"Follow the money."
Deep Throat

Allfired, one fairly obvious answer to why recycling isn't cost effective in the US is that we haven't built a nuclear plant in the US in decades. That kind of growth's not very likely to produce the kind of economics it would take to justify the capital investment required for recycling. It is apparently being done on a cost effective basis in France and in the UK, perhaps elsewhere too. You can read a description of the processes at: www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm

Yucca Mountain is a viable solution, but is stalled by a silly argument about whether a 10,000 year or a 1 million year standard should be applied to evaluate the containment technology.

It takes a certain amount of vanity to hazard any kind of serious guess about what the next thousand years will bring, much less 10,000. A million year standard is an exercise in pure fantasy. If a million's good, then why not 10 million? 100 million? Tell you what, just make it forever and ever.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that we DON'T apply in other contexts, but we DO apply to the nuclear energy industry because it's "scary."

Interesting background on this at:

http://www.stockinterview.com/News/09...

Offthereservation…you quoted the Nuclear Management Company’s website earlier about spent fuel, five to seven feet deep covering a football sized field and that’s all real nice, though not quite accurate, since the rods are actually stored either in pools beneath twenty feet of water or in dry cask storage units the size of SUV’s.

NMC’s website also said this “…Reprocessing and recycling are also not currently cost-effective in the United States, although recycling is being done in other countries.”

Mr. Schustereit…with all your months of research and study on the subject of nuclear plants, can you tell me what the recycling process that is being done in other countries is, and why it’s not currently cost-effective in the US? You keep saying there is a safe recycling process, but I’ve yet to hear what it is? Enlighten us all, please.

Mr. Schusteriet, I guess I am just not as intelligent as you are. You apparently already have all your answers. I have questions and I want answers so I can make my mind up too. I can assure you I will be the devils advocate through this whole process - better safe than sorry and better to seek the advice of experts. So--back to my question - why is the Main Man of Exelon, Mr. Rowe himself, more concerned about the waste than you are? Is there something in this for you that would cause you to take a completely different stance than the nuclear industry itself?

While I appreciate your entitlement to an opinion, I think I am going to go with the one that ACTUALLY PRODUCES THE WASTE. If the waste is such a major concern for Mr. Rowe, then it better be a concern for Victoria.

An interesting article for you to read from CNN Money.com. Here is an excerpt quoting Mr. John Rowe, CEO of Exelon:

'"Nuclear is not a cause; it is a business," he told shareholders recently. It is precisely for that reason that Rowe says he does not want to build another nuclear plant until the nations spent-fuel disposal problem is solved.'

So---even Exelon's main man acknowledges spent-fuel is a problem. Has the love of money and profits changed those views? Victoria - are we being sold out?

Check the article out for yourself.

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/05/15/8376894/index.htm

John asks these questions: "Bottom line ‘How long has Nuclear Power plants been in existence”? During this time they have made extreme progress in providing safe power from Nuclear Energy, but little in dealing with the ‘Radioactive Waste’, why?

I believe that it is thinking like John's that has prevented us from making more progress than the rest of the world has in dealing with nuclear waste. We have allowed and encouraged an irrational fear to fester over the entire history of our domestic nuclear power industry. As a result, the US has been paralyzed...no new plants, no progress towards fuel reprocessing or other solutions to minimize and handle waste. These are things being pursued in other parts of the world. Cheap imported oil has given us the luxury to dither for a dozen years over how and whether to bury our nuclear waste beneath Yucca Mountain.

Instead of promoting fear, we should have been growing our nuclear fleet, which would have provided the incentive for seeking better waste handling solutions. Fortunately, on-site storage is a practical interim solution. This is from www.nmcco.com/education/facts/waste/w...

"All of the country's nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation—some 40,000 metric tons—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end."

We can't afford to be guided by unwarranted timidity and "sky is falling" thinking about our domestic energy policy. We do, however, need to be honest about what's really behind the most recently visible opposition to the Exelon plant. I don't think John and conmcm are really against nuclear energy; they're just against nuclear energy on the McCan site. I think they'd not be heard from if the site were in Matagorda County or even if it were at the other end of Victoria County.

Kenneth
Try reading this press release.
I think you'll find of interest. The last leak according to the
state of Illinois was March 13 2006.
http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.go...

Better check the internets, Kenneth.

Exelon Corporation didn’t publicly acknowledge at least six spills of water containing radioactive tritium until recently--even though the first one happened in 1996. Residents of Will County, Illinois are now outraged and worried about tritium's effect on their health.

Exelon Vice President Thomas O'Neill says the company did what it was supposed to do in the 2000 leak, notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency, though he admits no notifications were made of earlier leaks.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/enviro...

I read about this leak during the debates,because it was rumored Obama may somehow received donations for favorable treatment,so the leak did occur.
April 6, 2006 (WLS) -- Tritium leaks at an Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood have been a source of concern for the Braidwood and Godley communities. The company is reassuring residents it will clean up the millions of gallons of radioactive water that leaked from the plant.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sect...
What did Ronald Reagan used to say? "Trust but verify"
These tubes & pipes called the Internets are great things...LOL

Mr. Schustereit I do not believe you were at the Chamber Lunch yesterday when I made my comment. It seems you are taking information from the article and putting you own words. What I SAID WAS I bought into Paradise Ranch 2 years ago and LAST November I spoke to Bill Scott and believed the information I received was accurate. When I nearly begged him to tell me if I would be impacted in anyway by the Nuclear Plant he said they had acquired all property. My calculations are 9 months ago I started speaking with Bill Scott and 5 months AFTER that the heavy haul road I found out about. AND THAT IS WHEN I STARTED TO GET MY RETIREMENT HOME!!! Feeling secure I would be able to retire and live here. Big difference than over a year ago. Also your comment on Exelon and the Tritium leak Mr. O'Neill is the one who brought it up at the Chamber Lunch and said they were late in reporting and got in trouble over it and had learned a lesson from it. There again your facts are not correct. BUT since there has been accidents WHY would I want one in my back yard. You really need to have your facts straight BEFORE you go off on anyone or anything.

Too bad Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather didn't come to town. 
Now that would be news.
OK, now let the attacks begin!  Release the hounds.