Should the Dresden Station area be the home of the Dept. of Energy's nuclear fuel recycling facility?
MDH Article 8/14/08
MDH 8/11/08 Article - DOE punts GNEP to next president.
MDH 8/8/08 Article - "GNEP to Morris: Not now"
From arming warheads to lighting lightbulbs- 8/7/08 Editorial
MDH 8/5/08 article on Nuclear Waste
A step back on GNEP- 7/26/08 ChiTrib Article
Bush's GNEP under fire
A decent blog site about GNEP
What is GNEP?
Yucca funded, GNEP 'zeroed' - is this the end of GNEP? (6/26/08)
DOE Releases Domestic GNEP Industry Reports and Presentations (5/08)
MDH GNEP Article (04/08)
Nuke Notes Blog about proposed Morris site (1/08)
Union of Concerned Scientists (6/07)
NEIS Comments on GNEP - Comments by nuclear power watchdog on proposed Morris site (2/07)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
The way I see it is that the "spent" fuel rods are stored at Dresden, why not try to make more tax dollars recycling it?
I don't want it!
Old news but relevant.
In April of 2007, GE-Hitachi (60% GE and 40% Hitachi) applied for ownership of the proposed Morris GE site (see http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/07-1774.pdf).
In July of 2007, GE-Hitachi was awarded $4.8 million by the federal government "to provide conceptual design studies, technology development roadmaps, business plans, and a communications strategy in 2008 supporting decisions regarding the GNEP proposal for a nuclear fuel recycling center and advanced recycling" (see reactor.http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepPRs/gnepPR100107.html).
According to the DOE, the purposes and benefits of GNEP are (cut and pasted from DOE website):
As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. This will use a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation. It would achieve its goal by having nations with secure, advanced nuclear capabilities provide fuel services — fresh fuel and recovery of used fuel — to other nations who agree to employ nuclear energy for power generation purposes only. The closed fuel cycle model envisioned by this partnership requires development and deployment of technologies that enable recycling and consumption of long-lived radioactive waste.
The Partnership would demonstrate the critical technologies needed to change the way used nuclear fuel is managed – to build recycling technologies that enhance energy security in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, while simultaneously promoting non-proliferation.
BENEFITS
Provide abundant energy without generating carbon emissions or greenhouse gases.
Recycle used nuclear fuel to minimize waste and reduce proliferation concerns.
Safely and securely allow developing nations to deploy nuclear power to meet energy needs.
Assure maximum energy recovery from still-valuable used nuclear fuel.-Reduce the number of required U.S. geologic waste repositories to one for the remainder of this century.
Cut and pasted from the Fri., Jun 27, 2008 MDH Voice of the people.
The real contributing factors to the rising cost of energy
By Kim Sweeney
Channahon resident
Friday, June 27, 2008 4:57 PM CDT
In early May I attended a meeting in Godley to learn more about what I thought was another “Exelon Sponsored Community Information Night,” which I have found to be very informative and credible in the past. The Godley Public Meeting did not include local community and business leaders or Braidwood/Dresden company officials on the panel.
If we allow environmental groups and irresponsible local school districts to drive off industry we will begin to seriously impact the economy and, in this case, one could argue the rising cost of energy. Maybe we should think of the local nuclear plants for what they really are ... economic engines that drive our local economy, providers of a commodity our entire society demands, an outstanding corporate citizen and a company that has taken responsibility for its industrial accidents. We could drive off industry the way Midwest Generation was driven off - let's tax them to death, literally. Reed-Custer schools should talk to the Morris schools about the impact of losing valuable industrial tax base - they might begin to appreciate being one of the best-funded school districts in the region.
Environmental groups and greedy school districts with ulterior motives that try to play on people's emotions rather than facts do not fool me. When my children grow up I hope they find employment opportunities in the region so they will be able to stay in this wonderful area if they so choose.
Emotionally and factually responsible,
Kim Sweeney , Channahon
Cut and pasted from MDH 6/25/08.
I feel the need to respond to Mr. George Davis' recent letter to the editor titled “Concerned Scientist?” as I also attended the panel meeting held at the Godley Park District Auditorium on May 8, 2008.
The “scare tactics” that Mr. Davis states are not only the ongoing concerns of the well respected and well known scientists that were on the panel, but continue to be the ongoing concerns of the local residents as well as demonstrated by the questions that they posed to the panelist.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, Union of Concerned Scientists, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Beyond Nuclear were seated on the panel.
We should question the industry and federal permissible standards for tritium in drinking water as way to high (NRC standard is 1 million picocuries/liter, EPA standards in 20,000 picocuries/liter) when compared to the state of California (400 picocuries/liter) or that there is no clinically established “safe” dose for chronic exposure to tritiated water.
It would appear that Mr. Davis has more regard for the company than his family and his neighbors.
Obviously, asking N. Korea to label its nuclear power plants and to demolish a tower had something to do with this committee not funding GNEP.
Here's a company that turns Illinois coal, which we have "tons", into clean burning methane in an environmental way:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18119/?a=f
After verifying their claims, what about getting them here to start a plant at the old Collins station site? Should we short-sell Midwest Gen?
There is a company that makes spray on plastic solar cells. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html
A community in the state of Washington is vying for tax revenues from Bush’s GNEP program. TRIDEC, the lead economic development organization for Benton and Franklin Counties in the state of Washington, funds a million dollar study to bring a GNEP nuclear recycling center and facility to their area. Story: http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6455863&nav=menu484_11_3
Grundy county, as well as this area in Washington, is one of 11 proposed sites.
Based on comments made by both McCain and Obama, we can expect more nuclear power. McCain supports Bush's plan (which includes GNEP) while Obama states we need to have a better plan for the spent fuel rods prior to building nuke facilities.
One aspect I'm concerned about is who is going to build this thing if they do it? Builders of nuke facilities (there are only a few) have been prosecuted for racketeering and are infamous for not meeting deadlines nor budget constraints "by a mile". One new nuke plant operated only one day before being shut down for safety reasons...it still cost the taxpayers billions.
Where do the candidates stand on nuclear power? According to the Detroit Free Press:
On nuclear power, Obama , the Illinois senator, states that nuclear power will play role in the energy supply, but before building new plants, we must make sure they are safe, clean and have waste storage. While McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and 100 over the long term. The GOP candidate also believes that nuclear energy is a safe and zero-emissions power source; supports government funding for designs.
On storing nuclear waste beneath the Yucca Mountains in Nevada: Obama is opposed saying that the United States needs to look at alternatives like regional storage and on-site storage in super-secure casks. McCain, the Arizona senator favors the Yucca storage solution asserting that it will be safe; but, he doesn’t not want the nuclear waste trucked through his home state of Arizona on its way to Nevada.
Post a Comment