Ivan Oelrich at the Federation of American Scientists pointed out:
A telling point is that almost no independent analysts, that is, those not working for the Department of Energy, have anything good to say about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In the Greenwire article cited above, Deutsch called GNEP a “goofy idea.” Even overall supporters of nuclear power, like Ernest Moniz of MIT (Moniz was, along with Deutsch, cochairman of the panel that wrote the very influential MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power), oppose GNEP if for no other reason than it is premature. It may be a good idea at the end of the 21st Century, but not now. Even the nuclear power industry is at best tepid in its support, worrying that GNEP is a diversion from the immediate problem of a geological repository. Recent questions from members of Congress highlights another concern: even potential supporters of the idea of reprocessing are wary of entrusting the gargantuan technical task to the Department of Energy because DOE has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects.
Perhaps as a result the lack of outside expert support, the DOE seems to be focusing on selling GNEP not on technical grounds but through public relations.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_power_and_fuel_cycle/gnep.html?formAction=297&contentId=525
Ernest Moniz is now head of the Department of Energy.
John Deutsch was CIA Director under Bill Clinton.
They're both professors at MIT.
MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy" emphasized:
Thus our most important recommendation is:
For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/index.html
The National Academy of Sciences also gave it a big thumbs-down:
National Academy of Science Report Calls for Putting the Brakes on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program.
This afternoon, a committee of the National Research Council, a research arm of the National Academy of Science, issued a report that is extremely critical of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, an administration plan to restart separating plutonium from used commercial nuclear reactor fuel, something the United States has not done for three decades. I have argued that the goals of GNEP, while scientifically possible and perhaps someday economically justifiable, are decades premature. I am relieved to discover that the committee report comes to essentially the same conclusion.
<snip>
While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so.
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/national_academy_of_science_re.php
Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth after Congress cancelled it:
"This decision to halt the reprocessing EIS is celebrated by those who know the technical absurdity, proliferation risks and high costs involved with pursuit of commercial reprocessing of radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. We thank Secretary (Steven) Chu for taking this important step," said Tom Clements of Friends of the Earth. "The decision to cancel ... is a clear victory for the environment of South Carolina and taxpayers but a big setback to narrow special interests who had hoped to profit from a commercial reprocessing facility being built at the Savannah River Site."
http://www.aikenstandard.com/Local/0630GNEP
= new reply since forum marked as read
