Some
nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. However, the Obama administration has disallowed
reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing
nuclear proliferation concerns.
[2] The
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of
nuclear proliferation".
[3] A
deep geological repository is favored.
[4]
Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle. [5] In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research. [6] Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.
In 2016, economist
Mark Cooper said that in America nuclear power is unable to compete today and unlikely to compete in the future. Nuclear supporters would like to have a long debate about the limitations of alternatives. The reality is that alternatives, such as
renewable energy, are growing rapidly and have many advantages. Prudent policymakers should support their commercialization, given the many failed promises of nuclear power. The biggest mistake that policymakers could make is to encourage the search for yet another nuclear holy grail.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Some
nuclear power advocates argue that the United States should develop factories and reactors that will recycle some spent fuel. However, the Obama administration has disallowed
reprocessing of nuclear waste, citing
nuclear proliferation concerns.
[2] The
Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future said that "no existing technology was adequate for that purpose, given cost considerations and the risk of
nuclear proliferation".
[3] A
deep geological repository is favored.
[4]
Nuclear reprocessing reduces the volume of high-level waste, but by itself does not reduce radioactivity or heat generation and therefore does not eliminate the need for a geological waste repository. Reprocessing has been politically controversial because of the potential to contribute to nuclear proliferation, the potential vulnerability to nuclear terrorism, the political challenges of repository siting (a problem that applies equally to direct disposal of spent fuel), and because of its high cost compared to the once-through fuel cycle. [5] In the United States, the Obama administration stepped back from President Bush's plans for commercial-scale reprocessing and reverted to a program focused on reprocessing-related scientific research. [6] Nuclear fuel reprocessing is performed routinely in Europe, Russia and Japan.
In 2016, economist
Mark Cooper said that in America nuclear power is unable to compete today and unlikely to compete in the future. Nuclear supporters would like to have a long debate about the limitations of alternatives. The reality is that alternatives, such as
renewable energy, are growing rapidly and have many advantages. Prudent policymakers should support their commercialization, given the many failed promises of nuclear power. The biggest mistake that policymakers could make is to encourage the search for yet another nuclear holy grail.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)