PolicyWatch: CO2 emissions and Nuclear Fuel Cycle Safety

[briggsmedia]

Dr. Siegel replies:

Yes, I agree with this person. Reprocessing is done to save money and to reduce further damage to the environment by reducing the need for more virgin uranium... The point about a thermal limit is likely valid, though it has little impact on my basic point - that the actual volume of "bad stuff" in long-term storage is relatively modest, as compared to fossil fuels,.. Also, reprocessed U cannot be used to make nuclear weapons (too much U236).

[milofonbil]

If reprocessing saves money, why have the nuclear electric companies not stepped forward to build a reprocessing plant in the US? Is it that they want the government to give them a $30 billion subsidy to build it?

Also, could you clear up something here. Some people say that reprocessing reduces the amount of waste. But it's my understanding that the chemicals used in reprocessing also becomes waste. Can you shed some light here?

[greyflcn]

Nuclear reprocessing reduces low level waste, and minining, but does nothing to reduce high level waste.

And waste repositories fill up by temperature, not volume. And low level waste is near meaningless of temperature.

So removing it does us hardly any good other than stretching our nuclear fuel supplies.