P. 1
Aff & Neg Nukes

Aff & Neg Nukes

|Views: 105|Likes:
Publicado porAffNeg.Com

More info:

Published by: AffNeg.Com on Jan 08, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/24/2012

Reprocessing has never caused diversion to weapons programs
Rhodes and Beller 00
, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb)
Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member)

Although power-reactor plutonium theoretically can be used to make nuclear explosives, spent fuel is refractory, highly
radioactive, and beyond the capacity of terrorists to process. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be hot,
unstable, and of uncertain yield. India has extracted weapons plutonium from a Canadian heavy-water reactor and bars
inspection of some dual-purpose reactors it has built. But no plutonium has ever been diverted from British or French
reprocessing facilities or fuel shipments for weapons production; IAEA inspections are effective in preventing such
diversions. The risk of proliferation, the IAEA has concluded, "is not zero and would not become zero even if nuclear
power ceased to exist. It is a continually strengthened nonproliferation regime that will remain the cornerstone of efforts to
prevent the spread of nuclear weapons."

Nuclear Waste Can be Recycled without diversion – France model proves
Bennett and Dyson 7,
- *Vice President for Public Affairs at Third Way AND ** a board member of the group Third Way, and former chair of the
New York State Power Authority (Matt Bennett and John Dyson, Third Way, “Just say ‘oui’ to nuclear power,” 9/16/07

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/16/just_say_oui_to_nuclear_power/) //DT

So what would an alternative look like? Here again, we should follow France. Instead of storing its waste at each nuclear
plant (as in the United States) or burying it in containers underground (as we would do if Yucca opens), the French take
their waste to a massive plant in Normandy, where spent fuel is recycled. They can reuse 80 percent of the material; the
remaining 20 percent is "vitrified" - combined with molten glass and solidified - to immobilize the radioactive material. It
can then go into long-term storage with much less risk of leaching into the groundwater.
Recycling does create separated plutonium, which theoretically could be used in a nuclear weapon. But the likelihood of it
falling into the wrong hands is infinitesimal - the United States has well-proven systems to safeguard nuclear material.
Moreover, the plutonium that comes out of this reprocessing system would be difficult for terrorists to handle without
advanced training and laboratory equipment.

Reprocessing is on balance less risky than storage
Rhodes and Beller 00
, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (Richard + Denis “The need for nuclear power” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb)
Denis, Renowned Author + nuclear engineer and Technical Staff Member)

Ironically, burying spent fuel without extracting its plutonium through reprocessing would actually increase the long-term
risk of nuclear proliferation, since the decay ofless-fissile and more-radioactive isotopes in spent fuel after one to three
centuries improves the explosive qualities of the plutonium it contains, making it more attractive for weapons use. Besides
extending the world's uranium resources almost indefinitely, recycling would make it possible to convert plutonium to
useful energy while breaking it down into shorter-lived, nonfissionable, nonthreatening nuclear waste.

GNEP solves the risks of existing reprocessing
Spurgeon 7 -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis,
HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday)

To meet these challenges, President Bush initiated the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, a comprehensive
approach to enable an expansion of nuclear power in the United States and around the world to promote non-proliferation
goals and to help resolve the nuclear waste issues. Domestically, GNEP provides a solution to the ever-growing issue of
spent nuclear fuel. In conjunction with Yucca Mountain, GNEP provides a solution which outlines a closed fuel cycle where
energy is harvested from the spent fuel before the end product is disposed of in a permanent repository. The spent fuel will
be recycled in a manner that will be more proliferation resistant than current processes used around the world. A closed fuel
cycle will also alleviate some of the burden placed on Yucca Mountain, and will possibly eliminated the need for a second
geologic repository throughout the remainder of the century. We reiterate though that no fuel cycle scenario will of note that
will eliminate the need for a permanent geologic repository such as Yucca Mountain.

Michigan 7 weeks

157

Nuclear power good / bad disads

REPROCESSING KEY TO PROLIF LEADERSHIP

Investment in new energy technologies is critical to maintain U.S. leadership in non-prolif efforts
Spurgeon 7 -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, (Dennis,
HEARING OF THE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE; SUBJECT: THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FISCAL YEAR 2008 RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT BUDGET PROPOSAL, March 7, L/n rday)

Internationally, GNEP promises to address the growing global energy demand in an environmentally friendly way. A global
regime of countries able to provide a complete portfolio of nuclear fuel services, including Russia, France, and possibly
Japan, China, and Britain, will provide these services to countries wanting to use nuclear power to meet their domestic
growth in electricity demand without the cost and risk associated with nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. By providing these
services to other countries, we hope to dissuade future states from developing domestic enrichment capabilities like we are
encountering with Iran today.
The fact is the U.S. is not currently positioned to be an active member of this global regime. We have limited enrichment
capabilities and no back end fuel cycle capabilities. Creating capabilities needed to participate in the global expansion of
nuclear power will take 15 to 20 years, meaning that in order to become an active participant of the global nuclear
expansion, we need to begin now. Taking those steps necessary enables us to better assure that the imminent expansion will
be safe, beneficial, and will not promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we fail to act, we will have little to say in
the process.

GNEP reprocessing is critical to US nuclear competitiveness and prolif leadership
Kotek, 8
- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING OF THE OVERSIGHT AND
INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION
STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES” 6/20, lexis, rday)

Now, with trade and nuclear energy, however, comes the prospect of nuclear weapons proliferation. To ensure that the U.S.
will influence and manage proliferation risks during the next expansion of nuclear energy around the world, it is
imperative that the U.S. be the promoter, enabler, and the lead supplier of this growth.

The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness was formed to alert policymakers and the public of the need to restore U.S. leadership in
nuclear energy. The president took a bold step toward restoring this leadership earlier this year with the announcement of
GNEP. We support the president's vision of GNEP which, if properly implemented and accompanied by the American-led
transforming technology lead, can restore America's preeminence in the nuclear enterprise. If GNEP is structured with an
eye towards enhancing U.S. economic competitiveness, American industry could thrive.

The Council has been concerned, however, about our industry's inability, at present, to participate fully in GNEP. So the Council is recruiting leadership
from the business world, as well as from U.S. national labs and universities, to respond to the enormous opportunities that a resumption of U.S. nuclear
energy leadership would create.
U.S. manufacturing, technology, financial and other interests should seize the opportunity and rally to ensure that the president's vision is realized. And
indeed, we are finding an encouraging number of U.S. companies interested in getting into the nuclear business or growing their nuclear portfolio.

By restoring a robust nuclear industry, America can protect its environmental, economic and national security interests, and
it can also reclaim leadership of the global nuclear energy industry -- an industry that was created through American
ingenuity more than 50 years ago.

Michigan 7 weeks

158

Nuclear power good / bad disads

REPROCESSING KEY TO PROLIF LEADERSHIP

GNEP reprocessing makes the U.S. and international leader in non-prolif technology and makes the US nuclear
industry the best in the world
Kotek, 8
- MANAGER OF NUCLEAR PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON POLICY & ANALYSIS, Inc (John, “HEARING
OF THE OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
COMMITTEE SUBJECT: U.S. NONPROLIFERATION STRATEGY: POLICIES AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES”
6/20, lexis, rday)

So the Council contends it's not enough for the U.S. to simply become a producer of electricity using plants designed,
constructed, fuelled and service by foreign suppliers. We need American companies competing in this vital arena.
Now, because the U.S. has been on the sidelines and its lead in nuclear design, manufacturing, supply and service has been
eroded, we are free to move beyond existing technology. Now, certainly U.S. companies can and should compete in the
market for providing large- scale reactors based on existing technology, but the U.S. is in a unique position to also capture
markets for tomorrow's nuclear technology.
The proposed GNEP program could provide just the boost our industry needs in order to develop and market new, advanced
proliferation-resistant nuclear energy technology. For example, one exciting technological opportunity is in right-sized
exportable reactors that can be manufactured in the U.S. and exported to the developing world.
Now, this isn't far-fetched. I mean, advanced manufacturing borrowed from other industries where the U.S. still holds
global leadership will allow the shift from large systems that rely on economies of scale but which must be built on site.
Factory production, with its inherent efficiencies, could make nuclear power economic for smaller applications in
developing regions. This would feed into a distributor generation approach which fits countries lacking a mature grid and
other infrastructure. And by engaging with international partners to establish a guaranteed fuel supply and return system,
we can dramatically reduce proliferation risk by eliminating the need for small countries to establish enrichment
reprocessing capability.

Michigan 7 weeks

159

Nuclear power good / bad disads

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE

GNEP reprocessing prevents proliferation of nuclear waste, and cuts overall waste by 100
Sell 06
Clay, Deputy Secretary of Energy HEARING OF THE ENERGY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PARTNERSHIP March 2, L/n

MR. SELL: Nuclear power is the only mature technology of significant potential to provide large amounts of completely
emissions-free base load power to meet this need. It will result in significant benefits for clean development around the
globe, reduced world greenhouse gas intensities, pollution abatement, and the security that comes from greater energy
diversity.
But nuclear power, with all of its potential for mankind, carries with it two significant challenges. The first: What do we do
with the nuclear waste? And the second one: How can we prevent the proliferation of fuel cycle technologies that lead to
weaponization?
GNEP seeks to address and minimize these two challenges by developing technologies to recycle the spent fuel in a
proliferation- resistant manner, and support a reordering of the global nuclear enterprise to encourage the leasing of fuel
from what we'll call fuel- cycle states in a way that presents strong commercial incentives against new states building their
own enrichment and reprocessing capabilities.

Regarding our own policy on spent nuclear fuel, the United States stopped the old form of reprocessing in the 1970s, principally because it could be used
to produce plutonium. But the rest of the major nuclear economies -- in France, in Great Britain, in Russia, in Japan, and in others -- continued on without
us.
The world today has a buildup of over 250 metric tons of separated civilian plutonium. It has vast amounts of spent fuel, and we risk the continued spread
of fuel-cycle technologies.

If we look only for a moment at the United States, we are on the verge of a U.S. nuclear renaissance, in many respects due
to the provisions enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. New plants will be built. But if we want many more built -- and
we need them -- I believe the United States must rethink the wisdom of our once-through spent fuel policy. We must move
to recycling.

This administration remains confident that Yucca Mountain is the best location for the United -- for a permanent geologic repository. And getting that
facility licensed and opens -- opened remains a top priority. Whether we recycle or not, we must have Yucca Mountain. But the capacity
of Yucca Mountain as currently configured will be oversubscribed by 2010. If nuclear power remains only at 20 percent for
the balance of the century, we will have to build the equivalent of nine Yucca Mountains to contain once-through spent fuel.
The administration believes --
SEN. DOMENICI: Could you make that statement again?
MR. SELL: If we continue to have nuclear generation at 20 percent for the balance of the century, because of our once-
through spent fuel policy, we will have to build the equivalent of nine Yucca Mountains.

The administration believes that the wiser course is to recycle the used fuel coming out of the reactors, reducing its quantity and its radiotoxicity, so that
only one Yucca Mountain will be required by the balance of this century.
So what exactly is, then, GNEP? GNEP really is --
SEN. DOMENICI: May I interrupt you?
MR. SELL: Yes, sir.
SEN. DOMENICI: And that one Yucca Mountain, under that scenario, would not be filled with the kind of waste we plan on putting in it now, right?
MR. SELL: It would be filled. We still have a significant amount of defense waste in Senator Murray's home state and in Senator Craig's home state that
will go to Yucca Mountain.
SEN. DOMENICI: I'm speaking of the domestic side.

MR. SELL: And on the commercial spent fuel, we believe that up to 90 percent of commercial spent fuel could be recycled
before going to Yucca Mountain.
SEN. DOMENICI: Which means it would be a different spent fuel.
MR. SELL: It would be in a condition with a very low -- with a peak dose occurring in year 1,000 versus year 1 million.
It would be in a more stable glacious form, and it's the radiotoxicity of the waste which really drives capacity size. And by
reducing the radiotoxicity you could fill Yucca Mountain with this glacious stable waste, and that would -- we think would
be enough for this century.

Michigan 7 weeks

160

Nuclear power good / bad disads

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE

Reprocessing solves spent fuel problems
Moore 6
- CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST, GREENSPIRIT STRATEGIES, LTD. (Patrick, HEARING OF THE
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: NUCLEAR ENERGY OVERSIGHT, September 13, L/n rday)

I just add, in terms of nuclear fuel, spent fuel, I think it would be irresponsible to bury that spent fuel. At least it should be
easily recoverable. It should always be thought of as interim storage, until it is recycled. Ninety-five percent of the available
energy in the nuclear fuel is still there after the first cycle in the reactor, and that 95 percent energy is available for the
future by extracting the plutonium and uranium that remains in the spent fuel. And then the other good thing that occurs if
you recycle fuel, from an environmental perspective, is that the fission products, which are then a much smaller quantity of
material and don't require eight Yucca Mountains, can then be glassified -- or vitrified, as it's called.
And that only has to be kept out of the environment for between three and five hundred years before it is down to
background levels again, as opposed to the plutonium that's always talked about -- 250,000 years. It's true that plutonium
lasts for 250,000 years. That's probably a good thing because it is a very valuable fuel -- it just has to be kept contained,
which is now being done in reactors all around the world with considerable success.

Breeder reactors eliminate nuclear waste material by reprocessing it
Charman, 6
– Karen, environmental journalist and managing editor at the Capitalism Nature Socialism journal (“Brave
Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”, July/august, Vol. 19, pg. 12, Proquest)/AK

The nuclear power industry did not expect Nevada's legal challenges to be so successful, and U.S. nuclear proponents have
begun to think beyond Yucca Mountain. They maintain that the development of fast breeder reactors, which create nuclear
fuel by producing more fissile material than they consume, along with reprocessing the spent fuel (separating out the still-
usable plutonium and uranium) will reduce the volume of waste and negate the need for geologic disposal .
Since it was originally assumed that reprocessing would be part of the nuclear fuel cycle, commercial reactors were not
designed to house all of the waste they would create during their operational lives. Three commercial reprocessing facilities
were built in the United States, though only one, at West Valley in western New York state, ever operated. After six years of
troubled operation marked by accidents, mishandling of high-level wastes, and contamination of nearby waterways, it was
shut down in 1972. In 1977 the Carter administration banned reprocessing due to concerns about nuclear weapons
proliferation after India stunned the world by testing its first atomic bomb, which was made with plutonium from its
reprocessing facility. According to UCS, approximately 240 metric tons of separated plutonium-enough for 40,000 nuclear
weapons-was in storage worldwide as of the end of 2003. Reprocessing the U.S. spent fuel inventory would add more than
500 metric tons.
France, Britain, Russia, India, and Japan currently reprocess spent fuel, and the Bush administration is pushing to revive
reprocessing in the United States. It has allocated $ 130 million to begin developing an "integrated spent fuel cycle," and
recently announced another $250 million, primarily to develop UREX+, a technology said to address proliferation concerns
by leaving the separated plutonium too radioactive for potential thieves to handle. In addition, the U.S. Congress has
directed the administration to prepare a plan by 2007 to pick a technology to reprocess all of the spent fuel from
commercial nuclear reactors and start building an engineering-scale demonstration plant.

Michigan 7 weeks

161

Nuclear power good / bad disads

REPROCESSING SOLVES WASTE STORAGE

Reprocessing solves the waste storage problem
Beller, 4
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
(Dr. Denis E, “Atomic Time Machines: Back to the Nuclear Future,” 24 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 41, 2004)//DH

Used nuclear fuel is mostly uranium and, if buried, the long-term hazards would arise from just 1.1 percent of the used fuel.
109 Of the thousands of tons of used nuclear fuel from commercial electricity generation, about 96 percent is uranium and
4 percent are byproducts of the fission process. 110 The uranium can be separated cleanly and disposed as Class C low-
level waste, or it can be safely stored for later recycling from a few decades to a century from now. 111 In 2002 the U.S.
DOE demonstrated the capability to produce almost 99.99 percent pure Class C uranium after separating it from used
nuclear fuel. 112 The product was so clean it could be safely held in your hand. Most of the byproducts of the fission
process (about 75 percent of the byproducts or about [*59] 3 percent of the used fuel) are stable or short-lived fission
products that do not pose major disposal challenges. 113 This process of separating the waste stream is called
"partitioning." If we can separate the 96 percent reusable uranium from the 4 percent waste products, then partition the
easily treated portion (75 percent of the waste) from the rest, we need to treat a comparatively small amount of material.
Another 0.3 percent of the used fuel is cesium and strontium that decays in a few centuries. 114 This more highly
radioactive material is a source of much of the thermal energy, or heat, that must be considered when designing deep
geological repositories for high-level waste. During the partitioning of the used fuel, cesium and strontium can be captured
and stored in extremely stable waste forms while they decay to inert materials in a few hundred years. In the unlikely event
it was released from a repository, the remaining 1.1 percent of the used fuel would create a long-term hazard. 115 Of that,
0.9 percent is plutonium that can be fissioned to produce energy in a wide variety of existing and conceptual nuclear
reactors; 0.1 percent is minor actinides that can be fissioned efficiently only in fast spectrum reactors; and 0.1 percent is
long-lived iodine and technetium that can be transmuted to stable, non-radioactive, non-toxic elements. 116 Thus, nuclear
transmutation can take care of both the minor actinides and the long-lived fission products in the right kind of facility or
facilities.

Michigan 7 weeks

162

Nuclear power good / bad disads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Descarga
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->