[ RadSafe ] Article: Movement on Reprocessing, and Energy (13 new plants?)

Thu Jan 26 17:14:27 CST 2006

13 new plants sounds like a good start. We will need a lot
more (on a global scale) lest we all freeze to death by
the upcoming global warming...

Dimiter 
(after > 10 days at -10 to -20 C outside, what other
comment can I be expected to write.... :-).

------------------------------------------------------
Dimiter Popoff               Transgalactic Instruments

http://www.tgi-sci.com
------------------------------------------------------

>  -------Original Message-------
>  From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
>  Subject: [ RadSafe ] Article:  Movement on Reprocessing,	 and Energy (13 new plants?)
>  Sent: Jan 27 '06 00:50
>  
>  >From another list server.
>  
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: fyi at aip.org [mailto:fyi at aip.org]
>  Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 2:25 PM
>  To: Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS) [E]
>  Subject: FYI #12: Movement on Nuclear Fuel
>  Reprocessing
>  
>  FYI
>  The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science
>  Policy News
>  Number 12: January 26, 2006
>  
>  Movement on Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing
>  
>  One of the more significant areas of initial
>  disagreement in the FY 2006 Energy and Water
>  Development Appropriations bill was the reprocessing
>  of spent nuclear fuel. House appropriators advanced a
>  plan for the Department of Energy to designate one or
>  more above-ground interim storage sites for domestic
>  spent fuel, and move ahead on the selection of a
>  reprocessing technology, an approach that Senate
>  appropriators did not take.  The final legislation
>  written by the appropriators provided $50 million to
>  "develop a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan" (see
>  http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/161.html.)
>  
>  Today's edition of "The Washington Post" describes a
>  Bush Administration proposal to be sent to Congress in
>  coming weeks to increase nuclear power generation in
>  the United States and abroad, and to reprocess nuclear
>  fuel from other nations.  The "Global Nuclear Energy
>  Partnership" would provide funding for the development
>  of technologies to substantially reduce or eliminate
>  the possible diversion of nuclear materials.  The Post
>  quotes  Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), chairman of the
>  Energy and Water Development Appropriations
>  Subcommittee, and chairman of the Energy and Natural
>  Resources Committee, that he will introduce a bill to
>  implement the Administration's plan, hold a hearing on
>  it, and move the legislation to the Senate floor this
>  spring.
>  
>  Domenici discussed his position on nuclear power and
>  fuel recycling at the November meeting of the
>  U.S.-Japan Workshop on Nuclear Energy.  Selections
>  from his address follow:
>  
>  "With the recent passage of the Energy Policy Act,
>  utilities are deciding that the time is right to build
>  nuclear power plants in America. In fact, as of last
>  week, eight utilities across the United States have
>  announced plans to take the first step in building 13
>  new nuclear power plants that, combined, will produce
>  at least 15 gigawatts of new power in the next 15
>  years.  These eight utilities are taking these first
>  steps by starting the licensing process for a new
>  plant.
>  
>  "If all 13 plants are built, the construction and
>  operation of the plants would create approximately
>  18,000 construction jobs and 6,000 high-paying,
>  high-tech jobs.
>  
>  "I believe Congress has shown vision and leadership in
>  making our nuclear renaissance a reality. To those who
>  say the government has not done enough to address
>  climate change, I would counter that the extraordinary
>  congressional commitment to new nuclear power has been
>  driven in large part by a deep and abiding concern for
>  our environment and our climate.
>  
>  "However, a challenge remains. Our work to foster new
>  nuclear power has added new urgency to an old
>  question: what should the U.S. fuel cycle be to
>  support long-term, sustainable nuclear power?
>  
>  "And while we tackle that challenge, what do we do
>  with our spent nuclear fuel?
>  
>  "For years, Yucca Mountain was the answer. But Yucca
>  Mountain evolved from the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy
>  Act.  In 1982 the industry was in 'status quo.'  The
>  nuclear plants that existed at the time would run to
>  their projected lifetimes and be tecommissioned.  The
>  Nuclear Regulatory Commission became the nursemaid
>  that would watch over the industry until the last
>  plant turned off.
>  
>  "Yucca Mountain was created to be the final resting
>  place of the spent nuclear fuel from these plants --
>  and frankly, the resting place of nuclear energy in
>  the United States.  The intent was to move fuel to the
>  mountain, fill the mountain and close it. At that
>  point, we would simply haggle over what kind of sign
>  to hang over the locked front door.
>  
>  "But it's no longer 1982.  While some plants have shut
>  down, the vast majority of nuclear power plants in
>  this country still operate, providing clean and
>  reliable electricity that's cheaper than all other
>  sources except hydropower. Operating licenses and
>  plant lifetimes are being extended to extract the most
>  from these investments. And now, 13 new power plants
>  are being discussed.
>  "In this new environment, the current U.S. policy
>  regarding Yucca Mountain should be that it will not do
>  enough by itself.  I believe we must look anew on our
>  policy on spent nuclear fuel and I think that
>  re-evaluation is under way.
>  
>  "As a fan and believer in demonstrated technology
>  solutions, I urge continued research and development
>  of reprocessing technologies that deal with the
>  limitations of existing technology. We must conduct
>  engineering scale pilot demonstrations to prove the
>  technology can be scaled-up and is economically viable
>  before choosing a technology that will enable us to
>  squeeze every last bit of energy from those fuel
>  elements, leaving in its wake by-products that can be
>  safely and effectively managed.
>  
>  "I believe we must bring the scientific passion and
>  creativity to the fuel cycle that we have brought to
>  creating smaller, safer and more powerful nuclear
>  reactors. What we have done globally with advanced
>  nuclear reactors in the last 20 years amazes me. I
>  believe what we can do with the fuel cycle in the next
>  20 years can amaze the world.
>  
>  "But that's me. I have always been a fan of what I
>  call Big Science -- science that improves modern life.
>  I am the man you expect to advocate a renewed
>  commitment to fuel technologies.
>  
>  "But the interest in exploring solutions beyond Yucca
>  Mountain is coming from other quarters now. Let me
>  give you a few examples.
>  
>  "We appropriated  $50 million for spent fuel recycling
>  in the current energy and water appropriations bill.
>  The recommendation for this funding came first from
>  the House, not my subcommittee.
>  
>  "I note with interest a series of discussions within
>  the Administration on long term solutions to
>  reprocessing.
>  
>  "Even the courts and regulatory agencies are weighing
>  in. The current legal and regulatory debate or
>  disposal standards has raised the question about
>  whether it drives to fuel treatment.
>  
>  "These issues are complex.   I believe technology
>  provides more than one answer -- what we are beginning
>  to see is a dance between what is technically possible
>  and what is socially necessary and acceptable.  It
>  will be a long discussion, but we have decades."
>  
>  ###############
>  Richard M. Jones
>  Media and Government Relations Division
>  The American Institute of Physics
>  fyi at aip.org    http://www.aip.org/gov
>  (301) 209-3094
>  ##END##########
>  
>  
>  
>  +++++++++++++++++++
>  "Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an email."  - Eliot Spitzer, New York state attorney general
>  
>  -- John
>  John Jacobus, MS
>  Certified Health Physicist
>  e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>  
>  __________________________________________________
>  Do You Yahoo!?
>  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>  http://mail.yahoo.com
>  _______________________________________________
>  You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>  
>  Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>  
>  For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>  