5 ms·

Carter basically stopped the nuclear energy industry by prohibiting reprocessing of used fuel. Without disposal or reprocessing, where does it go? https://www.

Carter basically stopped the nuclear energy industry by prohibiting reprocessing of used fuel. Without disposal or reprocessing, where does it go? https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/read...

Jedd 4y ago
> Carter basically stopped the nuclear energy industry by prohibiting reprocessing of used fuel. Without disposal or reprocessing, where does it go? This seems like a stretch. From the article you linked: Ford initiated the policy a year before Carter signed the EO. While I'm sure some other countries adopted the position due to political pressure from the USA, it doesn't explain why the fission nuclear energy industry everywhere has failed to excel. The PBS article, written two decades ago, describes an event that's now ~45 years in our past -- but it's not clear why that policy hasn't since been upturned, or what / who is responsible for its continuation (other than the tritely obvious answer 'every USA administration since then').
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > it doesn't explain why the fission nuclear energy industry everywhere has failed to excel. Isn’t French nuclear powering 70% of all their needs?
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    are they reprocessing spent fuel? That seemed to be the crux of the parent comment.
    - Xylakant 4y ago
      They have nearly half of the worlds reprocessing capacity in their plant in La Hague https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        And how much energy does the fuel coming from that plant produce each year as a fraction of the whole?
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Net energy might be a better measure - a plant could produce a huge amount of energy from reprocessed fuel, but if it costs more energy to rerefine the fuel than mine similar fuel from rock formations...
  - Jedd 4y ago
    Sure, everyone points to France when talking about nuclear fission - adoption, abandonment, success, failure - taken over the past 50 years they've got it all. France would have been subject to pressure from the USA at the time, so it's certainly a notable anomaly from this angle, as well as several others. I think this makes it an interesting case study, but doesn't (given it's such an exceptional example) explain the phenomenon we're talking about.
deepsun 4y ago
On the global scale, nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. Orders of magnitude smaller than iron production waste. So despite the high cost of nuclear waste storage per kilogram, the total cost is actually minuscule.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  For an average American's final energy usage you'd need 2kg of Uranium per year transported and stored in 5kg of copper and steel cask encased in 20kg of concrete. Dealing with this is significantly more dangerous and destructive than the 250-500kg of iron ore per person per year. And leaching it in a mine with median grade uses about 200kg of sulfuric acid each year to process 7 tonnes of heavy metal containing ores. The only reason it's 'miniscule' is most of the problem is out sourced to kazakhstan, uzbekistan, nigeria, namibia, and australia. And around 3% of final energy is provided by nuclear.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Can I see how you got that Uranium figure? Because raw Uranium doesn't need that sort of treatment (it's not radioactive enough) and I'm struggling to believe 2kg of refined Uranium is needed per person per year to meetb3% of energy need.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      DU is still a toxic heavy metal, and the 3-15% by mass (or 100% in a HWR) that becomes SNF needs containment that outmasses it by at least an order of magnitude. Then there's another order of magnitude more LLW again. > to meet 3% of energy need This is disingenuous because the proposition is to expand it to make a relevant contribution to decarbonization.
- mschuster91 4y ago
  > On the global scale, nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. Orders of magnitude smaller than iron production waste. At least the waste from iron production doesn't need to be locked away for millennia safe enough that it doesn't pose a danger to people.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Reprocessing doesn't get rid of anything other than the tiny fraction which is Pu239. It also dilutes the waste making it much harder to handle and spreads it all over the place. Carter wasn't single handedly responsible for every reprocessing facility on the planet turning into a radiation ridden money pit.
- pjc50 4y ago
  The UK reprocessing at Windscale/Sellafield seems to have been an engineering success but a commercial failure. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Sellafield-ends-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-after-58 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Sellafield-ends-...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    It spread fission products everywhere, leaked many times more Cs137 than Fukushima, the site will cost many billions to clean despite only reprocessing enough to run a couple of reactors, the sediments it ejected into will never be clean, and it didn't get rid of any meaningful amount of Pu241, Pu240, Am241, Cm, Np or fission products. The fuel it produced was far more expensive than fresh, and it didn't obviate the need to dig up Uranium. Reprocessing achieves nothing other than PR and making bombs (even the 'processing weapons plutonium' is just a PR exercise because the plutonium 'disposed of' had too much Pu241 decay into Am to stay in the warhead anyway).

Jedd 4y ago

> Carter basically stopped the nuclear energy industry by prohibiting reprocessing of used fuel. Without disposal or reprocessing, where does it go? This seems like a stretch. From the article you linked: Ford initiated the policy a year before Carter signed the EO. While I'm sure some other countries adopted the position due to political pressure from the USA, it doesn't explain why the fission nuclear energy industry everywhere has failed to excel. The PBS article, written two decades ago, describes an event that's now ~45 years in our past -- but it's not clear why that policy hasn't since been upturned, or what / who is responsible for its continuation (other than the tritely obvious answer 'every USA administration since then').

barry-cotter 4y ago
> it doesn't explain why the fission nuclear energy industry everywhere has failed to excel. Isn’t French nuclear powering 70% of all their needs?
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  are they reprocessing spent fuel? That seemed to be the crux of the parent comment.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    They have nearly half of the worlds reprocessing capacity in their plant in La Hague https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      And how much energy does the fuel coming from that plant produce each year as a fraction of the whole?
      - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Net energy might be a better measure - a plant could produce a huge amount of energy from reprocessed fuel, but if it costs more energy to rerefine the fuel than mine similar fuel from rock formations...
- Jedd 4y ago
  Sure, everyone points to France when talking about nuclear fission - adoption, abandonment, success, failure - taken over the past 50 years they've got it all. France would have been subject to pressure from the USA at the time, so it's certainly a notable anomaly from this angle, as well as several others. I think this makes it an interesting case study, but doesn't (given it's such an exceptional example) explain the phenomenon we're talking about.

deepsun 4y ago

On the global scale, nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. Orders of magnitude smaller than iron production waste. So despite the high cost of nuclear waste storage per kilogram, the total cost is actually minuscule.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
For an average American's final energy usage you'd need 2kg of Uranium per year transported and stored in 5kg of copper and steel cask encased in 20kg of concrete. Dealing with this is significantly more dangerous and destructive than the 250-500kg of iron ore per person per year. And leaching it in a mine with median grade uses about 200kg of sulfuric acid each year to process 7 tonnes of heavy metal containing ores. The only reason it's 'miniscule' is most of the problem is out sourced to kazakhstan, uzbekistan, nigeria, namibia, and australia. And around 3% of final energy is provided by nuclear.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Can I see how you got that Uranium figure? Because raw Uranium doesn't need that sort of treatment (it's not radioactive enough) and I'm struggling to believe 2kg of refined Uranium is needed per person per year to meetb3% of energy need.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    DU is still a toxic heavy metal, and the 3-15% by mass (or 100% in a HWR) that becomes SNF needs containment that outmasses it by at least an order of magnitude. Then there's another order of magnitude more LLW again. > to meet 3% of energy need This is disingenuous because the proposition is to expand it to make a relevant contribution to decarbonization.
mschuster91 4y ago
> On the global scale, nuclear waste is a minuscule problem. Orders of magnitude smaller than iron production waste. At least the waste from iron production doesn't need to be locked away for millennia safe enough that it doesn't pose a danger to people.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Reprocessing doesn't get rid of anything other than the tiny fraction which is Pu239. It also dilutes the waste making it much harder to handle and spreads it all over the place. Carter wasn't single handedly responsible for every reprocessing facility on the planet turning into a radiation ridden money pit.

pjc50 4y ago
The UK reprocessing at Windscale/Sellafield seems to have been an engineering success but a commercial failure. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Sellafield-ends-nuclear-fuel-reprocessing-after-58 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Sellafield-ends-...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  It spread fission products everywhere, leaked many times more Cs137 than Fukushima, the site will cost many billions to clean despite only reprocessing enough to run a couple of reactors, the sediments it ejected into will never be clean, and it didn't get rid of any meaningful amount of Pu241, Pu240, Am241, Cm, Np or fission products. The fuel it produced was far more expensive than fresh, and it didn't obviate the need to dig up Uranium. Reprocessing achieves nothing other than PR and making bombs (even the 'processing weapons plutonium' is just a PR exercise because the plutonium 'disposed of' had too much Pu241 decay into Am to stay in the warhead anyway).