Future of America's Nuclear Power Plants

[bananas]

16. What real scientists say about reprocess/recycle: It's a "goofy idea".

When Bush's GNEP reprocess/recycle plan was cancelled, I pointed out:

FAS, NAS, and others had lengthy explanations of why this reprocessing plant was a stupid idea and a waste of money.
IIRC the NAS report is what put the nail in the coffin.

Tom Clements on the cancellation:

It's official: DOE has scrapped its GNEP plan; US nuclear recycling faces the axe

"This decision to halt the reprocessing EIS is celebrated by those who know the technical absurdity, proliferation risks and high costs involved with pursuit of commercial reprocessing of radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. We thank Secretary (Steven) Chu for taking this important step," said Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth. "The decision to cancel ... is a clear victory for the environment of South Carolina and taxpayers but a big setback to narrow special interests who had hoped to profit from a commercial reprocessing facility being built at the Savannah River Site."

An earlier article by Frank von Hippel in Scientific American:

Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth
Plans are afoot to reuse spent reactor fuel in the U.S. But the advantages of the scheme pale in comparison with its dangers
By Frank N. von Hippel

... It is exactly this failed reactor type that the DOE now proposes to develop and deploy ...

Some excellent earlier articles by Ivan Oelrich at the Federation of American Scientists:

National Academy of Science Report Calls for Putting the Brakes on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program.

This afternoon, a committee of the National Research Council, a research arm of the National Academy of Science, issued a report that is extremely critical of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, an administration plan to restart separating plutonium from used commercial nuclear reactor fuel, something the United States has not done for three decades. I have argued that the goals of GNEP, while scientifically possible and perhaps someday economically justifiable, are decades premature. I am relieved to discover that the committee report comes to essentially the same conclusion.

A telling point is that almost no independent analysts, that is, those not working for the Department of Energy, have anything good to say about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In the Greenwire article cited above, Deutsch called GNEP a “goofy idea.” Even overall supporters of nuclear power, like Ernest Moniz of MIT (Moniz was, along with Deutsch, cochairman of the panel that wrote the very influential MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power), oppose GNEP if for no other reason than it is premature. It may be a good idea at the end of the 21st Century, but not now. Even the nuclear power industry is at best tepid in its support, worrying that GNEP is a diversion from the immediate problem of a geological repository. Recent questions from members of Congress highlights another concern: even potential supporters of the idea of reprocessing are wary of entrusting the gargantuan technical task to the Department of Energy because DOE has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects.

Links to sources for the above in this thread: I put some links in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x200775