EarthTalk® is a weekly environmental column made available to our readers from the editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Why don’t we reprocess and re-use our nuclear waste like France does? Would it be possible for us to start doing so?  - Albert Jukowsky, Silver Spring, MD

Reprocessing nuclear waste to extract more energy from it, while expensive and controversial, is indeed to this day still practiced in France, the UK, Russia, India and Japan—but not in the United States, where it was invented. The process involves breaking down spent nuclear fuel chemically and recovering fissionable material for use in new fuels. Proponents tout the benefit of reducing the amount of nuclear waste, resulting in less highly radioactive material that needs to be stored safely.

Nuclear reprocessing was first developed in the U.S. as part of the World War II-era Manhattan Project to create the first atomic bomb. After the war, the embryonic nuclear power industry began work to reprocess its waste on a large scale to extend the useful life of uranium, a scarce resource at the time. But commercial reprocessing attempts faltered due to technical, economic and regulatory problems. Anti-nuclear sentiment and the fear of nuclear proliferation in the 1970s led President Jimmy Carter to terminate federal support for further development of commercial reprocessing. The military did continue to reprocess nuclear waste for defense purposes, though, until the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War made continuous ramping up of our nuclear arsenal unnecessary.

More recently, George W. Bush pushed a plan, the Global Nuclear Energy Project (GNEP), to promote the use of nuclear power and subsidize the development of a new generation of “proliferation-resistant” nuclear reprocessing technologies that could be rolled out to the commercial nuclear energy sector. Federal scientists came up with promising spins on reprocessing nuclear fuel while minimizing the resulting waste. But in June of 2009 the Obama administration cancelled GNEP, citing cost concerns.

Proponents of nuclear power—and of reprocessing in particular—were far from pleased with GNEP’s axing, especially in light of Obama’s earlier decision to close Yucca Mountain as the U.S.’s future nuclear waste repository. “GNEP may have gone away, but the need to recycle spent fuel in this country is more important than ever because of the government’s stupid decision to close Yucca Mountain,” said Danny Black of the Southern Carolina Alliance, a regional economic development group, on the Ecopolitology blog. “Without Yucca Mountain, the pressure is on the industry to do more with recycling.”

But a 2007 report by the nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) would seem to justify Obama’s decision. IEER found that nuclear reprocessing would actually increase our volume of nuclear waste six fold. IEER also reported that France, which runs the world’s most efficient reprocessing operation, spends about two cents per kilowatt hour more for electricity generated from reprocessed nuclear fuel compared to that generated from fresh fuel. IEEE further reports that the costs to build the breeder plants needed to convert spent nukes into usable fuel would “create intolerable costs and risks.”

For now, U.S. nuclear plants will continue to store waste on site, with spent rods cooled in pools of water for upwards of a year and then moved into thick steel and concrete caskets. While proliferation and terrorism have long been risks associated with hosting nuclear plants on American soil, recent events in Japan underscores that even Mother Nature poses a threat. As such, advocates of reprocessing probably stand little chance of reviving plans in a political climate now so hostile to nuclear development.

Contacts:
Ecopolitology
IEER

Related articles

• Researching Safer Nuclear Energy (green.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Tom Clements: Nuclear Industry Intent On Moving Waste To SC (via South Carolina Green Party) (wilderside.wordpress.com)
• Obama’s Transparency on Science Doesn’t Include Nuclear (papundits.wordpress.com)

Image credit: Toucanradio, courtesy Flickr 

It is a very obscure and flexible law, merely directing the Secretary of Transportation to “study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation.”  As I read it, this means the Secretary has the freedom to explore this as an option at some point, with no firm deadline.

Here’s my two cents, what if hybrid manufacturers had to choose from a set of pre-approved classic rock songs to play?  Then you could be walking down the street and hear ACDC’s Back in Black coming down the road and know you shouldn’t step out into the street because a hybrid is coming. Source

In addition to the letter grade system we’re all familiar with, the stickers will likely have a miles per gallon number still, and a typical cost to fill the tank number.  The latter will be helpful psychologically as people consider a new vehicle.  “28 mpg highway” is one number we see often.  But when that translates to “$85 cost to fill the tank” hits the wallet a little harder.  This way, we might actually consider the real cost of filling up such a wasteful vehicle.

The new stickers will come on line in 2012.  They are a result of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act which required the EPA to begin rating cars on fuel economy, greenhouse gases and smog-forming pollutants.  It took the EPA 5 years to develop a new sticker.  No wonder they can’t seem to accurately evaluate the MPG of a vehicle.  When they first developed the methodology, cars probably had stone wheels.

One good thing: the current rating does accurately reflect the environmental impact of a vehicle.  Most cars on the road today will score between a C and a B.  The only A-rated cars out there are hybrids and electrics – which we should see a lot more of in the near future.  Nissan is the only company that likes the new system.  Understandably because their vehicle is currently the only zero-emissions vehicle to hit the market.  By comparison, every other car maker looks like a sloth when it comes to environmental progress.

Source

In 2008, many manufacturers and retailers began pulling products that contained BPA from shelves.  Here comes the sad news.  The EU law passed just a week after the same law failed to pass in the United States Senate.  Why?  There’s a short, two word answer: industry influence.

At least we can say one thing about the U.S. Government: their expedience at which businesses can influence policy is head-spinning.  Just ask any politician, all one needs to make lasting public policy change is a few dollars and a few friends.

For now, you can minimize the off-gassing of your current plastic products by not heating them.  Belinda Phipps of the National Childbirth Trust says “When you put liquids into a bottle – particularly hot liquids or liquids containing fatty liquids – it leaches out of the plastic. And particularly as the bottle gets older and it gets more scratched, more and more leaches out and into the liquid.”

Starting in March 2011, BPA will be completely banned in the EU, allowing parents to make easy choices when it comes to their baby’s health.  In the U.S., parents will just have to continue their diligence in terms of baby product research.  Here’s hoping the gender-bending effects of BPA were minimized by my parents’ hippie lifestyle.

Source

If you’ve ever walked by the White House, you’ve noticed the activity on the roof so it can safely be assumed there won’t be a great deal of clutter added to the roof.

And with all the offices and unknown security-related electronics beneath that roof, I doubt any solar application can cover the consumption of that building.  However, every little bit counts.  In a discussion with my local passionate environmentalist: “everyone should be required to have solar panels on their roof”.  There’s some validity to that statement, although inflammatory, because if we all had a small amount of renewable energy generation capacity, it would take significant load off the fossil-fuel-powered grid.

Here’s what they had to say: “President Obama has said the Federal Government has to lead by example in creating opportunity and jobs in clean energy.  By installing solar panels on arguably the most famous house in the country, his residence, the President is underscoring that commitment to lead and the promise and importance of renewable energy in the United States.”

There are lots of options out there for installing solar on your property.  Some even allow you to rent or lease the units, keeping the out-of-pocket costs low.  It would be nice to eliminate my $80/month electric bill, it’s just hard to swallow a $10,000 investment to do so.

Source

North Dakota has a lot of one thing: oil fields.  And those oil fields needs lots of people and they pay them a lot.  This is probably due to the high risk of the job and the very high profits of the industry.

So what’s the problem?  There isn’t any housing! People walk around the town with a pocket full of money and nowhere to live.  From motels to trailer parks to campgrounds to apartments.  Everything is full and/or has a wait list.

Why is this being discussed on an environmental blog? Because we have to make economics part of the environmental discussion every day.  The truth of our society is this: corporations, governments and communities won’t truly accept a change in lifestyle until it is economically beneficial to do so.

As evidence, look at the evolution of environmentally friendly vehicles.  Green vehicles didn’t hit the market until the business model started to erode and the consumers demanded clean vehicles.  A pathetic but true fact.

With this as a guideline, one might conclude that if a particular word had many, often disparate meanings, then societal knowledge would suffer, creating confusion and potential chaos.

Chaos? Isn’t that a bit exaggerated?

Perhaps , but certainly relative to one’s personal experience with chaos itself, or perhaps academic study into chaos theories of combustion powerful enough to create solar systems.

Ah, but the word. That particular word. Green, that’s it. Green.

What is the first thing you think about when “green” is mentioned? Is it green technology? Lots of that going around, for quite a while now.

And, green represents the life of nature—-growth, the deep green pasture lands, the wonderful, wondrous green of Sequoia trees in Northern California. The smell of fresh, green pine trees in the Cascade Mountains. The green, green grass of home.

Then, (and now) a Green Party emerged with a real political and social agenda, and ran former Congresswomen Cynthia McKinney for President in 2008. But despite a 25 year history (excluding early efforts from New Zealand) they received a couple hundred thousand votes. That’s it. There are elected Greens, however. In Oregon, for instance, a quick glance of elected Greens gets you a couple of city councilors, a mayor,a school board member, and something else. But they cling to their concept of “green.” No special interests or favoritism. No corporatism. Not enough votes to matter, either.

People tend to tire of symbolic movements.

But, the green movement certainly has a valid and reliable base of support. Down deep, most of us would rather see sustainable energy projects moving forward, and the concept of recycling all products. And a reduction of reliance on fossil fuels.

Most of us understand that our society and the society of other nations have long been viciously polluting our resources—-that which will sustain us. Without it, we die. And yet, the contrived, political argument rages on. If there is a way to salute our collective stupidity, one is surely in the pipeline of production.

But green. That’s a problematic word. Ever know anyone who was “green with envy”? How about “green around the gills”?

Then, there is that nasty notion of green equating to money. “How much green you got tonight”? Greenbacks. And plenty of them. Keep them coming, the financial institutions screamed. “We need 800 billion dollars, or the house is coming down!”

Well, 800 billion later, and the house still may be coming down. We haven’t even been able to settle the first wave of mortgage foreclosures yet, and there are three to four million more set for this year. Then, likely a lot of bad commercial paper. So, this kind of green does not seem to accept the notion of sustainability. The players here simply rely on the Federal Reserve for its printing press. Thirteen trillion in national debt.

Finally, some journalistic notion possibly would be offended without the mention of green as it relates to our country’s latest medicine increasingly accepted as valuable treatment for a number of illnesses.

Yes, cannabis. Marijuana. Green bud.

Some of you older readers will remember early propaganda films like “Reefer Madness.” We have come a long way. Next will come the taxation, however, and in California, it is estimated that close to a billion dollars a year could be raised. It boggles the mind attempting to visualize a pile of marijuana which would generate that kind of income.

All in all, this blog, and all of The Hippie Magazine Network, calls for personal education and actions toward promoting projects which renew themselves. Truly, it is nothing more than common sense. Heat from the sun, power generation from the wind, wave energy. The many uses of water as yet untapped.

We can just say no to the status quo.

In that vein, Hippie Magazine also seeks to report on our fellow citizens who are elected to operate in a sensible and sustainable manner while seeking to keep the country safe. The true green politicians are the ones who seek the same kind of balance which is reflected in Nature. Acting with transparency, and pursuing no agendas other than seeking the best practices and policies for all citizens. No hypocrisy allowed.

Dream on? Maybe, but the grass is only beginning to grow in this arena.

We settled on a different idea.  We looked back on 2008 year in reviews to compare between then and now.  We asked: How far have we come? Are we where we hoped to be? Is our slope of innovation steep enough?  There are so many more questions to ask but these were enough to get started.

1. T. Boone Pickens was getting some press.  His plan is still out there: to use our domestic wind resources to power the country.  Although this hasn’t happened yet, it is catching on as a realistic idea.  But coming from a man who made his billions from the oil industry – can’t we rely on anyone else?
2. Big money was getting pumped into solar.  From unconventional solar installations to micro-solar applications on your roof, we saw big investments in solar.  This hasn’t come to fruition yet either, but solar is steadily growing in terms of infrastructure and capacity.  As we invest more and more in this renewable energy source, we predict the U.S. will reach the solar tipping point in 2010.
3. President Obama had just picked a green technology expert to lead us into the next decade.  Steven Chu, an alternative energy and green tech guru was picked to lead the U.S. into the future of renewable energy policy.  We have yet to see sweeping changes in this area.  To be fair, the Administration has been focused on healthcare and the horrific mess in the Middle East.
4. Flexible computer displays promised to put energy-efficient computers in every hand.  The race for the $100 laptop was similar to the race for the smallest, most mobile and flexible computers.  Flexible displays promised to put more mobile devices in people’s hands – thus limiting the reliance on big, energy-sucking desktop computers.  This also hasn’t happened yet, but would be great to see in the near future.  Our prediction: the price is (and will remain) too high for the average consumer for some time.
5. Cloud Computing was going to take the CPU out of your computer.  The idea of cloud computing is amazingly simple. It would decentralize your files, your computing power, etc. and only place minimal components in your hands.  This would lighten the energy load of your computer and allow you to access files and computing power from virtually anywhere.  This has not come to reality just yet.  Some companies are still pushing the idea, including Google.  Maybe in 2010?
6. President Obama was poised to change the U.S.’s position in the world of climate change. We were set to become the leader in progressive energy policy. From Ecollo.com we saw this prediction for 2009 “Speaking of the U.S. government, President-elect Barack Obama could turn the country into climate change leaders by the end of the year, says the Globe and Mail. The columnist for the paper also predicts that the price of oil is now reasonable enough to implement a cap-and-trade and that climate change will be the – for lack of a better word – hot topic of 2009.”  This has not happened and Copenhagen was a giant disappointment.
7. The Huffington Post predicted the United States Government could make bottled water a thing of the past.  Again, the Government has failed us.
8. JetsonGreen.com predicted the non-green would perish.  This is partly true.  We have certainly seen an increase in the number of green products available.  Although some of these are greenwashing, there are many companies innovating and inventing like crazy to keep up with consumer demand for environmentally friendly products.  The economic down-turn helped with this, but we would love to see the next evolution of this movement be to de-consumerization (I think we just made that word up).  Rather than buying more eco-friendly products, should we just buy less products?

So we ask, have we made the progress we hoped to make?  Have we grown in environmental courage like we planned?  We have made tons of progress and many eco innovations.  However, we put entirely too much faith in our world leaders to make the changes the majority of us are asking for.

What we hope to learn from the minimal progress made in 2009 is that real change begins at the bottom.  Originating with the people, lasting and effective change happens when citizens collect themselves to identify a need and offer a solution.

Sources:

• www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/the-top-10-gree/
• www.ecostreet.com/blog/eco-technology/2008/01/16/2008s-most-desirable-eco-gadgets
• www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/frameshop-10-phrases-that_b_154276.html
• www.ecollo.com/post/2009/01/Green-predictions-for-2009.aspx
• www.jetsongreen.com/2009/01/seven-green-tre.html

Image Credit: JetsonGreen