Reprocessing and Vitrification: Nuclear Waste Management

Many people in the Nuclear Energy knowledge-sphere have heard of Reprocessing which is a way to extract energy from Nuclear Waste by reusing dangerous elements, and a few people out there may have heard of Vitrification where it is possible to solidify Nuclear Waste as a glass so as to reduce spread of radioactive material in case of accidents. But, I have never seen it proposed that we should use BOTH!

That doesn't mean someone hasn't suggested the possibility, but despite my research into the topic I have never seen it. I have seen questions alluding to it and people suggesting one or the other, but never both.

Reprocessing is necessary because it reduces waste in a way that also produces electricity and gets rid of many elements that can be extracted from current Nuclear Waste to create Nuclear Weapons. Vitrification is then necessary because it increases the safety of True Nuclear Waste. These two processes effectively neutralize all problems associated with Nuclear Waste Management. 

We could then move the Government Subsidies that are currently being used to fund the management of almost-pure Nuclear Waste left on-site at many Nuclear Power Plants across the country to instead fund these far more useful processes. We could also use the funds that have been collected by the National Government for Yucca Mountain in Nevada to help fund the storage of the Vitrified Waste probably underground. These subsidies should be able to fund both processes, but even if they didn't directly fund both, they would fund both at least indirectly by increasing consumer confidence in Nuclear Energy by solving the problem of Waste Management. 

This would 1. decrease the worry felt by much of the population due to Nuclear Waste and 2. lead to more investments in the Nuclear Power Industry by the population who would no longer be worried about one of the largest problems currently perceived to be facing the industry.

I believe it is an absolute imperative to use these two processes, and as they are somewhat obscure it is also necessary to advocate their use and practicality to the public who are, for the most part, unaware of these ways to deal with Nuclear Waste effectively.

Thank you for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

_________________________________________________________________________________

Cost of Nuclear Energy Comparative to Wind Energy

It has been projected by the national government and several renewable/green energy companies that by 2030 wind energy's levelized costs will be less than coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Levelized costs are a method of determining the cost per MWh of an energy source, and it tends to work well when comparing similar energy production mechanisms. There are, however, certain problems that have been glossed over.

The main problem with this determined method of energy production cost analysis is that it doesn't take into account the time period of the day when the energy is produced. A major point is that there is no effective way to store energy for a period of time. This means, that the electricity has to be produced as it is needed. Other energy sources (e.g. fossil fuel and nuclear power plants) simply have their current electrical output increased to meet hourly demands through various mechanisms. Solar and Wind energies do not have this option. Wind energy often produces its electricity during off-peak times of the day. In other words, when the energy is lower demand and therefore worth significantly less. This means that it has to produce even more for the electricity to make a profit. Solar energy is slightly better because it works with the sun and tends to produce more energy during larger demand periods, but it can still be affected by cloudy weather and similar problems making it harder for it to produce electricity when the electricity is worth the most.

In other words, levelized costs do not accurately measure the ability of wind or solar energies comparative to nuclear or fossil fuels. Wind is generally over-valued while solar is generally under-valued, but neither one can really be compared. It's apples and oranges; it doesn't work.

This was basically a summary of an article by Paul L. Joskow titled Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies, however, I don't know how many people have access to this article as I only found it using UVU's online library service. It explains this far better than I do, but like I said, you may not be able to access it.

Thank you for reading.
________________________________________________________________
Sources:

Joskow, Paul L. "Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies." American Economic Review101.3 (2011): 238-241. Business Source Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
_________________________________________________________________________________