Re: DOE's decision on MOX fuel

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Robert M. Loesch wrote:


> First, before one can manufacture MOX, someone would first have to
> process the Pu into an oxide form or pellets (most likely DOE, and in
> either a new or totally renovated facility) and then ship the Pu to
> a fuel manufacturer.  

In a past life I worked at Atomics International in Canoga Park CA.  We
designed and built a plutonium fuel fabrication plant.  That plant could
easily have been converted into a MOX plant.  We had the expertise to do
that at the time.  I suspect we could find that expertise again now, if
not in people in this country, certainly in other countries that are
handling MOX and/or plutonium in quantity.

I remember designing an instrument for measuring tramp plutonium on the
outside of pu fuel.  It was quite a challenge, but we did it. 
Unfortunately, the government cancelled the project for which it was to
be used before it was built.

Sure, handling large quantities of plutonium and MOX has problems.  The
point is, we know how to do it safely.  Remember, there is already a lot
of plutonium in commercial fuel after it has been used for awhile.  I
have heard that as much as 25% of the power of a commercial power plant
comes from the plutonium eventually.  So -- we are already using MOX
fuel, just not from the very beginning.

Lets get on with using the energy of the plutonium that we have already
spent billions to produce.  We definitely should not just throw it away
in glass (or anything else).  It is too valuable as an energy source. 
Besides, the only way to completely destroy plutonium's bomb-use ability
is to burn it in reactors.  Putting it in glass does not do that.  The
DOE's solution to the problem of what to do with the plutonium and
enriched uranium bomb material is flawed.

Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov