Comments on: Nuclear Power http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/08/26/nuclear-power-facts/ for the well-being of mankind Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:30:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Allan M Salzberg MD, PhD http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/08/26/nuclear-power-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-392 Allan M Salzberg MD, PhD Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:22:25 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=1127#comment-392 The main difficulty with Nuclear Power can be traced to Carter's banning of reprocessing the spent fuel as well as his killing the Fast Neutron Breeder reactor. With present existing technology, reprocessing the spent fuel is the best way of solving the Waste Problem. The partially spent U235, U288 and produced Plutonium are separated from the spent rods and are reprocessed into fuel.The volume of this reprocessed fuel is about 95% of the total volume of the waste. The remaining 5% are mainly fission fractions that have 1/2 life measured in years so that it is less than background in a few hundred years. This small amount of short lived isotopes can easily and safely be stored in Yucca Mountain. While this does initially increase costs a bit, over the cycle time, this does markedly extend the amount of fissionable fuel and will pay for itself. A next generation of fast neutron reactors can further eliminate the problems associated with long lived waste including Plutonium. The main difficulty with Nuclear Power can be traced to Carter’s banning of reprocessing the spent fuel as well as his killing the Fast Neutron Breeder reactor. With present existing technology, reprocessing the spent fuel is the best way of solving the Waste Problem. The partially spent U235, U288 and produced Plutonium are separated from the spent rods and are reprocessed into fuel.The volume of this reprocessed fuel is about 95% of the total volume of the waste. The remaining 5% are mainly fission fractions that have 1/2 life measured in years so that it is less than background in a few hundred years. This small amount of short lived isotopes can easily and safely be stored in Yucca Mountain. While this does initially increase costs a bit, over the cycle time, this does markedly extend the amount of fissionable fuel and will pay for itself. A next generation of fast neutron reactors can further eliminate the problems associated with long lived waste including Plutonium.

]]> By: Andrew Anderson http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/08/26/nuclear-power-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-384 Andrew Anderson Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:15:57 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=1127#comment-384 Some very interesting facts and figures - pity more people aren't aware of them ! Some very interesting facts and figures – pity more people aren’t aware of them !

]]> By: Tom Altman http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/08/26/nuclear-power-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Tom Altman Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:57:12 +0000 http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/?p=1127#comment-368 Would you consider addressing reprocessing of spent fuel, and potential implications of same, in your section on Emissions and Nuclear Wastes, please? I don't know the specifics, but am under the impression that France reprocesses its nuclear fuel and, as a result, ends up with a dramatically smaller volume of final waste products to handle and store. I gather there is thought to be some security risk associated with reprocessing, but the fact that France has (apparently successfully) done it for so long makes me suspect the subject should be addressed more often and more openly than it usually is — especially since storage of the eventual spent fuel is such a big part of the discussion of and objections to the expanded use of nuclear energy. I'd welcome a good IER-quality description of that subject, please. <strong>IER Response:</strong> Thanks for the suggestion Tom. Would you consider addressing reprocessing of spent fuel, and potential implications of same, in your section on Emissions and Nuclear Wastes, please? I don’t know the specifics, but am under the impression that France reprocesses its nuclear fuel and, as a result, ends up with a dramatically smaller volume of final waste products to handle and store. I gather there is thought to be some security risk associated with reprocessing, but the fact that France has (apparently successfully) done it for so long makes me suspect the subject should be addressed more often and more openly than it usually is — especially since storage of the eventual spent fuel is such a big part of the discussion of and objections to the expanded use of nuclear energy. I’d welcome a good IER-quality description of that subject, please.

IER Response: Thanks for the suggestion Tom.

]]>