuclear power.
Our own domestic source for medical isotopes, less pollution, and less waste...what isn't likeable about reprocessing?

Doesn't make sense now either

[dbIII]

Hell Yeah. Coal puts far more radioactives *into the air*

The dodgy paper on ORNL surfaces once again - if there was more to it then nuclear advocates would have more than one paper on the subject to refer to.

First consider that pollution control equipment is designed to get even gasses like NOx and SOx - so what do you think happens to dust as the exhaust goes through scrubbers, electrostatic precipitators or even bag filters?

Second, consider that the coal described in the paper is not typical and then the reults are extrapolated by others to assume that all coal has a much heavy elements as the worst example the writers could find.

Third, people assume that the heavy elements are in the radioactive form you use for nuclear fuel. We don't go around doing the highly profitable task of extracting enriched Uranium from easy to gravity seperate coal ash becuase the premise is total bullshit. There really isn't much there.

Fourth - divide by zero error. Assume that nuclear power plants do not produce radioactive material (the storing on site cop-out shouldn't be allowed becuase coal fired plants do that too with their ash). If you take normal background radiation it is always going to be higher than zero - so nuclear wins every time by this reasoning.

The whole thing was a line of bullshit to be used for lobbying by the nuclear industry under the line of "but coal is nuclear too" and should be buried and forgotten now that they have a real problem to point at - namely carbon emissions. Coal has problems without making stuff up.

Re:Don't recycle

[meringuoid]

Build a space elevator and fire nuclear waste at the sun. Easier said than done I guess though.

Energetically speaking, it's actually easier to fire the nuclear waste out of the solar system altogether. To hit the Sun, you need to cancel out the orbital velocity of the Earth completely and then drop straight down; that's a big velocity shift.

Try Jupiter. It's still plenty big enough to swallow all our radioactives without trace, and it's a lot easier to reach.

Moving things around countries..

[Firethorn]

Maybe for countries like the United States, or between European and non-european countries, but most borders in the world are very loose.

Radar surveys don't do much good when the stuff you're looking for isn't stored in easily recognizable containers. And, being a chemical, you can store the stuff in practically any gas or chemical container. A little goes a long way. The containers don't even have to be metallic, which would seriously limit their radar profile.

And I'm flattered that you think we can read newspaper headlines from orbit. Even so, it becomes a matter of: You're searching an area the size of California for disguised, possibly buried materials that would fit into a couple trucks.

Laser lights renders radioactive waste safe

[TheGreatOrangePeel]

...ok. Let's say some future administration thinks that Bush is a dink (which he likely is) and decides to turn over any decisions Bush already has or will make regarding the waste produced by nuclear power plants. We do have the technology to make such waste safe. So with all the technology advancements that we've made since the 80s, I'm failing to see any kind of significant down side.

Does anybody here have a sense of humor?

[mmell]

I guess I need to go back to using and tags!

Coal killed 14 people in the last 2 weeks

[Jaiden]

Right. 14 people were killed in the last couple of weeks by coal (mining accidents).

How many by nuclear power?

The real problem with reprocessing:

[Hartree]

It minimizes what's viewed as one of the more effective arguments against nuclear power, the volume of waste generated, and it's long lifetime.

For that reason, it's very unpopular with people who are a priori against nuclear power.

I'm also not fully convinced by the proliferation claims that people made. Plutonium for bombs is normally made in a reactor set up so that it produces far less of the heavier isotopes of plutonium which are problematic for making a bomb (greater spontaneous fission, they make the material dimensionally unstable, etc.).

That's why we offered to build light water reactors for N. Korea (and then reneged, but that's another issue). Normal power production reactors aren't so good for making bomb fuel.

So, what determines the feasibility of making a plutonium bomb is more the reactor type, than a civilian reprocessing program. Especially one like pyroprocessing that doesn't do a full seperation of the various actinides but leaves them mixed.