Non-Treehuggers Criticize the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
Page November 5th, 2007
Nuclear power´s [international] prominence as a major energy source will continue over the next several decades, according to new projections made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)…
That’s from the IAEA press release for their new report, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power for the period up to 2030 [pdf]. The report’s ultimate goal is “…not so much to predict the future but to prepare for it,” and describes relative nuclear power use by a number of countries (flash presentation).
Regarding the US, the report found that, as of the end of 2006:
 |
|
President Bush sits in the control room at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala. Thursday June 21, 2007. Unit 1 of the Browns Ferry plant was restarted in May 2007, after being shut down for over 20 years. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) |
The US had 103 reactors providing 19 percent of the country´s electricity… Altogether three-quarters of the US reactors either already have license renewals, have applied for them, or have stated their intention to apply. There have been a lot of announced intentions (about 30 new reactors´ worth) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now reviewing four Early Site Permit applications.
Since the beginning of Bush’s first term, his administration has been a strong advocate for a nuclear renaissance, pushing especially hard over the past several years, with strong economic incentives and government loan guarantees for new plant construction, investment protection for unforeseen plant construction delays, etc. . One sentence buried deep within a massive energy bill can go a long way.
But more nuclear plants means more nuclear waste; in the US alone, there are approximately 55,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in temporary storage at about 120 sites across the country, with no permanent storage solution in sight [pdf]. And other countries, with far more nuclear plants, have a similar problem. Spent nuclear fuel storage poses many problems (security, potential public safety hazards, etc.).
So, back in the beginning of 2006, the Bush administration announced its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal. The program is ambitious. Under the slogan of “Accelerating Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy”, it advocates worldwide expansion of nuclear power via nuclear fuel-recycling technology, with (theoretically) less nuclear waste. In short, build more nuclear plants, and…reduce, reuse, recycle!
 |
|
The general GNEP nuclear fuel supply/demand/waste relationship. (Click to enlarge.) |
[The GNEP proposal] 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.
One noteworthy GNEP-related partnership was forged with Russia in 2006 “…that would pave the way for Russia to become one of the world’s largest repositories of spent nuclear fuel…”. (The important implications and details are discussed here.)
The program is billed as a technological panacea for all things climate, energy, proliferation, and environment-related; it sounds like prime nerd bait as well as a prime target for anti-nuclear power nongovernmental organizations.
So guess who’s criticizing it? Well, my title gave it away: it’s the nerds.
