RE: A real solution

["Minnema, Douglas" <Douglas.Minnema@ns.doe.gov>]

Mike and all,

I attended an ANS Reactor Physics meeting a couple months ago, and the
keynote speaker was the president of Westinghouse (btw, he's a nuclear
engineer).  After his talk, he was asked about reprocessing, and his answer
was simple: with the current low cost of uranium fuel, and (get this!) the
projected low cost of disposal of spent fuel, it was not cost-effective to
start up a reprocessing plant at this time, even if allowed by law. Simple
economics and nothing more.  Even with the cost of disposal included, the
per kW-hour cost of nuclear was about the lowest of any viable option.
(Sorry, but I cannot remember the exact number now, and I am away from home
as usual, so no notes to refer to.) 

It's the economics that will make the decision for us.  The public, the
government, and the companies all vote with their wallets.  As nuclear
continues to improve its reliability and availablity, and continues to
demonstrate its safety, the costs will become the defining factor as the
costs of other options continue to increase.

Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
Defense Programs, DOE
<Douglas.Minnema@ns.doe.gov>

what few thoughts i have are truly my own...

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael S Ford [SMTP:MFORD@pantex.com]
> Subject:	Re: A real solution
> 
> Hey!  Does anyone see that big pink elephant sitting in the corner of the
> room??
> Let's see, it has its name tattooed on the side of it... I can just make
> it out....
> It spells..... R-E-P-R-O-C-E-S-S.  
> 
> REPROCESS!!!
> 
> We wouldn't be talking about 10,000 or 1,000 years if we would just
> reprocess the stuff!!
> The French are laughing at us, and I've had too much coffee.
> 
> v/r
> Michael
> TRAB
> 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html