reprocessing « nuclear-news

Nuclear sites fear becoming permanent waste dumps

Nuclear sites fear being the alternative to Yucca

The Richmond Times Despatch , LES BLUMENTHAL MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPER September 26, 2009

WASHINGTON — It is among the nastiest substances on earth: more than 14,000 tons of highly radioactive waste left over from the building of the nation’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. Continue reading →

September 28, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 1, USA, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear wastes, radiation, radioactive, reprocessing, uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Rebranding nuclear waste fools nobody

Greenpeace 4 August 09

Nuclear waste has undergone an image makeover recently. Indeed, the industry is working hard to ensure that the most dangerous kind of nuclear waste isn’t even called nuclear waste any more. It’s now called ‘spent fuel’.

Sounds much friendlier, doesn’t it? Doesn’t make all the nasty problems associated with the nuclear waste that comes out of reactors disappear but giving something horrible a nice name helps to stop people thinking about those nasty problems. It why we call civilians killed in wars ‘collateral damage’ and why genocide gets called ‘ethnic cleansing’.

The issue of we do with this nuclear waste – sorry, spent fuel – has also had a splash of greenwash. There’s been a big push to rebrand nuclear waste reprocessing as recycling. We don’t reprocess nuclear waste any more – we ‘recycle spent fuel’. Isn’t that nice? Sounds green and environmentally friendly, doesn’t it? Nothing in the actual process has changed and we’re still left with the dangerous by-products but it sounds so much better.

So, now nuclear power has successfully rebadged* itself as not-nasty and environmentally friendly, surely it’s been warmly accepted as a renewable energy source?

The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) will not back programmes to develop nuclear energy due to the waste it produces and the risks it presents […] ‘Irena will not support nuclear energy programmes because it’s a long complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,’ Helene Pelosse, director general of Irena, told Reuters in a telephone interview from the French Alps.

That’s a big fat ‘no’.

Rebranding nuclear waste fools nobody

August 5, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, spinbuster | antinuclear, nuclear, radioactive, reprocessing, uranium, wastes | Leave a comment

Waste storage is dark cloud over nuclear power industry |

Burlington Free Press By Crea Lintilhac • July 20, 2009 –

“……………decommissioning of civilian nuclear reactors has been performed only seven times in the industry’s 60-year history and there is a shortage of data to make projections. Moreover, in recent times, the decommissioning of Connecticut Yankee ran half a billion dollars over budget and Yankee Rowe of Massachusetts ran four times over the projected costs. Since the financial collapse, I think we all believe that forecasting our financial future is ever more challenging…….

…….The lack of a disposal site is the dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise of nuclear power. Until a deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel opens, existing spent fuel should be stored in dry casks; the 150-ton concrete and metal cylinders each holding 10 tons of spent fuel and placed at the 104 reactor sites throughout the U.S…………

…………here are some of the critical points about the dangers of reprocessing and why it’s not the way to go as a waste disposal solution. To “reprocess” spent fuel, different elements like plutonium, are separated so they can be used in new fuel. The problem is, separated plutonium can be readily used to make nuclear bombs…………..

……….The Ford administration, and later the Carter administration, concluded that reprocessing was both uneconomic and dangerous.

<!–Saxotech Paragraph Count: 4
–>
……………..In June 29, President Obama decided to scrap nuclear reprocessing in the United States. It is an encouraging first step towards building an international consensus on reducing the threat from nuclear weapons.Even if no new reactors are built, it is estimated that by mid century, the amount of spent fuel will double………..

……We have only a temporary solution with dry cask storage. In the meantime we should at least shut the faucet off and stop generating more waste for the sake of our children’s future.

My Turn: Waste storage is dark cloud over nuclear power industry | burlingtonfreepress.com | The Burlington Free Press

July 22, 2009 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, wastes | antinuclear, nuclear, nuclear weapons, radioactive, reprocessing, uranium | Leave a comment