Re: Plutonium disposition supported by Canada - $30 million

["Jerry Cohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

Greenpeace objects to the Russian plan, claiming that reprocessing and the
building of a fast-breeder reactor, which the U.S. opposes, would generate
more plutonium.

 

``It somewhat undermines the purpose,'' says Ms. Dufay. ``All you would have
done is shifted the plutonium out of the military stockpile into the
civilian stockpile, but you've kept it in circulation rather than
immobilizing it."

 

    It seems to me that if you if the objective is to divert plutonium from

possible use in nuclear explosives, putting it in MOX fuel cycle would 

be the best bet. It would be "burned" up in nuclear reactors and the

plutonium bred by the reaction would be unsuitable for weapons use.

The energy generated would be an added bonus.

Is it possible that what Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc, are

really opposed to is the generation of abundant, cheap, electrical energy?