NYT Matt Wald on GAO review of DOE work on nuclear fuel recycling

[kristopher]

Have you heard that reprocessing or "recycling" spent nuclear fuel is the way to get rid of the tens of thousands of tons of toxic spent nuclear fuel? "Don't worry", nuclear proponents will tell you, "nuclear waste isn't waste, it is a valuable fuel resource. Right now we need to focus on building more nuclear plants."

Well, another nuclear myth bites the dust...

A Long, Long Road to Recycling Nuclear Fuel
By MATTHEW L. WALD

The question of what to do with spent nuclear fuel from civilian power reactors has stirred renewed interest in reprocessing — that is, chopping up the fuel, retrieving materials that can power a reactor and possibly recovering the most troublesome waste products so they can be broken up in the reactor into easier-to-handle elements.

But the Energy Department, which is supposed to is evaluate different ways that the used fuel could be recycled, has a long way to go, according to the Government Accountability Office. In a report released on Wednesday, the auditors noted that the Department of Energy had listed a huge number of potential ways to do the job and classified the methods according to the degree of promise that each held. Still, the department’s evaluation does not indicate the state of technical progress for the many technologies that would be needed, the report said.

And the Energy Department has not coordinated its work with the companies that run reactors to ensure that the technologies it evaluates are actually of commercial interest, the Government Accountability Office said.

...“No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer,’’ the report said....

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/a-long-long-road-to-recycling-nuclear-fuel/?ref=matthewlwald

[bananas]

1. The 1% have their tools trying to bury the facts.

Why would anyone unrec this?
Only one reason.

[kristopher]

2. The conclusion isn't one that thorium boosters whant known.

“No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer,’’ the report said....

[joshcryer]

3. The GAO here is making a very convincing case for fast neutron reactors. Their report is riddled...

...with the language that promotes them as a good resource.

Meanwhile the underlined bit that you quote is from the Blue Ribbon Commission whose interests are storage and whose conclusions are storage. I find storage of spent nuclear fuel to be a very dangerous sport.

[kristopher]

4. No, they aren't.

That sounds like another link in the nuclear circle-jerk of hope. Nuclear energy has 4 major problems associated with it and its low level of support among the public reflects an awareness of these problems - high costs, safety, waste and proliferation.

In order to create a positive image in the public mind they tout a given technology, but only until one of the fatal flaws is brought forward. The response then is to trot out some jargon to make it sound as if a different miracle tech that is just over the horizon is going to be "the answer". Actually hover that jargon refers to a different technology that either doesn't exist or overall solves fewer problems than the first. And so the story goes, one or two different "miracle cures" for each symptom, but no cure for the disease.

The nuclear circle-jerk, don't fall for it Josh.

[joshcryer]

7. I'm not "falling" for a "nuclear circle-jerk." I do not believe 100k year waste should sit in...

...a storage space for who knows how long.

The GAO report is not the same as the BRC report, they're both linked in the article, but you chose to quote the BRC, whose panel is made up of what one could consider nuclear neutral or nuclear "cold." The GAO report effectively makes it clear that the only real long term solution to the problem is fast neutron reactors and it highlights how the technology is no where near where it should be.

Nothing is being done about climate change either way so it's a moot point. Storing nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years is damn near impossible and just shifting the responsibility to some unknown future generation sets a really bad precedent for respect of the environment as a whole.

[kristopher]

9. Still making bogus claims, I see...

First your red herring - no one said the GAO report and the BRC report are the same. What I wrote was that the GAO report accepts findings of the Commission on the Future of Nuclear Energy. In FACT the verbiage use in the article linked in the OP is a quote FROM the GAO report, (that you've apparently not read).

DOE’s R&D plan acknowledged that the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission might affect DOE’s R&D direction. In its July 2011 draft report to the Secretary of Energy, the commission found that no currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactors and fuel cycle technologies—including advances in reprocessing and recycling—have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge the United States faces over at least the next several decades. As a result, the commission concluded, it is “premature” for the United States to now commit irreversibly to a closed fuel cycle because of the large uncertainties about the merits and commercial viability of different fuel cycles and technologies. Nevertheless, the commission also concluded that the United States should continue to pursue a program of nuclear energy R&D, both to improve the safety and performance of existing nuclear energy technologies and to develop new technologies that could offer significant advantages in, among other things, safety, cost, waste management, and nonproliferation and counterterrorism.

Page 17
United States Government Accountability Office
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE OPTIONS Oct 2011

So that quote in the NYT piece is from the GAO and as they summarize the finding of the BRC. Also note that there are those problems again - "safety, cost, waste management, and nonproliferation and counterterrorism."

That is an explicit admission that nuclear power as it now exists and as it is seen in the next several decades does not address those problems adequately - and to any analyst not on the payroll of the nuclear industry, that means there is no way to justify deploying the present technology. And not only do they not "make it clear that the only real long term solution to the problem is fast neutron reactors" the report, in point of fact, says absolutely nothing about fast neutron reactors. That is just more of your shameless pronuclear spin. You are not just falling for the pronuclear circle jerk you are actively promoting it with false claims about what is in the documents.

[joshcryer]

10. Yes, they summerize the findings of the BRC, and yet DOD is plodding ahead with fast neutron tech.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d1270.pdf

It's simple, GAO is merely summerizing what is happening, they are not agreeing or disagreeing with the BRC's statement with regards to "reasonable" and "foreseeable" nuclear fuel cycles that destroy waste. They summerize. Period. You are putting words in GAO's mouth as if that's their position.

The vast majority of the GAO's report is focused on reprocessing and fuel recycling technologies that, in fact, are being developed by the DOD in their long term plans.

Thus the BRC report is not really on mark by claiming that those technologies don't exist nor are reasonable to exist.

Cut out the insults, I'm not a nuclear cheerleader.

[kristopher]

11. You've been promoting nuclear since day one. And you are continuing it now

After aying exactly what I said initially - the GAO accepted the Commission's findings, you go on to completely fabricate claims in the rest of your post. The GAO's report has one single thrust - it is exploring - at the request of the Republicans on the energy committees - the possibility of corporations taking a more central role in making decisions related to the nation's nuclear energy program.

That is just what the fuck we need.

[joshcryer]

12. They're focusing on techniques to get rid of waste.

You could do IFR without producing one watt of electricity if you're really concerned about it. Nuclear power industry could be used to destroy that waste that they created which they paid for to dispose. Hansen and other environmentalists have pointed out how asinine it would be to store that waste when a mere technological approach would get rid of the vast majority of it, and it would produce energy.

I support destroying waste.

Stop talking about me like you know me, kid. I've been back and forth on nuclear, and as it stands now I consider nuclear just as useful as any other energy source, it ain't happening, renewables aren't happening, simple as that. My pet theory is SBSP.

I am merely against intellectual dishonesty. The GAO report is far more 'supportive' of the fast neutron reactors than your dishonest initial post and the blog posting makes it appear.

[kristopher]

13. You support and defend nuclear power.

Everything else is greenwashing or running down the competition. Your arguments over the years clearly demonstrate your objectives.

[joshcryer]

14. I support and defend the environment. Can't say the same for you.

You have in the past diminished the effects of CO2 and you are, even here, avoiding discussing the need to destroy nuclear waste as opposed to storing it for a hundred thousand years. Nuclear waste will be destroyed, even if they produce no power doing so. It is too risky for this society or future societies to allow that waste to sit in storage for effectively 100x the time civilization has existed. Don't even get me started on the fracking position you take.

Nuclear is as viable as wind, solar, geothermal, and it is a lie to say that nuclear cannot produce clean energy.

Other than that I am not hopeful for nuclear, wind, solar, or geothermal, as none of them show very much promise to stop our dependence on fossil fuels and stop our pollution producing massive amounts of greenhouse gases. They will come, but they will come only as the fossil resources dwindle. There is no effort to actually get rid of those fossil resources.

And lastly, I have never advocated Gen III+ or older reactor technology, which is all that is being built currently around the world. So to say I am a "shill for the nuclear industry" would be flat out dishonest. I maintain that Space Based Solar Power is likely where our future civilization will go, but long after we've expended the fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

15. Through the use of nuclear power.

It would be wonderfully refreshing if the supporters of nuclear were simply honest about their beliefs instead of hiding behind a veil of pretense that is completely transparent.

[joshcryer]

16. Nuclear power won't save the environment.

[kristopher]

17. Which begs the question of why your positions consistantly work to favor nuclear.

Take your recent conversion to space based solar. Existing, proven technologies are perfectly capable of transforming the modern world's energy system to a carbon free network that is less expensive, cleaner, more reliable and far more democratic than today's system. There is no denying that except from those serving the special interests associated with the existing, entrenched energy system.

And yet here you are saying nothing will/can/should happen until sbsp comes along - which coincidentally (if it happens at all) would be right about the time nuclear is ready to make another push.

I say let's get the damn job done right now with the tools we have that we know will work - distributed renewable energy.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Oooh, a blog. How exciting.

Does he also blog about PV recycling?

[kristopher]

6. ...

“No currently available or reasonably foreseeable reactor and fuel cycle technology developments — including advances in reprocess and recycle technologies — have the potential to fundamentally alter the waste management challenge this nation confronts over at least the next several decades, if not longer,’’ the report said....

[joshcryer]

8. BRC report, not the GAO report.