Re: Yucca Poll Sientific American

[muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

 From: "Vincent A King/KINGVA/CC01/INEEL/US" <KINGVA@INEL.GOV>



I see 2 and 3 differently:



> 1. Pro - it would extend non-polluting energy resources significantly

> 

> 2. Con - it would take away one of the antis biggest complaints, since you

> would have to call plutonium a "resource" instead of "nuclear waste"



This is a "pro" :-)

 

> 3. Con - it would make Yucca Mountain even more overengineered, since

> fission products decay away faster than Pu



3. Pro - YM cost would be greatly reduced. It would not have to be so

'overengineered' because fission products decay away faster than

Pu/tranuranics.  (Although, now, costs of the alternatives are too high.

Spent fuel should be stored until technology/fuel supply warrants.)



Regards, Jim



> ...as a long term solution and a possible alternative to Yucca, what are

> the pros and cons of reprocessing and pursuing transmutation technology?...

> 

> 

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/