Why Not Reprocess Nuclear Fuel?

One of the related reasons helping to drive thehis edict indefinitely "deferring" the commercial
current uranium bull market higher is thereprocessing of uranium. Carter wanted to bury the
"once-through" use of uranium. The world's largestnuclear waste. This has led to the present problem of
commercial consumers of U3O8 are the U.S. utilities.where to deposit about 30 years of nuclear waste.
Because of government policies established thirtyInstead of recycling the nuclear fuel rods, we are
years ago, the U.S. nuclear reactors may notnow faced with decisions about where to bury
reprocess its uranium. Each spent control rod containsnuclear waste. President Reagan lifted the ban in
about 95 to 97 percent of unused uranium. Imagine if1981, but in the post-TMI years, there was little
you were only allowed to use 5 percent of theinterest in reprocessing. President Clinton in 1995
gasoline in your tank to power your automobile. Youproceeded in a joint venture with Russian
would be legally bound to drain the remaining 95government to dispose of plutonium from surplus
percent of the gasoline from your car, store it andnuclear weapons, called the HEU program.
then refresh your tank with new gasoline. Again, youIronically, France, Japan and the United Kingdom
could only use 5 percent of that gasoline.reprocess their used nuclear fuel by utilizing the
Under these political circumstances, U.S. utilities musttechnology developed in the United States. Over the
continuously acquire fresh supplies of uranium. Apast forty years, more than 75,000 metric tons of
large-scale Generation III nuclear power plant willused nuclear fuels have been reprocessed. France has
reportedly consume 30 million pounds of uraniumreprocessed more than 10,000 metric tons of used
oxide over its proposed sixty-year operating life.reactor fuel. The United Kingdom has reprocessed
When the 104 licensed Generation II nuclear reactorsmore than 15,000 metric tons. Reprocessing extends
are replaced with the next generation of reactors,the life of the uranium as a nuclear fuel. After five or
U.S. utilities can look forward to acquiring more than 3six cycles, the remaining plutonium can no longer be
billion pounds of uranium to operating those plants. Toused. By recycling the uranium and plutonium within a
worsen matters, these same utilities will bemetric ton of used reactor fuel, utilities are getting
competing with others across the globe, which alsothe equivalent of the energy from 100,000 barrels of
want uranium to power their nuclear energyoil.
programs.Instead, U.S. utilities are given a bizarre alternative to
The Generation IV nuclear reactor designs may helpreprocessing. Spent fuel rods are stored in nuclear
solve the problem. The problem of reprocessingfuel storage pools of water. Instead of reprocessing
stems from worries about plutonium falling into thethe used nuclear fuel, it must now be safely stored.
hands of terrorists. In May 1974, India detonated aThe ongoing national debate about nuclear waste
nuclear device. The device was constructed fromdisposal, and whether or not to utilize Yucca
plutonium separated at its reprocessing facility. TheMountain, can also find its roots in the political decision
Indians had obtained plutonium from an insecuremade during the 1976 U.S. presidential election.
Canadian research reactor.U.S. utilities are currently held hostage from all sides:
Then-presidential candidate James Earl Carter was(a) provide a cleaner source of energy to a growing
opposed to recycling plutonium. He debatedappetite for electricity; (b) don't reprocess spent fuel
then-President Gerald Ford about the evils ofrods, but instead burden the uranium miners to obtain
reprocessing. This election also took place during thea fresh supply of uranium for their re-fueling cycles;
high point of the 1970s uranium bull market. President(c) dispose of the nuclear waste in new and inventive
Ford blinked and issued a 1976 policy statement, "Theways (dry cask shortage to alleviate the rising
avoidance of proliferation must take precedencestorage pools); (d) build newer and safer nuclear
over economic interests." He changed the domesticreactors. Once-through has created numerous
policies of the "commercialization of chemicalproblems for U.S. utilities, and ultimately for every
reprocessing of nuclear fuel which results in theAmerican.
separation of plutonium." By April 1977, Carter issued