Use the tools below to copy the article in plain text form, or you can copy it as HTML, ready to copy and paste directly into a web page.
HTML <html> <head> <title>Why Not Reprocess Nuclear Fuel?</title> </head> <body> <h1>Why Not Reprocess Nuclear Fuel?</h1> <div class="info">Author: <a href="author_1_4887.html">James Finch</a></div><div class="body">One of the related reasons helping to drive the current uranium bull market higher is the "once-through" use of uranium. The world's largest commercial consumers of U3O8 are the U.S. utilities. Because of government policies established thirty years ago, the U.S. nuclear reactors may not reprocess its uranium. Each spent control rod contains about 95 to 97 percent of unused uranium. Imagine if you were only allowed to use 5 percent of the gasoline in your tank to power your automobile. You would be legally bound to drain the remaining 95 percent of the gasoline from your car, store it and then refresh your tank with new gasoline. Again, you could only use 5 percent of that gasoline. <br /> <br /> Under these political circumstances, U.S. utilities must continuously acquire fresh supplies of uranium. A large-scale Generation III nuclear power plant will reportedly consume 30 million pounds of uranium oxide over its proposed sixty-year operating life. When the 104 licensed Generation II nuclear reactors are replaced with the next generation of reactors, U.S. utilities can look forward to acquiring more than 3 billion pounds of uranium to operating those plants. To worsen matters, these same utilities will be competing with others across the globe, which also want uranium to power their nuclear energy programs.<br /> <br /> The Generation IV nuclear reactor designs may help solve the problem. The problem of reprocessing stems from worries about plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists. In May 1974, India detonated a nuclear device. The device was constructed from plutonium separated at its reprocessing facility. The Indians had obtained plutonium from an insecure Canadian research reactor. <br /> <br /> Then-presidential candidate James Earl Carter was opposed to recycling plutonium. He debated then-President Gerald Ford about the evils of reprocessing. This election also took place during the high point of the 1970s uranium bull market. President Ford blinked and issued a 1976 policy statement, "The avoidance of proliferation must take precedence over economic interests." He changed the domestic policies of the "commercialization of chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel which results in the separation of plutonium." By April 1977, Carter issued his edict indefinitely "deferring" the commercial reprocessing of uranium. Carter wanted to bury the nuclear waste. This has led to the present problem of where to deposit about 30 years of nuclear waste. Instead of recycling the nuclear fuel rods, we are now faced with decisions about where to bury nuclear waste. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but in the post-TMI years, there was little interest in reprocessing. President Clinton in 1995 proceeded in a joint venture with Russian government to dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear weapons, called the HEU program.<br /> <br /> Ironically, France, Japan and the United Kingdom reprocess their used nuclear fuel by utilizing the technology developed in the United States. Over the past forty years, more than 75,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuels have been reprocessed. France has reprocessed more than 10,000 metric tons of used reactor fuel. The United Kingdom has reprocessed more than 15,000 metric tons. Reprocessing extends the life of the uranium as a nuclear fuel. After five or six cycles, the remaining plutonium can no longer be used. By recycling the uranium and plutonium within a metric ton of used reactor fuel, utilities are getting the equivalent of the energy from 100,000 barrels of oil. <br /> <br /> Instead, U.S. utilities are given a bizarre alternative to reprocessing. Spent fuel rods are stored in nuclear fuel storage pools of water. Instead of reprocessing the used nuclear fuel, it must now be safely stored. The ongoing national debate about nuclear waste disposal, and whether or not to utilize Yucca Mountain, can also find its roots in the political decision made during the 1976 U.S. presidential election.<br /> <br /> U.S. utilities are currently held hostage from all sides: (a) provide a cleaner source of energy to a growing appetite for electricity; (b) don't reprocess spent fuel rods, but instead burden the uranium miners to obtain a fresh supply of uranium for their re-fueling cycles; (c) dispose of the nuclear waste in new and inventive ways (dry cask shortage to alleviate the rising storage pools); (d) build newer and safer nuclear reactors. Once-through has created numerous problems for U.S. utilities, and ultimately for every American.<br /> </div> <div class="source">Article Source: <a href="http://www.articlealley.com/article_61624_19.html">http://www.articlealley.com/article_61624_19.html</a></div> <div class="author"> <div class="authorOccupation"><strong>Occupation:</strong> Writer</div> <div class="authorBio">James Finch is a contributing editor for StockInterview.com and other publications. http://www.stockinterview.com</div> <div class="authorUrl"><a href="http://www.stockinterview.com" target="_blank">http://www.stockinterview.com</a></div></author> </body> </html>
Text Why Not Reprocess Nuclear Fuel? Author: James Finch One of the related reasons helping to drive the current uranium bull market higher is the "once-through" use of uranium. The world's largest commercial consumers of U3O8 are the U.S. utilities. Because of government policies established thirty years ago, the U.S. nuclear reactors may not reprocess its uranium. Each spent control rod contains about 95 to 97 percent of unused uranium. Imagine if you were only allowed to use 5 percent of the gasoline in your tank to power your automobile. You would be legally bound to drain the remaining 95 percent of the gasoline from your car, store it and then refresh your tank with new gasoline. Again, you could only use 5 percent of that gasoline. Under these political circumstances, U.S. utilities must continuously acquire fresh supplies of uranium. A large-scale Generation III nuclear power plant will reportedly consume 30 million pounds of uranium oxide over its proposed sixty-year operating life. When the 104 licensed Generation II nuclear reactors are replaced with the next generation of reactors, U.S. utilities can look forward to acquiring more than 3 billion pounds of uranium to operating those plants. To worsen matters, these same utilities will be competing with others across the globe, which also want uranium to power their nuclear energy programs. The Generation IV nuclear reactor designs may help solve the problem. The problem of reprocessing stems from worries about plutonium falling into the hands of terrorists. In May 1974, India detonated a nuclear device. The device was constructed from plutonium separated at its reprocessing facility. The Indians had obtained plutonium from an insecure Canadian research reactor. Then-presidential candidate James Earl Carter was opposed to recycling plutonium. He debated then-President Gerald Ford about the evils of reprocessing. This election also took place during the high point of the 1970s uranium bull market. President Ford blinked and issued a 1976 policy statement, "The avoidance of proliferation must take precedence over economic interests." He changed the domestic policies of the "commercialization of chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuel which results in the separation of plutonium." By April 1977, Carter issued his edict indefinitely "deferring" the commercial reprocessing of uranium. Carter wanted to bury the nuclear waste. This has led to the present problem of where to deposit about 30 years of nuclear waste. Instead of recycling the nuclear fuel rods, we are now faced with decisions about where to bury nuclear waste. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but in the post-TMI years, there was little interest in reprocessing. President Clinton in 1995 proceeded in a joint venture with Russian government to dispose of plutonium from surplus nuclear weapons, called the HEU program. Ironically, France, Japan and the United Kingdom reprocess their used nuclear fuel by utilizing the technology developed in the United States. Over the past forty years, more than 75,000 metric tons of used nuclear fuels have been reprocessed. France has reprocessed more than 10,000 metric tons of used reactor fuel. The United Kingdom has reprocessed more than 15,000 metric tons. Reprocessing extends the life of the uranium as a nuclear fuel. After five or six cycles, the remaining plutonium can no longer be used. By recycling the uranium and plutonium within a metric ton of used reactor fuel, utilities are getting the equivalent of the energy from 100,000 barrels of oil. Instead, U.S. utilities are given a bizarre alternative to reprocessing. Spent fuel rods are stored in nuclear fuel storage pools of water. Instead of reprocessing the used nuclear fuel, it must now be safely stored. The ongoing national debate about nuclear waste disposal, and whether or not to utilize Yucca Mountain, can also find its roots in the political decision made during the 1976 U.S. presidential election. U.S. utilities are currently held hostage from all sides: (a) provide a cleaner source of energy to a growing appetite for electricity; (b) don't reprocess spent fuel rods, but instead burden the uranium miners to obtain a fresh supply of uranium for their re-fueling cycles; (c) dispose of the nuclear waste in new and inventive ways (dry cask shortage to alleviate the rising storage pools); (d) build newer and safer nuclear reactors. Once-through has created numerous problems for U.S. utilities, and ultimately for every American. Article Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_61624_19.html About the Author: James Finch is a contributing editor for StockInterview.com and other publications. http://www.stockinterview.com http://www.stockinterview.com
return to article
