5 ms·

Yes, we could get a lot more energy out of our fission fuel. The reason the USA doesn't is because Jimmy Carter set a policy of not reprocessing fuel because he

Yes, we could get a lot more energy out of our fission fuel. The reason the USA doesn't is because Jimmy Carter set a policy of not reprocessing fuel because he felt it encouraged nuclear weapons proliferation, coming just a few years after India exploded its first device. Carter's statement: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120960615.pdf

acidburnNSA 3y ago
Considering that Reagan reversed this policy by unbanning reprocessing in 1981, this isn't the only reason we don't do it today. Other reasons include that reprocessing is expensive and that we found a lot more uranium ore than originally expected. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf
- sbierwagen 3y ago
  The Indian test used weapons-grade plutonium produced in the low power CIRUS research reactor, much like how we were making plutonium in 1945. It's thought that Carter banned civilian reprocessing because a nuclear test in 1962 showed that a weapon could even be made from what the DOE described as "reactor-grade" plutonium: https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.... https://npolicy.org/greg-jones-americas-1962-reactor-grade-plutonium-weapons-test-revisited/ https://npolicy.org/greg-jones-americas-1962-reactor-grade-p... A bomb with an actively cooled pit probably couldn't be miniaturized enough to be MIRVed but it would be compatible with old school single-warhead ICBMs or air delivery.
pfdietz 3y ago
This is a common nuke bro story, but it's nonsense. The actual reason is that plutonium has negative value. It costs more to incorporate it in new fuel rods than it would cost to make fuel rods with freshly enriched uranium.
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  That seems to not account for societal and storage costs. I see too many people extrapolate stuff into "it's not the absolute cheapest we can diversify into pushing the cost off to future generations rather than being responsible for our own creations".
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    I'm sorry you can't accept a correct argument.
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  What about the costs of launching the first-cycle spent fuel into the sun or building caves that protect humanity for 10000 years? It's probably worth it to reprocess if only to shorten half life.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The thing is, thanks to the magic of nonzero interest rates, it's cheaper to wait and reprocess later. The more you wait, the cheaper it is, even including the cost of temporary storage in dry casks while you wait.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      That's putting a lot on the assumption of exponential growth over the time span of 10,000 years.
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        If the assumption fails and interest rates go to zero and stay there, we can reprocess then. In the meantime, if we can invest the money elsewhere and delay reprocessing we come out ahead.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Rockets are far too explody to put nuclear waste in space. Vitrifying the waste and putting it in a cave would be fine if people weren't terrified of the stuff, but they are so it isn't.

acidburnNSA 3y ago

Considering that Reagan reversed this policy by unbanning reprocessing in 1981, this isn't the only reason we don't do it today. Other reasons include that reprocessing is expensive and that we found a lot more uranium ore than originally expected. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RS22542.pdf

sbierwagen 3y ago
The Indian test used weapons-grade plutonium produced in the low power CIRUS research reactor, much like how we were making plutonium in 1945. It's thought that Carter banned civilian reprocessing because a nuclear test in 1962 showed that a weapon could even be made from what the DOE described as "reactor-grade" plutonium: https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.gov/html/osti/opennet/document/press/pc29.html https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/osti.gov/www.osti.... https://npolicy.org/greg-jones-americas-1962-reactor-grade-plutonium-weapons-test-revisited/ https://npolicy.org/greg-jones-americas-1962-reactor-grade-p... A bomb with an actively cooled pit probably couldn't be miniaturized enough to be MIRVed but it would be compatible with old school single-warhead ICBMs or air delivery.

pfdietz 3y ago

This is a common nuke bro story, but it's nonsense. The actual reason is that plutonium has negative value. It costs more to incorporate it in new fuel rods than it would cost to make fuel rods with freshly enriched uranium.

lost_tourist 3y ago
That seems to not account for societal and storage costs. I see too many people extrapolate stuff into "it's not the absolute cheapest we can diversify into pushing the cost off to future generations rather than being responsible for our own creations".
- pfdietz 3y ago
  I'm sorry you can't accept a correct argument.
unethical_ban 3y ago
What about the costs of launching the first-cycle spent fuel into the sun or building caves that protect humanity for 10000 years? It's probably worth it to reprocess if only to shorten half life.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The thing is, thanks to the magic of nonzero interest rates, it's cheaper to wait and reprocess later. The more you wait, the cheaper it is, even including the cost of temporary storage in dry casks while you wait.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    That's putting a lot on the assumption of exponential growth over the time span of 10,000 years.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      If the assumption fails and interest rates go to zero and stay there, we can reprocess then. In the meantime, if we can invest the money elsewhere and delay reprocessing we come out ahead.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Rockets are far too explody to put nuclear waste in space. Vitrifying the waste and putting it in a cave would be fine if people weren't terrified of the stuff, but they are so it isn't.