Recycling Nuclear Fuel: It's Not What It's Promoted To Be (Video)

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner

If you have read, “Nuclear Hazelnut” Spins Nuclear Lies About Health & Safety & Conservative News Outlet Promulgates Same Lies & More”, you know one of the claims made by the X poster is “95% of nuclear waste is recyclable”. This led to the question, “what is this technology and how does it work”? The next question was, “is it feasible and what are the dangers”? For total disclosure, the next step was to look into nuclear waste recycling.

At this point, many readers are wondering what has prompted this interest in nuclear energy production, storage of waste, and the dangers of it all. The interest is due to living approximately 126 miles from a nuclear energy power plant that has a sinking foundation and experienced an issue within one year of startup. If you watched the documentary “SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy”, you will know the 10-mile immediate area was chosen for liability with the actual affected distance that should be considered for evacuation as 100 miles. But, prevailing winds can expand that evacuation area should an incident occur.

Back to nuclear waste, aka spent nuclear fuel rod, recycling. A video was found on YouTube that covered the process in a simplified manner that everyone can understand. It is well worth the watch because in it are dangers that were not discussed. This video covers the process used in France.

• Buy All-American!
• Bring health and vitality back to your body with these non-transdermal patches
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation – Use promo code TIM to save $$$
• The Very Best All-American Made Supplements On The Maret
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Save with Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
• The Very Best Chlorine Dioxide
• All-American, US Prime, High Choice Grass-Fed Beef with NO mRNA, hormones or antibiotics… ever!

If you are paying close attention, you will discover the government of France owns all the nuclear energy production plants and is responsible for the recycling of the spent nuclear fuel rods. In the united States, nuclear energy production plants are owned by corporations and operated by electrical companies, such as Southern Cal Edison, and overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. With the governance disaster that is the united States federal government that refuses to follow and enforce the law but works to find ways to undermine and circumvent it, are we to “trust” a nationalization of nuclear energy production plants? If you watched the documentaries on Indian Point, you know that one-time chairman Gregory Jaczko was essentially forced out of that position for wanting to make nuclear energy production plants safer (if that is even possible) for the people. Moreover, it has been previously reported that safety issues plague nuclear power production plants that are not being properly addressed by regulating agencies.

The documentary highlighted the high cost involved with “reprocessing” or recycling spent nuclear fuel rods used for energy production. The United Kingdom abandoned the recycling of their spent nuclear fuel rods because of cost. And, in the article cited at the beginning that referenced Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, GA, it was Georgia ratepayers rescuing nuclear energy for the electric companies. Using this process nationally, if “nationalized”, means the cost would be passed on to every taxpayer in the united States. With Americans having difficulty procuring basics, the extra cost to recycle spent nuclear fuel rods would cripple many if government funded. With the current nuclear power plants owned by private corporations and operated by private electric companies, the cost would fall upon the electric companies that would then pass this cost to the ratepayers. Even in this scenario, it could cripple many taxpayers.

Remember, nuclear energy provides about 20% of the power in the united States while using conventionally produced energy to run certain processes at the facilities. Don’t forget, the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station produced only 5% of the power used by the area. With the aggressive push to go “green” using wind, solar, and water that are unreliable at best, what happens when the power to operate certain processes at these nuclear energy production plants is interrupted? The plant would have to operate its diesel generators. As we learned, San Onofre’s diesel generations were inoperable for four years of its operation. But, I digress.

To process this spent nuclear fuel, new processing plants would have to be built, which costs money. Who would pay for that? It would be the ratepayers, probably through bond initiatives. Another consideration is location. Who wants more facilities handling any nuclear material near where they live?

As the documentary points out, spent nuclear fuel rods are transported across France to the “recycling facility”. There are many dangers in transporting spent nuclear fuel rods (waste) across distances using trucks and rails, such as motor vehicle and railway accidents. On top of that, specialized canisters have to be created to transport the material, which is an added cost. Currently, companies producing nuclear energy will not even use appropriate canisters to store the waste, much less invest in specialized canisters to transport it to a “recycling” facility.

As it currently stands, these unspent nuclear fuel rods have to be transported across the united States to get to the nuclear energy production plants. It is a given the routes used are kept secret for various reasons. While people may realize nuclear fuel is being transported to sites for use, the people conveniently forget the dangers involved should a problem occur such as an accident. Now, multiply that danger out to include spent nuclear fuel. No one wants any type of radioactive material transported near cities, neighborhoods, or towns. Yet, it occurs, but no one talks about it.

The actual process of “recycling” the spent nuclear fuel rods produces by-products of uranium, plutonium, and fission products. The fission products are waste that must be managed. The company in France currently uses vitrification – sealing the waste in glass. This is then stored underground in canisters. To be reused, the uranium is “recharged” (simplified terminology) then mixed with the plutonium to produce MOX fuel. The MOX fuel is then used for about 5 years roughly. At that point, the MOX fuel is spent and becomes nuclear waste that is unrecyclable. The MOX fuel then has to be stored long-term, which can be tens of thousands of years. “Nuclear Hazelnut” didn’t mention that.

Another problem with this recycling process is the plutonium produced from it is “pure”, meaning weapons-grade. Any left-over plutonium from the process has to be stored securely then shipped to the facility that makes MOX fuel. In the video, you will hear from Alison MacFarlane, former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If you watched the documentaries on Indian Point, you know she replaced Gregory Jaczko, but resigned 18 months later. She indicated the purified plutonium produced by recycling spent nuclear fuel rods “terrified the US government” so the government deferred reprocessing indefinitely. According to MacFarlane, the government saw “reprocessing” as a grave threat in terms of nuclear weapon proliferation. According to the source at Orano, only 10% of France’s electricity is generated using MOX fuel.

It seems all the benefits of this process do not truly outweigh all the risks, when MOX fuel only provides 10% of the electrical needs of France.

Another thing missing in all of this is the potential for accidents at these “recycling” sites and MOX fuel creation sites. What are the risks? What happens if something goes wrong? What is the danger? What happens if terrorists target these facilities? What happens if war breaks out?

What power source is being used in the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods and the creation of MOX fuel? That was not addressed, but should be.

It behooves everyone to watch these videos and become familiar with this issue. For decades, nuclear fuel waste and what to do with it has been a can that has been kicked down the road without any solution. As Gregory Jaczko claimed in one of the Indian Point documentaries, nuclear energy production plants are still being designed using 40- to 60-year-old technology, which includes storing nuclear waste, so nothing much has changed. Today, that can is still being kicked down the road. Moreover, nuclear energy is being promoted as the answer to net zero emissions without any definitive solution to nuclear waste management that must last for 10,000 generations. It doesn’t matter that net zero is a fallacy; nuclear energy is being promoted as clean, safe, and one solution to the climate change hoax. Remember, these facilities require a stable, uninterrupted conventional power source to operate some of the equipment with backup diesel generators should that conventional power be interrupted.

Don’t forget – one can assume this video is another attempt to solve the public relations issue surrounding using nuclear fuel for power generation. In order to continue using nuclear power, the most important issue for these companies is the public relations aspect – winning the public relations war to keep doing business as usual. It is NOT about solving the problem of nuclear waste management. It is NOT about making nuclear power generation safer. It all revolves around money and greed.

Those promoting this continued use of nuclear power production are doing so for several reasons – to keep a job, to make money, to promote solutions to the climate change hoax, or because they are not looking at the risks, which include the costs to the health care system and individuals when problems occur. It is irresponsible, to say the least, to continue to use nuclear power when there is no real solution to the nuclear waste it generates, including during the recycling of spent fuel rods. Not to mention, recycling of spent nuclear fuel rods generates another potential danger – the production of purified plutonium (radioactive) that is used in nuclear weapons.

The government “agencies” tasked with oversight have done a poor job and seem to be in the “back pocket” of the industry. Unfortunately, this is just another issue to add to all the other government faux pas the American public has to address. With more pressing issues, such as providing for one’s family due to increasing inflation, taxes, trampling of rights, the movement toward Marxism, dealing with current fascism, living in a surveillance state, etc., this will be kicked down the road further to another generation that will face the same problems with nonsolutions. At one point do we stop passing on the folly of past generations to future generations?

When looking at the nuclear industry, the use of nuclear products for weapons and nuclear fuel for power production should have never been put into play without a solid permanent solution to nuclear waste. There wasn’t a means to handle waste then and there isn’t one now. So, why are we continuing down this path? That question has been asked and answered. But, we should not be continuing in our folly since there is no solution for nuclear waste.

We need to contemplate these words carefully:

“Every prudent man acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly” – Proverbs 13:16

“Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his folly” – Proverbs 26:11

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools” – Romans 1:22

We have to repent of our folly and foolishness with nuclear fuel and materials. Man, thinking he was wise, has become a fool. Continuing on the same path is flaunting our folly and we will be held accountable to the Lord for it.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media