You know, we miss State Rep. Chuck DeVore over here.Â Chuck used to stop by all the time to advocate for things like Nucelar power, an industry he’s bound to work for as a consultant or lobbyist once Carly Fiorina wins the Republican primary for US Senate and Chuck is termed out of the assembly (perhaps he can replace Chris Norby as a GOP candidate for the county’s clerk-recorder’s job).
Today’s LA Times carries an editorial that debunks one of Chuck’s arguments on how to deal with nuclear waste — one of the few times a conservative will actually give the French any credit.Â Read it here.
From the piece:
“Many conservatives on Capitol Hill favor the French “solution”: spent-fuel reprocessing. But reprocessing isn’t a solution at all: It’s a very expensive and dangerous detour.
Reprocessing takes used or “spent” nuclear fuel and dissolves it to separate the uranium and plutonium from the highly radioactive fission products. The plutonium and uranium are then recycled to make new reactor fuel, thereby reducing the amount of fresh uranium required by about 20%. But based on French and Japanese experience, the cost of producing this recycled fuel is several times that of producing fresh uranium reactor fuel.
The U.S. made the mistake with Yucca Mountain of trying to force a repository on an unwilling state. One alternative would be to follow the path of Finland and Sweden, which have placed their underground repositories in communities that already host nuclear power plants. They have found that once people in a community have accepted a nuclear facility, they view the addition of an underground repository as a relatively minor issue.
In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored on site in dry casks for decades. It is not a permanent solution, but there is no reason to panic until we can build more permanent facilities. Reprocessing would be a panic solution.”
Chuck has called for new nuclear plants to be built.Â Any communities in California willing to host them?