B Mused wrote on April 14, 2008 06:47 AM: Sen. Domenici is certainly an advocate for nuclear power expansion. He is also a proponent of reprocessing "spent" (partially used) fuel from commercial nuclear power plants, rather than disposing of it. While other countries, notably France and Japan reprocess their spent fuel, studies show that reprocessing in this country is unlikely to be economical compared with fresh fuel--at forecast worldwide uranium prices. How would the commercial nuclear plant owners be motivated to make up the difference?
Even if we were to shift to reprocessing in the U.S.-- and assure the world and ourselves that there would be no weapons proliferations risk--we will still need a repository, such as Yucca Mountain:
1. For the defense waste Domenici acknowledges cannot be reprocessed
2. For the residual waste from reprocessing, albeit of less radiotoxity and some lesser amount
We should thank Sen. Domenici for his service to the country, but also ask ourselves who will persist in championing reprocessing when he leaves the Senate? It will take 15-20 years to develop reprocessing, more if it is to be the "advanced" reprocessing, which could possibly reduce the volume of waste requiring disposal.

Adam C. DaeGorn wrote on April 10, 2008 02:53 PM: The Senator's position is inaccurate based on what I have read in the EIS Summary. First, Yucca Mountain is designed for retrievable storage. Second, the known uranium deposits around the world and the current regulatory environment make fuel reprocessing cost prohibitive. Finally, in about 300 years, the current uranium deposits will be depleted and the spent fuel will be easier to handle due to decay. We should open Yucca Mountain, store the fuel for now, and retrieve it at a later date for reprocessing when it is economically viable.

Here are two additional comments. First spent Nuclear Fuel from Naval Nuclear Reactors is also amendable to reprocessing. Second, the EIS summary statement estimates that fuel storage in one location is ten times less expensive than nuclear fuel storage at the current locations without considering the added security costs.

Dave wrote on April 10, 2008 12:27 PM: The most logical approach is to locate a reprocessing facility next to Yucca Mountain rather than build several disposal facilities. A reprocessing facility produces a variety of waste materials that must be disposed of including many of the same types as those already being disposed of at the Nevad Test Site. A reprocessing facility does not relieve us of disposing of nuclear waste. The volume of high level waste is reduced, however.

Susanne wrote on April 10, 2008 10:45 AM: What does Jeff Bingaman(D-NM) think of this?

Susanne E.Vandenbosch

sprkl wrote on April 10, 2008 09:41 AM: Wonder what Harry promised HIM?

Roger wrote on April 10, 2008 08:04 AM: Luckily, politics started this mess. Politics are killing it. Good deal. Keep that crap out of my backyard...

Plut Boy wrote on April 10, 2008 08:01 AM: The idea that the US will return to reprocessing spent fuel is madness that will be defeated after much waste of public money. GNEP is going to go down once it sinks in that the only way that reprocessing survives in other countries, especially including France, is via massive input of money from taxpayers and ratepayers. Domenici's big-government socialist reprocessing plans simply won't survive legitimate scrutiny.

et tu wrote on April 10, 2008 07:01 AM: It wasn't until I hit the paragraph about diverting the money that it bacame clear.....there is a bucket of money that the politicians want to get their hands on. Now we can spend another 30 years and a few billion dollars chasing another idea...