LETTER: Yucca Mountain and waste reprocessing not the answer

In his Sunday letter, Lev Schneiderman wants Nevada to open Yucca Mountain as a revenue source by reprocessing “highly radioactive nuclear waste.” He sees it as a source of free money akin to Alaska’s oil revenues, including direct payments to state residents. He also points out that various European countries and Japan do “recycle” nuclear waste, and he cannot understand why the United States bans doing so and why Nevada does not want to jump squarely atop this pile of free money.

Here’s why not:

The more correct terms for “recycling” nuclear waste is nuclear reprocessing. The United States bans it because it produces weapons-grade nuclear material, plutonium in particular. The United States already has more weapons-grade material than it needs, so making more only increases the risk of it being diverted or stolen. Even if the material does not become a nuclear weapon, it can still be used to make dirty bombs.

Every reprocessing technology also produces highly dangerous byproducts and waste. What does Nevada gain by embracing a new form of dangerous waste?

Reprocessing is not economically viable and may not have a market anyway. The resulting fuel is substantially more expensive than “new” nuclear fuel. Studies suggest any reprocessing program would need substantial governmental subsidies to build and operate.

In addition, nuclear power is out of favor. Proposals for wind, solar, geothermal, ocean tide-based and other “green” ways to generate electricity are common. For all practical purposes, no one is proposing new nuclear generation and current plants are being shut down due to public pressure, end of design life or both. Even with subsidies to bring the cost of recycled fuel down to that of new fuel, there may be no one to buy it.

While a few other countries do have recycling programs, no country has stated one since the United States walked away from the idea.

In short, Yucca Mountain is best left just as it is — a hole in the ground.