Recycling, except when it pays or has something to do with nuclear

Think Yucca Mountain and NIMBY in all its glory. Then check the thoughts of Dale Klein, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of Texas System.

Spent nuclear fuel, which includes some plutonium, often is inaccurately referred to as waste, Klein said.

“It is not waste,” he said. “The waste is in our failure to tap into this valuable and abundant domestic source of in a systematic way. That’s something we can ill-afford to do.”

This is another fear driven ‘debate’ – fears that you can’t store waste for thousands of years, fear that the waste will leak, fears that terrorists will grab it to make bombs, fears that transporting it to the waste site will endanger civilians. So much energy has been invested in FUD mongering that solving problems has been sucked dry.

Meanwhile, the rest of the planet is solving the problems and tapping the 95% of the energy left in nuclear fuels after the first run through. The recycle and reuse. This is what China was talking about when they bragged about being able to increase nuclear fuel efficiency by 65%.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., a Nevada representative thinks Yucca is a tap on government funds rather than paid for via nuclear power industry fees, a report published about its effectiveness is heavily redacted with numerous excuses as to why, and only the Wisconsin protests have been more vigorous than the anti-Yucca efforts.

Inexpensive energy is one the best ways to help the poor and nuclear avoids the CO2 brouhaha. But those factors are not enough. Yet.

Comments are closed.