1
   

Bush's return to Reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel.

 
 
littlek
 
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 07:59 pm
The first I've heard of this nuclear program.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a group which sends members petitions to sign/send on topics which see science threatened by politics.

Quote:
The Bush administration is developing a major new initiative on nuclear power, a key part of which is expected to be the "reprocessing" of the used (or "spent") fuel from nuclear power reactors. Reprocessing separates plutonium and uranium from other nuclear waste contained in spent nuclear fuel. The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors, but also to make nuclear weapons. Nearly three decades ago, the United States decided on non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess spent fuel from U.S. power reactors, but instead to directly dispose of it in a deep underground geologic repository where it would remain isolated from the environment for at least tens of thousands of years.


UCS Article

Does anyone know more about this program? When was it planned? Why put a previously discounted plan into action now?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,546 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:09 pm
I think the plan that replaced the previously discounted plan is all but shot now too. They tried to put that nuclear waste in those "deep underground geologic repositories" and the people in AZ fought it and seem to have won. I don't beleive there is a repository right now.

This is the first I've seen on anything about going back to reprocessing though.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:12 pm
The UCS article says there is no crisis in the storing of spent fuel.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:29 pm
I wasn't suggesting that there is any crisis. I was only suggesting that the plan for underground storage don't seem to be getting anywhere and appears to have been given up on. Wink
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:39 pm
wouldn't that constitute a crisis? Hmmm. Anyway, sure do wish I hadn't misspelled reprocessing in the title.....
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:46 pm
Remember when they had the idea of shooting the stuff into space?

Wouldn't that have made an interesting explosion if something had gone awry at the launching pad.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:47 pm
Nah. It makes it a big pain in the pahtoot but I don't think it makes it a crisis. I mean, we need a long term storage solution but I don't think there is stuff spilling out onto the streets at this point. It's mostly just manpower intensive to track and guard it all.

(I fixed your spelling for ya! Wink )

(I would have thought this topic would have generated more interest!)
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:48 pm
Whose spelling did you fix, fishin'?

And why?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:50 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Whose spelling did you fix, fishin'?

And why?


Ms. K's title. Cause she's ok and she felt bad that she typo'd on it...
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:51 pm
Thank you for the prompt and reasonable explanation.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 08:53 pm
oh! Thanks Fishin!
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:04 pm
Fishin - I'm surprised it's so quiet on this thread, too. I think it's been a bit of a slow night all around.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:05 pm
Your are most welcome k.

It is slow.. wanna go grab a beer? I'll meet ya in Waltham! Razz
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:07 pm
Well, if'n I had tomorrow off, I'd say hell yeah!
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:11 pm
Oh yeah... work. (in 8 hours) Blah!
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:17 pm
fishin' wrote:
Oh yeah... work. (in 8 hours) Blah!


Yea,

littlek is in a celebratory mood tonight!

Anon
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:18 pm
Well, sort of, yeah! I guess I knew already that I was in. The official letter did me good, though.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:20 pm
Will you be sleeping with the letter in your hand tonight, K?

Will you be lightly caressing the letter as you drift off?

Please.... give us the details.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:29 pm
Um, no. It's on the table, or in the recycling bag. I can't remeber. <heehee>
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:58 pm
Actually lk,

I've been following the thread. It's very interesting to me but I just don't know much about it. I've been against nuclear energy ever since the accidents. Chernobyl will never be really clean, and the people there are paying a horrible price. One mistake lasts forever in terms of humans.

I would say however that it is time to give an intelligent look at it and see if we can use it safely. Supposedly it has been made "foolfproof" so to speak. I can't think of a better terrorist target, but then, what isn't when you think about it. We certainly need to do something, and I'm not ready to tear up ANWR and endanger the coastlines with oil drilling. So maybe it's time to reconsider!

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush's return to Reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 01:32:38