Science panel calls for Bush to dump nuclear waste plan

11/3/07

Science panel calls for Bush to dump nuclear waste plan

ASSOCIATED PRESSOctober 30, 2007BY H. JOSEF HEBERT

WASHINGTON -- A panel of the National Academy of Sciences urged President George W. Bush on Monday to abandon a plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing that is the heart of the administration's push to expand civilian use of nuclear power.

The 17-member panel said the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, hasn't been adequately reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn't been proved, or isn't expected to be ready in the time the administration envisions.
It said if the administration proceeds as planned there will be "significant technical and financial risks."
Bush announced the initiative in 2006 and has touted it as key to U.S. efforts to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power.

The plan envisions a few nations, including the United States and Russia, supplying others with reactor fuel and reprocessing their used fuel.

Dennis Spurgeon, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said the committee conclusions represented "a misconception" of the program and that the department "fully recognizes the complexity and time needed."

The program has been criticized by nuclear nonproliferation activists and has received a chilly reception in Congress, which has refused to provide the short-term funding the Energy Department requested.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing continues in Europe and Japan, but the United States abandoned it in the 1970s because of concerns the plutonium created poses a nuclear proliferation risk. But the program envisions a different reprocessing method advocates argue would not create pure plutonium.

The Energy Department says the program, in the long run, will reduce the cost of commercial reactor waste disposal and remove the need for more underground waste repositories beyond the proposed Yucca Mountain dump in Nevada.

The panel concluded that the program, even if pursued, is not expected to be ready in time to deal with the commercial nuclear waste accumulating at 104 U.S. commercial power reactors and the waste expected to be added from the reactors being built.

Fair Use Notice / Copyrights

Fair Use Notice This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml - If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ten Reasons To Say No To Nuclear Power

1. Climate change is underway. Renewable energy can be brought online faster, more cheaply and more safely than nuclear power. 2. Reactors are sitting-duck targets and are not even defended to the ferocity of the 9/11 attacks. 3. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors routinely release radioactivity and use fossil fuels at every step from uranium mining to waste storage. 4. Building more reactors in the U.S. sends the wrong message abroad. Commercial nuclear technology inevitably leads to nuclear weapons capability. 5. The Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive dump is unsound and even if opened could not accommodate all wastes if generation continues. 6. Evacuation plans are unrealistic. Hurricane Katrina taught us that a mass evacuation during a serious radiological release would be a chaotic catastrophe. 7. A typical 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces enough plutonium each year to make 40 atomic bombs, an unacceptable risk. 8. New and old reactors are most prone to break down. U.S. reactors are old. New ones increase the risk of accident. 9. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission—mandated to watchdog the nuclear industry – chooses to protect industry profit over public health and safety. 10. The most defenseless are at the greatest risk—children, the elderly, minorities, the poor and animals—at every phase of the nuclear fuel chain. Ten Brighter Ideas 1. If every U.S. household installed one compact fluorescent light bulb, the power savings would equal the power produced by one nuclear reactor. 1=1! 2. Twenty compact fluorescents in every U.S. home could displace at least 25% of U.S. nuclear reactors. 3. Updated lighting, appliances, heating, cooling and other electrical systems can save more energy than all 103 U.S. reactors produce annually. 4. Cost-effective energy efficiency measures for homes and businesses can save at least 20% of electricity use. 5. Turning off and unplugging electrical equipment not in use and line-drying clothes seem like small measures but can make a big difference. 6. Homeowners and renters alike can choose to buy green power instead of nuclear generated electricity. 7. Properly sealing and insulating your home can save 25%-40% of building heat loss. 8. Renewable energy sources can meet 25% of U.S. energy needs by 2025. 9. Shifting to locally-generated electricity avoids waste, reduces brownouts and blackouts, increases efficiency of service and creates jobs. 10. Every dollar spent on nuclear power instead of fossil fuels results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency. www.nirs.org 301.270.6477

"The No Nuker" - where No Nukes is good news !

11/3/07