Please see below a response from a DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) spokesperson to an innaccurate and misleading new release issued yesterday by an anti-nuclear organization regarding MOX fuel and the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility under construction at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. As we have mentioned many times here, AREVA has many satisfied MOX fuel customers around the world and decades of experience in producing safe, efficient MOX fuel assemblies. Here is the NNSA statement:

“The news release issued today by Friends of the Earth is inaccurate and draws incorrect conclusions about the performance of the MOX lead test assemblies and the overall state of the Department’s mixed oxide fuel program at the Savannah River Site.  Shaw AREVA MOX Services and the National Nuclear Security Administration remain steadfast in our commitment to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium in a manner that results in the safe, affordable, and carbon-free generation of electricity for the benefit of American public.  Not only will the fuel produced at the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility produce enough energy to power one million homes for 50 years, but the disposal of weapon-grade plutonium is a key component of President Obama’s commitment to strengthening international arms control and nonproliferation programs.  In addition, the Department of Energy has evaluated numerous approaches for disposing of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and, simply put, there is no, ‘cheaper, safer and faster alternative.’  This critical project also is important for the Southeastern region of the United States, where it will create jobs and stimulate the local economy.” –NNSA Spokesperson Jennifer Wagner

Jason Ribeiro has a great post up over at Pro-Nuclear Democrats highlighting a CNN-Money poll showing that fully 76% of those polled believe that nuclear power is a “safe, clean alternative right now” for our nation’s energy needs.
 

 
Now, being a web poll it’s unscientific, but the overwhelming support for nuclear energy speaks for itself.  Ribeiro’s key point is about the media’s desire to paint nuclear power as something “controversial” when the reality is that overwhelming majorities see the need for nuclear power to be part of our CO2-free energy future.  Does the presence of a loud but small minority make the issue “controversial” when, according to this poll at least, over three quarters of Americans support nuclear power right now?
 
But the key quote comes at the end:
 

Based on the feedback from these stories, we can clearly see people have been doing better homework by checking different sources on the internet and deciding for themselves who is the more credible source.  I think Americans are also getting sick and tired of being told they cannot move forward with the most powerful clean energy source ever discovered simply because the government is too incompetent to deal with what amounts to a small warehouse of spent nuclear fuel.

 
We certainly wouldn’t use the word “incompetent,” but we agree that the U.S. government needs to step it up, particularly when it comes to approving and helping put in place a used fuel recycling program like France has successfully operated for decades now.  As we’ve talked about on multiple occasions, recycling offers a solid solution to the used nuclear fuel “problem.”

The House Committee on Science and Technology spent the morning listening to information on nuclear fuel recycling from AREVA’s Dr. Alan Hanson, Executive Vice-President of Technology and Used Fuel Management.

Some highlights include Hanson’s analysis of the main benefits and criticisms of recycling:

The main benefits associated with recycling are that it makes waste management easier, provides strategic flexibility and confidence for the long term, and saves natural resources and is able to burn plutonium, thereby reducing proliferation concerns.

• Makes waste management easier by reducing the volume of high level waste for disposal. “When such waste is vitrified, or specially-packed into a highly compact glass-like waste form for final storage, and added to the volume of compacted structural waste, the total volume necessary for final disposal is 75% less than the volume required if the used fuel is disposed directly in a repository.”

read more…

“Nuclear energy is an essential part of our energy mix…it provides clean baseload generation of electricity” – Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Wednesday, March 11

Energy Secretary Steven Chu (photo courtesy Obama-Biden Transition Team)

Energy Secretary Steven Chu agreed with assertions from both Democrats and Republicans that nuclear energy should be a continuing part of the U.S. clean energy mix. He said he is prepared to act on the DOE loan guarantees for new reactors and encouraged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to move forward on licensing new plants. He reiterated the Administration’s position published in the budget outline that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution. However, he also admitted that a long-term used-fuel strategy is the obligation of the federal government and that he will convene a blue ribbon panel to study the issue this year. He added that closing the fuel cycle should be studied as part of that strategy.

by Laurence Pernot

Though people who follow the debate over used nuclear fuel are well aware of the benefits of recycling, we’ve found that many in the general public don’t even know that it’s an option.  There’s a lot of confusion out there about used fuel recycling – whether it’s feasible, practical, and safe.

So we’ve prepared this brief FAQ about nuclear fuel recycling and about AREVA’s innovation in this crucial part of our nuclear future.  We hope you’ll find it useful.  Please be sure to post any other questions you might have about recycling in the comments section… we’re always looking for ways to engage in better and more fruitful dialogues about nuclear fuel recycling.

Why should the US recycle used nuclear fuel?

First and foremost, here in the U.S., that is a decision that has to be made by the government – taking into account its own policy determinations and the needs of U.S. utilities.  Nevertheless, we think that recycling is an economically, environmentally and socially responsible approach.  Here’s why:
read more…

Yucca Mountain

During a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing yesterday, the discussion of the future of the Yucca Mountain project raised the possibility of recycling nuclear fuel as part of the nation’s used fuel management strategy.

Recycling nuclear fuel would enable us to reduce the volume of material for disposal by a factor of at least four and reduce toxicity by a factor 10 (based on experience in France). It also turns the most difficult waste into a vitrified form (glass logs) that is more stable, durable and manageable for long-term storage in a repository. If recycled, the 60,000 metric tons of used fuel stored at nuclear plant sites could provide enough fuel to power America’s 104 nuclear reactors for seven to eight years.

If the U.S. turns to recycling we could defer having to find and build a second or third repository, perhaps forever. Recycling would postpone or eliminate the need for additional repository capacity. There’s no doubt that locating a geological repositories requires some level of acceptance by the local community. But this task would be made easier if you can limit its size and avoid having to build multiple repositories.

AREVA has recycled used fuel in France for customers in Europe and Japan for several decades and continues to do so today. This technology is safe, mature and cost effective. In the United States, we recycle glass, aluminum and paper; why not recycle nuclear fuel? In addition to the reduction in the amount of waste we must dispose, we would also conserve the amount of new uranium that we must use. Facing the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide, this is important to consider in terms of U.S. energy security as well.

In the end, we believe that recycling is just common sense.