Managing Nuclear Waste: The Illogic of Reprocessing

Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.

Description: Dr. Frank von Hippel discussed the pros and cons of the proposed U.S. Department of Energy plan to process nuclear waste to separate and reuse plutonium. He explained that reprocessing, in addition to costing two to ten times more than on-site storage, creates a security risk. Reprocessed plutonium is compact and transportable, making it vulnerable to theft by terrorists or potentially even non-nuclear states looking to develop nuclear weapons programs. Therefore, Dr. von Hippel argued, the United States should not alter its policy of the previous three decades of opposing nuclear reprocessing until better safety standards are in place.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• uchannel
• nuclear
• energy
• waste
• environment
• policy
• lbj
• wws

[170116]

I CANT WATCH THIS ANY MORE ITS TOTALLY WRONG.

FRANCE IS THE LEADER IN NUCLEAR PLANTS,they have and will always use nucs,they erxport the excess power to other countries.

the USA already seperated the spent fuel into basic components,so its already STARTED,REPEAT STARTED.

INDIA has the biggest supply of THORIUM,so gee why not use it ,da

the USA is held back by very narrow views.

Transuranic waste has already been figured out how to be taken to a less threating state.

get out of the 60's

[Wafflepudding]

...I know it doesn't harm or benefit his arguments, but the way he speaks still gives me a headache.

[JohnClark362]

@JohnClark362

"Transuranic waste has already been figured out how to be taken to a less threating state."

The waste problem isn't solved. If it was the US wouldn't be spending so much money on finding geological repositories.

[JohnClark362]

@JohnClark362

"the USA already seperated the spent fuel into basic components,so its already STARTED,REPEAT STARTED."

If they have, they shouldn't.

"INDIA has the biggest supply of THORIUM,so gee why not use it ,da

the USA is held back by very narrow views."

Well if it's not economical for India to use it's Thorium reserves compared to imported Uranium, that's why. There's no reason for the US to use Thorium in LWRs though. The latest MIT study on nuclear fuel cycles concludes this.

[JohnClark362]

@JohnClark362

such a high proportion of nuclear generation leaves France unable to meet peaking demand effectively. Since npps have such a high capital cost and such a low operating cost operations want to run as much as possible. These two facts mean France generations copious amounts of unneeded electricity, getting rid of it by dumping it on other EU countries at much lower than market prices.

Basically they export power because the overbought inflexible, high capital cost power plants.

[Williamwallis33]

Nuclear electricity is the most expensive electricity in the world. Entitlements and tax-payer bailouts for the industry keep it afloat. The cost of managing the radioactive waste will cost taxpayers for the next 20,000 years. Would you buy a hamburger for $10,000? Nuclear electricity is the kind of electricity you use once and pay for every year until the cancer causing radiation disapates.

[jasbcor]

I think you have those two flipped around, pls double check.

[rsty615]

Remaining Lifetime of an Open Fuel Cycle: ~80 years

Remaining Lifetime of Closed Fuel Cycle: ~Infinity (for all intensive purposes)

UREX+ works, just ask THE REST OF THE WORLD.

Enjoy your wind farms and deserts with thousands of mirrors; I'm sure there's lots of energy there.