Russian technical development: Floating NPP for Arctic platforms

Rosenergoatom is promoting floating nuclear power plants (NPP) for energy supply for Arctic oil- and gas drilling platforms. Instead of using gas to produce electricity for the platform one floating NPP can ensure needed power supply.

A promotion brochure from Rosenergoatom details the plans to use the floating NPPs for offshore oil- and gas installations in the remote Arctic oceans.

The general concept of the plan is based on the same technology as the floating nuclear power plant currently under construction at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk region.

The plant will be built as a barge where the core of the nuclear power plant is its KLT-40 reactor. This kind of reactors is similar to the ones onboard Russia’s civilian fleet of nuclear powered icebreakers operated by the Murmansk Shipping Company.

According to the brochure one floating NPP helps to save 150 mln. cub. m of gas per year. The floating NPP can in addition to provide electricity to the platform itself, also ensure power supply to gas compressor units used for gas transmission systems, either from offshore installations or from coastal transmission installations.

A standard floating NPP will be equipped with two reactors, providing 77 MW. Rosenergoatom is also currently working towards expanding the line of floating NPPs through development of small and medium sized reactors so that in the near future they can provide a series of floating NPPs ranging from 1,5 MW to 300 MW of electric power. The different sizes will allow addressing much more diverse tasks of such regional and self supporting energy supplies.

Rosenergoatom underlines that the package of organizational and engineering solutions applied in the design ensure compliance with all Russian and international standards of nuclear and radiation safety and meet the conditions of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The floating nuclear power plants life cycle is reported to be 38 years.

In August BarentsObserver.com reported that the Murmansk Shipping Company will turn the nuclear-powered container carrier “Sevmorput“ into a drilling vessel for the oil industry. The vessel will be ready for drilling operations in the Arctic within 18 months.

(Source: BarentsObserver.com)

Iran to boost nuclear capacity despite pressure

Iran said on Saturday it would press ahead with plans to expand its nuclear program, after diplomats in Vienna said Tehran was installing advanced centrifuges in its key uranium enrichment plant.

The government spokesman also rejected any idea of halting work the United States suspects is aimed at building nuclear bombs in return for trade, technology and other benefits.

Speaking a few days before the Islamic Republic's annual National Nuclear Technology Day on April 8, Gholamhossein Elham said he hoped for "good news" on that day but did not elaborate.

The world's fourth-largest oil producer says it needs to produce nuclear fuel for a planned network of power plants to satisfy soaring electricity demand.

"The trend of advancing nuclear capacity until reaching the production of nuclear fuel and building nuclear power plants to produce 20,000 megawatts of electricity will continue," Elham said.

On Thursday, diplomats told Reuters Iran has begun installing advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges in its Natanz enrichment complex, accelerating activity that could give it the means to make atom bombs in future if it chose to.

Iran has been hit with three sets of United Nations sanctions for hiding the program until 2003, failing to prove to inspectors since then that it is wholly peaceful and refusing to suspend the disputed program.

Enriched uranium can be used as fuel in nuclear power plants or, if refined much further, provide material for weapons.

(read more)

(Source: Reuters)

Westinghouse wins Ukraine fuel supply deal

US-based Westinghouse will supply nuclear fuel to three Russian-designed power reactors in Ukraine. The contract has inspired bitter comment from Russian observers.

South Ukraine

Westinghouse will supply a total of 630 nuclear fuel assemblies to three of the VVER pressurized water reactors at the South Ukraine nuclear power plant (two VVER-440s and one VVER-1000). Until now virtually all nuclear fuel has until now been supplied by Russia's TVEL. Nuclear power provides 83% of Ukraine's electricity, and about half of all its energy.

In 2000, a financial award was granted by the US government as part of a US/Ukrainian initiative to reduce Ukraine's dependency on Russia for fuel. As well as nuclear fuel, the country also imports Russian oil, while gas supply and pricing has been a major issue in recent years. In 2005, the initiative led to six Westinghouse fuel assemblies were introduced to a South Ukraine reactor on an experimental basis; In 2009, 42 more will be added.

The new contract includes special terms to protect both the supplier and the buyer, national electricity utility Energoatom. Should Energoatom fail to gain regulatory approval for the use of Westinghouse fuel assemblies on a large scale, the American firm could terminate the contract with no penalty. On the other hand, if Westinghouse failed to meet technical standards, Energoatom could cancel.

In reaction to the announcement, Russia's Rosatom released a series of expert comments which roundly denounced the move. The various dignitaries agreed the contract was technically dubious and could be a negotiation tool during talks between Energoatom and TVEL for the remainder of nuclear fuel supplies. Furthermore they linked it to Ukraine's relationship with the European Union and its desire to join the Nato defence pact.

Chechenov Hussein, a member of the Russian Federation Commission on Natural Monopolies' subcommittee on atomic energy, said such contracts 'will bring Ukraine more harm than good.' He continued: 'I think this is a political decision not backed by economic and scientific considerations. The operation of a nuclear power plant involves the use of sophisticated, interconnected technology which can not introduce anything foreign.'

(Source: World Nuclear News)

New Japanese nuclear power reactors delayed

Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco) announced that the start of operation of four new nuclear power reactors would be delayed, while Electric Power Development Co (J-Power) said the start of construction of its Ohma plant had been postponed again.

Tepco said that the start of commercial operation of four new nuclear power plants would be postponed by one year due to the incorporation of new earthquake resistance assessments. The company said that units 7 and 8 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant would now enter commercial operation on October 2014 and October 2015, respectively. Unit 1 of the Higashidori plant is now scheduled to begin operating in December 2015, while unit 2 will start up in fiscal 2018 or later.

Tepco's Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata prefecture has been shut since being damaged by a magnitude 6.8 earthquake on 16 July 2007. The company has since restarted decommissioned thermal plants to make up for the shortfall in nuclear generation. According to Bloomberg, Tepco expects to post its first loss in 28 years because of higher fuel costs. The company has set aside Y440 billion ($4.4 billion) for additional oil and liquefied natural gas costs in the year to 31 March. Tepco earlier estimated a net loss of Y155 billion ($1.5 billion) for this financial year, compared with a profit of Y298 billion ($3 billion) in the previous financial year.

Tepco said that it will speed up construction of coal- and gas-fired power plants in order to avoid a supply shortfall due to new nuclear power units being delayed. Under a business management plan announced today, the company will complete the construction of a 1000 MW coal-fire unit at Hitachinaka in Ibaraki prefecture and a 600 MW coal-fired unit at Hirono in Fukushima prefecture in fiscal 2013, one year ahead of schedule. In addition, Tepco will bring the first line of the second liquefied natural gas-fired plant at Kawasaki in Kanagawa prefecture into operation in 2013, some four years ahead of schedule.

(read more)
(Source: World Nuclear News)

USA: Lawmakers seek end to nuclear power plant ban

Construction Forbidden before Federal Waste Disposal System Ready

Some lawmakers hope to lift a longstanding ban on construction of nuclear power plants in Kentucky.

Senate Bill 156 would repeal a 1984 law that prohibits new nuclear plants until the federal government finalizes a nuclear waste disposal system. So far, the government has not, despite controversial plans to establish Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a national radioactive waste disposal site.

Rather than wait for a federal solution, Kentucky should simply allow its Public Service Commission to begin the approval process for nuclear plants, said Sen. Bob Leeper, an Independent from Paducah and the bill's sponsor. His district includes the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the only operating uranium enrichment facility in the nation.

Without a national disposal site, plants in Kentucky would have to make their own plans for waste storage.

About 30 companies are currently considering whether and where in the United States to open nuclear plants that could result in $4 billion investments each, Leeper said.

"I just want to put Kentucky on the map," Leeper told the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment on Thursday.

Chairman Jim Gooch, D-Providence, said he likes the bill and considers coal and nuclear to be America's energy future, while wind and solar power offer "false hopes."

However, Gooch's committee could not approve the bill Thursday because too few of its members attended the hearing to provide a quorum. A special hearing might be called in the final days of the 2008 session to adopt the bill and allow it the House vote it needs to reach the governor's desk and be signed into law, Gooch said.

In the audience, environmental activist Tom FitzGerald said he opposes the bill because it "would send the wrong message" on nuclear power, particularly as the national debate over radioactive waste does not appear settled.

(Source: www.kentucky.com)

USA: Nuclear Innovation launched to develop power-generating projects nationwide

NRG Energy Inc. has formed a new company that will invest in new nuclear projects in select markets across North America.

The company, Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, will take over the development of the planned nuclear plant expansion at the South Texas Project. The development of the two nuclear-generating units will be delayed as a result of the formation of the new company. Units 3 and 4 should come online in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The units had been slated to come online in 2014 and 2015.

Princeton, N.J.-based NRG (NYSE: NRG) is jointly developing two new nuclear reactors at the Bay City, Texas complex with San Antonio's CPS Energy. NRG will transfer its portion of the work to Nuclear Innovation North America.

Japan's Toshiba Corp., which is serving as the prime contractor on the South Texas Project expansion, will become an equity partner with NRG on the new venture.

Toshiba will invest $300 million in the company over the next six years in return for a 12 percent equity stake in Nuclear Innovation.

One advantage to the NRG-Toshiba venture is that Toshiba has agreed to extend pre-negotiated engineering, procurement and construction terms to Nuclear Innovation for two additional nuclear projects.

This favorable pricing structure could lead to a "nuclear renaissance" in the United States for new nuclear energy projects, according to NRG officials.

"New advanced nuclear is a key part of the future for affordable, reliable and zero carbon baseload generation not only in Texas but throughout the United States," says NRG President and CEO David Crane. "And after a 30-year hiatus, we believe the most cost-effective and risk-managed way to reintroduce nuclear ... is by working with the companies that have been so successful with on-time, on-budget nuclear construction in other countries."

By this, Crane is referring to Toshiba and its expertise in building Advanced Boiling Water Reactors throughout the world, including two completed in Japan.

"We are making a strong investment in renewing America's electrical infrastructure and meeting growing U.S. electricity demand," Crane says. "These projects represent at least $15 billion of direct investment in the U.S. economy through jobs and equipment."

(Source: San Antonio Business Journal)

Australia must end uranium confusion

Australia's uranium industry has vented its frustration at state and federal governments, saying the "pathetic" political situation has to change.

Uranium ore concentrate

Speaking at the Paydirt 2008 Uranium Conference in Adelaide, Mike Angwin, executive director of the Australian Uranium Association, said Australia has an incomplete policy and incomplete regulatory regime for uranium mining and the industry has not broadened to become country-wide.

"Despite a welcome shift to bipartisan support, we have considerable ground to cover before Australia is seen as a political friendly uranium country. We have not yet consolidated our political role," said Angwin.

Uranium mining operations in Australia's various regions are licensed - or not - by local governments. Currently uranium mining activity is focused in South Australia and the Northern Territory where between them 82% of the country's uranium is produced. Australia itself accounts for about 19% of the world's supply.

The managing director of Toro Energy, Greg Hall, said, "there is a confusing mixed bag in peoples' minds about what is possible and what is not possible in Australia," and that "There needs to be a much higher appreciation that a modern uranium industry is a lot different than something Western Australia and Queensland's policy thinkers learnt in the 1970s."

Uranium analyst Warwick Grigor went further, saying the situation was "just as pathetic as it was a year ago." He added: "There has been no backing down of the anti-uranium stance in Western Australia, and the Queensland government continues with the pathetically parochial and anti-environmental view that it does not want to stand in the way of the development of its coal industry."

Hall connected Australian uranium exports with the global push for more nuclear power as an emissions-free alternative: "We as a country have to be able to start other uranium mines if there is international demand and an increasing reliance on these countries for nuclear energy to cut greenhouse emissions."

"As we stand, these markets are only getting access to 50% of potential Australian uranium production so the political impasse has to change."
(Source: World Nuclear News)

Capacity crisis at Japan Steel Works threatens global nuclear power plant production

A 100-year-old steel mill that once forged guns for the Japanese Imperial Navy has hit a production bottleneck that threatens to derail more than £150 billion of global nuclear power-plant construction.

The capacity shortage at Japan Steel Works (JSW) has created a worldwide stampede among electricity producers to place orders with the Tokyo-based engineer for nuclear reactor cores - a specialised component in which the company has an effective global monopoly.

As the stakes have risen in the tussle to reach the front of JSW's order-book queue for reactor cores, energy analysts said that down-payments have soared beyond £50 million per unit. In some cases, European and American energy groups are placing huge deposits on equipment that will not be built for another decade.

Nuclear energy experts fear that in its haste to expand production, the nuclear industry may have overlooked this part of the equation, potentially jeopardising the future of the 237 reactors expected by The World Nuclear Association to be built between now and 2030.

(read more)

(Source: Times Online)

China Looking Towards Third Generation Nuclear Power “made in China”

Power shortages and the pressures of energy saving and pollution reduction are forcing China to accelerate the development of nuclear power. The government plans to finish the construction of a next-generation large-scale nuclear power plant by 2017.

Wang Binghua, chairman of the State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC), told China Business News that normally it takes four years to develop one generation of nuclear power production. By importing, developing and digesting nuclear technology, China is now trying to gain from other’s experience in the design, research, construction and installation processes for third-generation nuclear power plants though capacity-increasing transformation. “I think we can do that by 2017,” said Wang.

China has already mastered the technology for second-generation power plant construction. The design of the first-stage of the Qinshan nuclear power plant was Chinese, while the Daya Bay plant was constructed jointly with Alstom of France, and both plants are now running smoothly. The second-stage Qinshan plant was designed and constructed and is operated and administrated by China itself.

(read more)

(Source: Chinastakes.com)

Nuclear Power will not solve the Problem of Global Warming

Nuclear power reactors use a rare isotope of uranium 235 as a power source. This isotope occurs naturally as a small quantity in rock formations. The first step in mining this uranium uses large loaders and trucks, the wheels on which are likely taller than you are and could no doubt pick up your car in one scoop. These vehicles use diesel fuel and because of their size and weight get a fraction of one mile per gallon. The broken rock is transported to a diesel slurping crusher. Next comes a series of milling and refining and enrichment activities that occur primarily in Tennessee and Kentucky. Entire mountain tops are removed to strip mine coal which is burned to produce electricity. This electricity runs the milling and enrichment process. A common error is the idea that nuclear power causes no green house emissions. In fact the diesel and coal burned to mine, refine, mill and enrich uranium to produce the pellets in fuel rod is actually substantial.
(read more...)
Source: www.opednews.com

Reprocessing used fuel: devil or saint?

Reprocessing advocates claim that the closed fuel cycle is the most sustainable approach for nuclear energy, as it reduces recourse to natural uranium resources and optimises waste management. The advantages and disadvantages of used nuclear fuel reprocessing have been debated since the dawn of the nuclear era. There is a range of issues involved, notably the sound management of wastes, the conservation of resources, economics, hazards of radioactive materials and potential proliferation of nuclear weapons. Sifting through these is not easy, with strong counter-claims made by opposing parties, but it is undoubtedly true that in recent years, the reprocessing advocates appear to be winning once again, perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the apparent change in position of the USA under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) programme.
To begin with, it’s important conceptually to distinguish reprocessing from recycling. Reprocessing is stage one – the separation of uranium and plutonium out of used fuel and conditioning of the remaining material as waste. Fuel assemblies removed from a reactor are very radioactive and produce heat, so are cooled (mostly at the reactor site or otherwise at a central storage facility or at the reprocessing plant) for a number of years as the level of radioactivity decreases considerably. For most types of fuel, reprocessing occurs anything from 5 to 25 years after reactor discharge. Recycling is then stage two – the use of the uranium and plutonium from the reprocessing plant, which can be either as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel or reprocessed uranium (RepU) fuel in current reactors or as fuel for future Generation IV reactors. Reprocessing effectively sets up the possibility of recycling. This doesn’t necessarily have to follow, but in practice, the two stages are bound together as reprocessing will likely only be undertaken with a view to eventual recycling.
(read more)
(Steve Kidd, Nuclear Engineering International)

Nuclear News 12/02/2008

Russia, India Reiterate Nuclear, Hydrocarbon Plans
Bloomberg

Russia and India today reiterated plans to jointly set up hydrocarbon projects and build nuclear power generation units in the South Asian nation in an effort to improve economic and political ties.
``I expressed my hope that the ongoing discussions between our oil and gas companies would result in finalization of joint projects in India, Russia and third countries,'' Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told reporters in New Delhi today. He spoke at a joint briefing held with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov.
The two countries will try to achieve the target of doubling trade to $10 billion by 2010, Zubkov said. Russia and India are negotiating accords discussed when Russian President Vladimir Putin visited India in January 2007.

Poland, Lithuania sign power deal, spurring nuclear plan
Forbes

Poland and Lithuania Tuesday signed a deal paving the way to hook up their electricity grids, helping offset Russia's energy clout and clearing a hurdle to related plans to build a new nuclear power plant.
In a ceremony with Polish President Lech Kaczynski and his Lithuanian opposite number Valdas Adamkus, the bosses of the two countries' state-owned electricity grid firms inked the accord.
The link is seen as a crucial element in beefing up regional energy security by plugging Lithuania and its Baltic neighbours into the electricity systems of the rest of the European Union.

Turkey revives nuclear power plans
The Press Association

Turkey has revived plans to build its first nuclear power plant on the Mediterranean coast despite warnings from environmentalists that the site was in an earthquake-prone location, the energy minister said.
The minister, Hilmi Guler, said everything was ready for construction at Akkuyu, near the Mediterranean coastal town of Silifke, the state-run Anatolia news agency said.
Turkey will formally invite bids for the project on February 21, he said.
Environmentalists already unhappy because of the safety concerns over nuclear power production oppose the use of the Akkuyu site because they say it is prone to earthquakes.

'Nuclear Power in Europe' Analyzes the Energy Situation in Europe and Explains Why the Continent is in Need of Utilizing Nuclear Power
Teleborsa, Italy

As of September 30, 2007 there was a total of 197 nuclear power plant units with an installed electric net capacity of 169,842 MWe in operation in Europe and 12 units with 9,991 MWe were under construction in five countries. France has been Europe's most enthusiastic devotee of nuclear power, constructing dozens of reactors since the 1970s oil crises spurred on its desire for energy independence. It has become the world's biggest net exporter of electricity, and is also a major exporter of nuclear technology.
The report Nuclear Power in Europe analyzes the energy situation in Europe and why the continent is in need of utilizing nuclear power to serve its growing need for energy and power. The report begins with an overview of nuclear power and an overview of the electricity industry in Europe. Since nuclear power is primarily used for generating electricity, it is important to gage the status of the electricity generating market in Europe.

India's nuclear power sector: no private players for now
The Hindu

The private sector will not be allowed to enter the civilian nuclear power segment for at least another seven years, according to a top government official.
The private sector’s entry is conditional on a separate set of rules for the country strategic programme and other alterations in the Atomic Energy Act. “Work is in progress and is at varying stages. This means that the private sector will not get an opportunity till 2014,” said the official who did not wish to be quoted.
Ever since India signed the 123 Agreement on the nuclear deal with the United States, the private sector has been enthusiastically examining the opportunities for setting up nuclear power plants.

Nuclear news 10/02/2008

Nuclear plants are not carbon neutral
Times Argus

Mining, milling, conversion, refining and fabrication of uranium into fuel rods all use fossil fuels. Storage of waste and decommissioning of the plant also take significant amounts of fuel. Yes, other generators also require dismantling, but they can be sold as scrap metal, to defray costs. Dismantled nuclear generators include many tons of radioactive material that must be sequestered indefinitely.
With the currently available high grade uranium ore (0.2 percent concentration), the nuclear plant results in 20 percent as much carbon dioxide as a natural gas fired power plant. When ore concentrations are lowered to 0.01 percent, the nuclear plant causes the same carbon dioxide production as a natural gas fired plant. And ore quality is declining steadily and will decline faster as more nuclear plants are built. So nuclear plants are not carbon neutral, by any considered analysis. As time goes on, as we approach the time when only the lowest grade ores are available, nuclear power becomes a "carbon loser" compared to natural gas fired generation.
We need to be very clear that nuclear energy does emit carbon dioxide, some now and much more in the future.

In the US, nuclear power is becoming the new green
theage.com.au

Thirty years since a US nuclear reactor was ordered and more than a decade since the last plant opened, the controversial energy source is being considered by utilities across the country.
Federal regulators received four licence applications for seven new nuclear-power plants last year and expect to receive another 15 applications for 22 plants this year.
Several factors drive the renewed interest in nuclear energy. Operations, maintenance and fuel costs for nuclear plants have dropped 30% since 1995, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. At the same time, the cost of operating a coal-fired plant has remained flat, while natural gas prices have surged.
"It's become a matter of economics," said Tom Johnson, from the department of environmental and radiological health sciences at Colorado State University. "Nuclear is starting to become a little bit cheaper than coal."

Nuclear power's costs far outweigh its benefits
JS Online

Proponents of nuclear power argue that it does not produce carbon dioxide and thus does not contribute to global climate change. This argument, endlessly repeated by proponents of nuclear power, ignores the inconvenient fact that without the mining, milling and enrichment of uranium, there is no nuclear power. Each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is extremely energy intensive and results in the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
The most energy-intensive stage of the nuclear fuel cycle is the mining and milling of uranium fuel. As the most accessible and higher grade uranium ores are mined, a greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from less accessible and lower grade uranium concentrations.

Europe warms up to nuclear power
ajc.com

The nuclear industry in the United States is beginning to show signs of life after years of lying dormant, but it is still weighed down by concerns over accidents, waste disposal and the possibility that fuel might wind up in terrorists' hands.
For inspiration, America needs only to look to Europe, where nuclear energy is increasingly being seen as the only way to tackle the twin problems of climate change and energy security. After years of resistance, the British government last month gave the go-ahead for a new generation of nuclear power stations. As many as 10 new reactors are in the works. Around the world, up to 90 nuclear reactors are being planned, many in Europe.
Adam McCarthy, associate director of Energy Policy Consulting in Brussels, Belgium, said "there is a growing realization that nuclear will have to be part of the energy solution for Europe."
He said the main driver is the desire among Europeans, who tend to be more environment-minded than Americans, to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Another factor is rising oil and gas prices.

Is nuclear power the answer to global warming?
Helium

Utlizing nuclear power is a safe, economical and long term solution to part of the problem of global warming.
Nuclear power has fallen out of favor in the general public because of two well publicized incidents: Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Both are anamolies on the otherwise spotless safety record of nuclear power. France operates a sizable (by some estimations 70) percentage of their power completely on nuclear power plants and has not had a single notable safety incident. In America, 20% of our power comes from nuclear energy, and aside from Three Mile Island, there has been no notable safety incident either. In other parts of the world nuclear power is seen as the height of sophisticated safety. The redundancies in all aspects of safety and security are top notch and it is one of the most highly regulated and oft inspected ways of generating power in existence today.

Some interesting facts and figures about nuclear waste

Here is an article revealing several facts about nuclear waste, arguing that nuclear waste storage is not a problem, at least not such big problem as coal powered plant emissions.

NUCLEAR WASTE: NOT A PROBLEM

Published at thenewamerican.com (click on the link to go to original full story).

by Ed Hiserodit

How ironic that the nuclear wastes of concern to the letter-to-the-editor writer have become the most serious problem with nuclear power generation. Six decades ago the birth of nuclear power was praised for lowering the volume of waste products by a factor of 10,000,000. As Petr Beckmann pointed out in his classic The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear, the nuclear wastes for an individual for a year is about the size of an aspirin tablet — a minuscule price to pay for inexpensive, reliable, safe electrical power. Yet when nuclear power is mentioned as a clean alternative today, the problem of wastes invariably arises.

(...)

The coal-fired plant also produces 30 pounds of sulfur dioxide per second (said to cause acid rain, amongst other problems) and as much nitrous oxide as 200,000 automobiles. Each year some 60,000 fellow citizens die early deaths from exposure to byproducts of coal combustion, according to studies by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, Divisions of Atmospheric Sciences and of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. Note that unlike wastes from nuclear power plants, all products of coal combustion are either sent into the atmosphere or into landfills where they remain toxic forever.

(...)

We have addressed the 3 percent of spent fuel that can be considered extremely dangerous high-level waste, because of the intensity at which it releases its radiation. But we have also seen from the preceding table that the rapid decay of its components lessens its danger to relatively short periods of time. About 97 percent of spent fuel is not waste at all, but valuable uranium and plutonium that can and should be recycled for use as fuel. It seems odd that we are enjoined by “environmentalists” to recycle paper — a truly renewable resource — but be forbidden by government decree to recycle radioactive fuel that is many times more expensive than gold. After chemically removing the high-level wastes, the recoverable isotopes in spent fuels and their half lives are:
Uranium-235
710 million years
Uranium-238
4.5 billion years
Plutonium-239
24.4 thousand years†
Plutonium-240
6.6 thousand years†
Plutonium-241
13.2 years†
Note that except for plutonium-240 and -241, these recyclable isotopes have very long half-lives and they emit their radiation slowly — so slowly, in fact, that they can safely be handled with bare hands.

(...)

So why doesn’t the United States, like other countries possessing nuclear power, reprocess its fuel, removing the high-level radionuclides and reusing the uranium and plutonium isotopes? It is owing to the perceived — rather misperceived — dangers of the plutonium in the “spent fuel.”

(...)

A canister of waste that produces 30,000 watts of heat energy when removed (after one year) from a power plant cooling pond would have dropped to about 3,000 watts in 10 years, to 300 watts in 100 years, and to a barely detectable 3 watts in 1,000 years. We can see then that the radioactivity of the waste canister has decreased to 1/10,000th its initial value and is not likely to require the services of armed guards 24/7 for 100,000 years, as the more vocal anti-nuclear activists would have one believe.

(...)

The underlying cause of the nuclear-waste “problem” is an exaggerated fear of radiation. We have been conditioned for many years to accept the premise that even the slightest bit of radiation is dangerous — a premise that is not borne out by any experimental evidence.
It is certainly true that high doses of radiation can sicken or kill, and lower but still very substantial exposures can increase one’s propensity for developing cancer. But contrary to “common knowledge,” examination of the data shows that low levels of ionizing radiation often have a beneficial effect on human health known as hormesis — a fact that many scientists are striving to make public with little help from an uninformed and generally anti-nuclear news media. There is a very close parallel between ultra-violet (non-ionizing) radiation from exposure to sunshine and nuclear (ionizing) radiation. While extreme exposure to sunlight can lead to sunstroke and death, and lesser amounts cause sunburn and increase chances of skin cancer, moderate sunshine stimulates our bodies to create vitamin D that is necessary for good health.

For full article text, click here.