Slashdot Mirror
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."
I still like the idea of burying it under the white house...
Just build a proper breeder reactor program, you stupid nancies!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
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.
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/ colmain.html
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text
Acy
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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).
Let's not have rational debate and instead make fun of somebody's accent!
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.
You forget that the US is a democracy and democracies never start wars, by definition... at least according to the US government.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
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.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
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
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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!
I don't read AC A human right
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
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.
I don't read AC A human right
agree with everything you said
here is a good example of an excellent reactor design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
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.
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...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"