Digital Vision/Getty Images
DCL
Some argue that by not recycling spent nuclear fuel, we are squandering a huge percentage of the energy potential that nuclear generation offers. France does it successfully: nearly 80 percent of its power is nuclear, a capacity it has achieved because of its high reprocessing rate, and with no accidents or issues with terrorists or nuclear weapons proliferation. So why are we not doing the same?
Because on the flip side are those who prefer to err on the side of caution: recycling spent fuel requires separating the plutonium from other waste products, leaving the plutonium in a much more radioactive state than regular spent fuel. It is ripe for making a nuclear bomb with
Efforts in India (which the U.S. helped to acquire reprocessing abilities) to use separated plutonium in 1974 to build a nuclear weapon, and concern over the possibilities of other nations to follow suit, led Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive suspending commercial reprocessing and the following year, Jimmy Carter to ban it completely. Ronald Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but without funding behind it, commercial reprocessing never became a reality.
The strongest concerns over reprocessing spent fuel are rooted in the fact that separated plutonium is only weakly radioactive and therefore can be easily carried off (or stolen) and get into the wrong hands. Unseparated spent fuel, however, is highly radioactive and emits lethal gamma rays that demand it be transported in heavy casks
Some argue that if the U.S. were to model its nuclear industry after France's and start reprocessing fuel, it would seize upon a vast supply of untapped energy. Others say it is an unfair, unrealistic comparison. An article in the Global Journal of Energy Machinery points out that to replicate the French model in the U.S., "you would essentially have to nationalize your electric utilities and have all new power plant siting decisions emanate from the White House."
