Department of Energy Cancels Nuclear Reprocessing Project

U.S. Department of Energy Cancels Nuclear Reprocessing Project

5 by Timothy Hurst on July 3, 2009

DoE no longer pursuing domestic nuclear fuel reprocessing

In a relatively quiet move earlier this week, the Obama administration canceled plans for a large-scale nuclear fuel recycling facility in the United States. The move could signal the end of the Global Nuclear Energy Project (GNEP), an international program proposed by the Bush administration to promote the use of nuclear power and to find solutions to closing the nuclear fuel cycle with nuclear reprocessing.

The Bush administration had started to draft an environmental impact statement for GNEP, a process that would effectively open the door for the possible future construction of reprocessing plants in the U.S. But on 29 June, the Obama administration announced in the Federal Register that it was canceling that document. According to the statement, the Obama administration decided to cancel GNEP because the Department of Energy is no longer pursuing domestic commercial reprocessing, which was the primary focus of the prior administration's domestic GNEP program.

Opponents of GNEP, concerned about high costs and the risk of nuclear proliferation applauded the decision. "This decision to halt the reprocessing EIS is celebrated by those who know the technical absurdity, proliferation risks and high costs involved with pursuit of commercial reprocessing of radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the U.S.," said Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth, who also thanked Energy Secretary Chu for making the move.

Although the future of GNEP looks uncertain, especially as its budget has been slashed to zero, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 provides $145 million for the DoE to continue to continue the research and development of proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and waste management strategies.

"So as far as we're concerned, GNEP may have gone away, but the need to recycle spent fuel in this country is more important than ever because of the government's stupid decision to close Yucca Mountain," said Danny Black, the president of Southern Carolina Alliance, a regional economic development organization that was working to bring a major nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to South Carolina.

"I think we are, as much as we can be, still optimistic," Black said. "We are even more optimistic because, at this point, there is no alternative. Without Yucca Mountain, the pressure is on the industry to do more with recycling."

Follow Tim Hurst on twitter
Image via tico24

Ryan

THIS IS GREAT NEWS! Nuclear waste recycling is a stupid system. Nuclear waste can be sealed in concrete containers for thousands of years on site. Once nuclear fusion is perfected you can use the neutrons from the reaction to burn up nuclear waste until it’s nothing. according to popular science:

The quest for controlled fusion power, that most future-topian of engineering feats, requires patience and enduring faith. Progress is being made, but workable reactors are decades off. While we wait, fusion may as well make itself useful. Researchers at the University of Texas recently unveiled a design for a hybrid fission–fusion reactor, a best-of-both-worlds device that would dispose of the deadliest waste from traditional nuclear power plants while generating power along the way. Most nuclear waste can be reprocessed for use as fuel in standard fission reactors, although that’s not currently the practice in the United States. The hybrid reactor would be a next step. It would employ fusion reactions to flood the remaining, highly dangerous transuranic waste with neutrons, allowing it to be burned in a fission process. One-third of the resulting energy would be fed back into the fusion process and the remaining 700 megawatts would be fed into the grid. According to senior research scientist Swadesh Mahajan, at the end of the process, about 99 percent of all nuclear waste could be eliminated. “What we really want to do is to tell the world, Please allow the expansion of nuclear energy, through standard light-water reactors,” Mahajan says. “It’s the only thing that can be ramped up quickly enough to replace coal. Do not worry about the waste. Because we’re going to give you the solution in 20 years. We will make it in time.”

Sofge, Erik “6 Bright Ideas for the Future of Energy” popular science magazine. july 2009
http://www.medgadget.com Gene O.

There is no nuclear fusion technology, and the chances of it becoming viable are very low. So, why not use and reprocess this fuel instead of storing it (and that is not really allowed since no sites are “good enough”) forever and digging more Uranium which will make even more waste? Seems like the policy is to go against anything that is not a wind turbine that spins on only windy days. I guess we’ll play cards under candle light on quiet windless nights.
Steve

Ryan said, “Nuclear waste can be sealed in concrete containers for thousands of years on site.”

Funny, because the DOE continues to evaluate the safe storage of nuclear waste buried deep in Yucca Mountain for thousands of years… how so, then, can it be safely stored on site for that long? Care to share your verification on that?

Fusion technology has been been a pipe dream since the 1970′s. Ryan, you must be very young, or you would remember the EPRI studies that began in 1974. That was more than three decades ago. Hasn’t happened yet. The “workable reactors” you mention are much more than decades away… in other words, not in our lifetimes.

I’d feel better knowing that the country’s nuclear waste was being stored in one secure location and not scattered all over the country… being guarded by questionably-trained local security services.
Paul Gibbs

All other countries that utilize nuclear power reprocess used fuel into new fuel reducing the cost of nuclear power and none of that material has made it to the Black Market. We are only ones with our heads in the sand.

Ref: http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/r/reprocessing-plants-ww.htm
Rider I

It is actually really easy and cheap to do. The other idea is to keep creating tons of nuclear waste and allow foreign countries to beat us agian in a new industry like Russia and France, or we use oil which is very costly politically, militarily, and monetarily to use.

I think you are all ver un educated on the matter. Trace nucell and how easy it is to do. dumb butts.

Rider I
http://rideriantieconomicwarfare.blogspot.com/