Nuke plan is called science fiction

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/feb/07/566628040.html

WASHINGTON - Wrapped inside the 2007 Energy Department budget proposal is a provocative question: Can U.S. scientists invent a solution to nuclear waste that would also curtail the spread of nuclear weapons?

The answer has implications ranging from national defense to the future of Mountain.

The Bush administration wants to put money into research immediately as part of a nuclear energy renaissance. Construction of the nation's last nuclear plant began 30 years ago.

Critics say the idea is pure science fiction. They are gearing up to oppose it in Congress.

<more>

[Trillo]

1. proposed by BushCo

From the article: "That could include waste from foreign reactors if, as Bush proposes, the United States begins leasing uranium fuel to other nations then taking back the waste for disposal."

How profitable would this be?
How reasonable is it to presume that other nations would adopt a plan that makes their nuclear energy more unaffordable?

The second question seems to pertain to whether the program would ultimately reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the first question may need to be rewritten as: how much are U.S. citizens willing to be taxed to subsidize the costs of reprocessing and subsidizing other nation's "cheap" nuclear fuel?

[NNadir]

2. The journalist has been rather vague about identifying the "critics."

I would expect that a responsible journalist, not that responsible journalism is a widely practiced profession in the United States, would identify the person who is declaring what does and does not constitute "science fiction." All we get is some dope reading like this "One Public Citizen analyst has called recycling a 'fairy tale.'"

One wonders who exactly this "Public Citizen Analyst" is and what his or her qualifications on the subject of fuel reprocessing is. Oh well, there's nothing like sticking your neck on the line, is there?

This is just my opinion, but I believe that it makes a difference whether it is Goldilocks informing us about fairytales or if it is Joseph Campbell.

Public Citizen is an organization founded by a person who contended that George W. Bush was as moderate as Al Gore. With this in mind, I really question the ability of anyone at Public Citizen to judge the nature of fairy tales. I rather think that they live in Goldilocks land and they are lacking a fucking clue.

Journalists are especially pathetic when it comes to report on science. Even the New York Times does a lousy job generally; one expects even less from the Las Vegas Sun. I have never seen an article in the Las Vegas Sun on the subject of spent nuclear fuel that comes even remotely close to being rational.

[jpak]

4. The same old ad homnium attack

and the same old name calling.

Those who support ChimpCo's reprocessing scam support ChimpCo's reprocessing scam.

No doubt about it....

:rofl:

[NNadir]

5. I merely note that the only person making the claim is the reporter.

I also remark that the article includes NO identified "experts." Therefore it is obvious that the case is very weak, especially when one is dealing with a matter as serious as global climate change.

I also note that the author of the article has failed to do any comparison between other energy "fairy tales."

The question of nuclear processing has been reviewed by many people with strong scientific credentials. In fact, one of the inventors of nuclear reprocessing technology was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his isolation of actinides:

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1951/seaborg-bio.html

Of course, I do not presume to know, but somehow I suspect that the reporter here is not about to win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry or any other field.

The question of reprocessing and transmutation of so called "nuclear wastes" has been reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and the results published. They are available online: http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309052262/html/2.html The link brings one to page 10 of the executive summary which reads as follows:

In view of the above, the committee concluded that the once-through LWR fuel cycle should not be abandoned. Further, this has the advantage of preserving the option to retrieve energy resources from the wastes for an extended period of time. This can be achieved by adopting a strategy that will not eliminate access to the nuclear fuel component of the waste for a reasonable period of time, say about 100 years, or by preserving easy access to the repository for a prescribed period of time, or by extending the operating period of the repository.

A reason for supporting continued use of the once-through fuel cycle is that it is more economical under current conditions. Some analysts predict that future demand for uranium—and as a consequence its price—may increase to a point where recycling becomes economically competitive. Should this happen, the choice of once-through fuel cycle would have to be reexamined (see Appendix F).

The committee concludes that over the next decade the United States should undertake a sustained but modest and carefully focused research and development program on selected S&T technologies, with emphasis on improved separations processes for separating LWR and transmuter fuels beyond the existing plutonium and uranium extraction (PUREX) process and for fuels containing more actinide elements and selected fission products. These conclusions apply for either the continuing or phase out modes of the S&T systems.

The ten pages of biographies of the participants in this report, which I happen to have in my personal library and to which I often refer, are available by clicking on the links found in the table of contents. (pp 475-484) Most of the members of this group are high level scientists with considerable experience in the chemistry, physics (including health physics) and scale up of nuclear processes. I think they would not agree with the Las Vegas Sun reporter that reprocessing is a "fairy tale."

The National Academy Press allows readers to "skim" pages: http://newton.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimit.cgi?recid=4912&chap=475-484 Here is a skimming excerpt of some of these biographies:

From page 475...
... During a postdoctoral period at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, he participated in the discovery of mendelevium, element 101. His research and educational activities have been recognized by the American Chemical Society Award in Nuclear Chemistry, the Southern Chemist Award of the American Chemical Society, the Manufacturing Chemist Award in Chemical Education, a Presidential Citation Award of the American Nuclear Society, and honorary D.Sc.
Read the entire page > >
From page 476...
... . His areas of focus include initiation and technical management of research and development involving waste management, nuclear fuel cycles, transportation, conservation, and renewable energy.
Read the entire page > >
From page 477...
... thesis that was the first to advocate quantitative risk assessments for nuclear power plants, building the first team to perform the initial comprehensive and quantitative risk assessment for the commercial nuclear power industry, being a major contributor to the methods employed in risk analysis, and a prime mover in elevating risk assessment to a science and engineering discipline. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Nuclear Society, the Society for Risk Analysis, and the Institute for the Advancement of Engineering.
Read the entire page > >
From page 478...
... Before coming to CEBAF, he worked at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory as accelerator group leader for the SuperHILAC-Bevatron/Bevalac Operation and Development, associate director for the Accelerator and Fusion Research Division, and the deputy director of General Sciences. He has also served on a number of committees, including the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee in 1983-1984, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, Division of Physics of Beams of the American Physical Society, of which he was chair in 1993, and the Los Alamos AT Division Advisory Committee.
Read the entire page > >
From page 479...
... He specializes in nuclear system design, nuclear fuel design, radioactive waste management, and nuclear operations. He recently retired from the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, where over a period of years he served as general manager of the Nuclear Technology Division, of the Nuclear Fuel Division, and of the Advanced Power Systems Business Unit.
Read the entire page > >
From page 480...
... Corporation Visiting Committee for Nuclear Engineering. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the American Nuclear Society.
Read the entire page > >
From page 481...
... His extensive nuclear industry experience, including 27 years with Bechtel, covers the full range of nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear decontamination activities, as well as fast breeder reactor and light-water reactor plant designs. A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley in engineering physics, he also received an M.S.
Read the entire page > >
From page 482...
... His major research interests are in molten salt chemistry, electrochemistry, and electroanalytical chemistry, particularly in pulse voltammetric methods. He has received several awards for his work including the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry Award in Electrochemistry and the Electrochemical Society's Physical Electrochemistry Division Max Bredig Award in Molten Salt Chemistry.
Read the entire page > >
From page 483...
... He is a highly renowned expert in the field of nuclear engineering, and was previously executive director of the Power Reactor & Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation of Japan. He has also taught at several major Japanese universities and is the author of many publications on nuclear engineering.
Read the entire page > >
From page 484...
... WYMER is a retired director of the Chemical Technology Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is a specialist in radiochemical separations technology for radioactive waste management and nuclear fuel reprocessing.

These people are hardly unidentified "critics."

I feel perfectly justified in bringing to bear issues of critical thinking in evaluating the nature of this article, and perfectly well justified in asserting that it is weak to the point of being irrelevant. Because global climate change is a very serious matter, the exercise of critical thinking is more important than it perhaps has been for any other issue.

[jpak]

6. LOL!!!!

The NAS stated that a once-through fuel cycle (no reprocessing) was the best US nuclear policy....that hardly supports ChimpCo's scam.

Nice try though.

Oh yeah, we should not criticize the nuclear priesthood lest they call us twits and have us burned at the stake....

:rofl:

[NNadir]

7. Whatever. My remarks, like those of the NAS, are clear enough.

The 1996 report clearly suggests regular re-evaluation.

It is only a matter of time before the recycling of nuclear materials becomes economic, as the report suggests, since the objections to nuclear energy have been discarded by international consensus in consideration of the matter of global climate change.

The report supports my view that spent nuclear fuel remain accessible for at least 100 years. I think it may be needed well before that.

Nuclear technology is, of course, a field that is highly specialized and perforce requires a high level of scientific competence in areas such as nuclear physics, materials science, mathematics, chemistry, stress analysis, etc. I am loathe to characterize such highly educated people as a "priesthood," since I seldom confuse science with religion.

I make no secret of my opinion of the critics of nuclear power and my feeling that they don't know what they are talking about. I have no problems characterizing these critics as a type of priesthood because like priests, they rely almost wholly on dogma.

[jpak]

8. Reprocessing is currently uneconomic and ChimpCo's program unjustified.

So sayeth the NAS...

But as the US is a major importer of uranium and the nuclear industry expects a global shortfall in supply in the near future, recycled Pu just might become economic when yellowcake is $2000 a kilo - 50 years from now.

(but by then renewable energy sources will be the dominant player in the US energy market....)

...and the old anti-nuclear "kooks" = religion argument is a *tired* *old* RW canard.

[NNadir]

9. Predictions of the depletion of uranium are as old as the predictions of

the solar nirvana; they have not materialized.

[jpak]

10. Conservatives use the same argument against Peak Oil

and solar nirvana is not that far away.

and pray we never see Plutonium Fascism....

[NNadir]

11. The energy density of uranium

is enormous and uranium (and thorium) resources are vast compared to oil.

Fascism and plutonium are unrelated as I have pointed out before when specious objections to nuclear energy are raised. I feel no need to address this issue again since it is absurd on its face.

The solar nirvana is more than 400 exajoules away. The distance measured in exajoules, has actually been increasing, and has done so continuously since the 1950's.

[megatherium]

12. I think it was Mark Twain who said

that a reporter can do research in the library and investigate a story, or simply repeat what he or she is told -- but both approaches pay the same.

[OneBlueSky]

3. just use it all in depleted uranium weapons . . .

can I have the money now? . . .