---
Sent From Bloomberg Mobile MSG
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Nuclear Recycling Unneeded Amid Plentiful Resources, Study Says
2010-09-16 04:01:16.0 GMT
By Jim Snyder
Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Recycling nuclear waste provides
little short-term benefit because the process costs too much and
uranium supplies remain plentiful, according to a study by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The study released today recommends U.S. financial
incentives to build seven to 10 nuclear plants, create a quasi-
government group to direct policy and consider leasing fuel to
countries to reduce fears that dangerous components will end up
with terrorists.
"To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome
critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation
concerns while maintaining its currently excellent safety and
reliability record," according to the report.
The study, the third since 2003 on nuclear power by the
Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university, examines how the U.S.
might best deal with an increase in radioactive waste if the
industry's awaited renaissance takes off.
Areva SA, the world's biggest maker of reactors, has
lobbied for reusing waste as a partial solution to long-term
storage concerns. Meanwhile, a commission created by the Energy
Department is studying how best to dispose of the waste after
the Obama administration withdrew support for Yucca Mountain in
Nevada as a dump site.
The study says nuclear proponents are assuming that limited
supplies will force the U.S. to reuse some portion of the spent
nuclear fuel.
"There is no shortage of uranium resources that might
constrain future commitments to build new nuclear plants for at
least much of this century, and scientifically sound methods
exist to manage spent nuclear fuel," according to the study.
Uranium Supplies
Critics of recycling say it creates stockpiles of dangerous
materials. Arguments for recycling based on the need to preserve
limited uranium isn't an immediate concern, according to the
study, which was headed by Ernest Moniz, director of the MIT
Energy Initiative, and Mujid Kazimi, director of the Center for
Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.
Technological advances may make recycling a better choice
in the future, and the U.S. should preserve options that include
an underground facility where waste would be removed and a
portion reused as fuel, according to the study.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday announced that
waste can safely be stored on site for 60 years after a reactor
closes, twice as long as had been considered safe. David
McIntyre, a spokesman, said the rule stems from greater
confidence in the durability of dry casks encasing spent fuel.
While the U.S. hasn't licensed a plant since the 1979
accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, policy makers
have encouraged construction by offering incentives such as
$18.4 billion in federal loan guarantees. Atlanta-based Southern
Co. received backing for $8.3 billion.
Financial Risks
The MIT report says financial risk remains a chief hurdle
to new construction, and encourages the U.S. to accelerate
financial support for seven to 10 new plants.
Nuclear plants account for about 70 percent of the
emissions-free power production, according to the report. That
makes the plants an attractive resource in combating climate
change, which most scientists link to greenhouse-gas emissions.
The study encourages the U.S. to study the viability of
keeping waste at an interim facility for a century.
For Related News and Information:
Top energy stories: ETOP <GO>
Carbon markets: EMIS <GO>
Top renewable-energy stories: GREEN <GO>
Top business and government news: GBIZ <GO>
--Editors: Steve Geimann, Larry Liebert
To contact the reporter on this story:
Jim Snyder in Washington at +1-202-624-1972 or
jsnyder24@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Larry Liebert at +1-202-624-1936 or
lliebert@bloomberg.net.
