Publication Laka-library:
Assessing the benefits, costs and risks of near-term reprocessing and alternatives

AuthorMatthew Bunn
6-03-2-30-01.pdf
DateSeptember 2006
Classification 6.03.2.30/01 (PROLIFERATION - MULTINATIONAL APPROACHES (GNEP / FUEL BANK / GNPI))
Front

From the publication:

                            Assessing the Benefits, Costs, and Risks
                         Of Near-Term Reprocessing and Alternatives
                                  TESTIMONY OF
                                 MATTHEW BUNN
                                     FOR THE
                SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                                             SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

       Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today to discuss
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

       I believe that we should be working hard to fix the past problems that have limited the
growth of nuclear energy, as the world may need a greatly expanded global contribution from
nuclear energy to cope with the problem of climate change. I support a strong nuclear research and
development program – along with greatly expanded R&D on other energy sources and efficiency.

        But gaining the public, utility, and government acceptance needed for a large-scale
expansion of nuclear energy will not be easy. Such an expansion will require making nuclear power
as cheap, safe, secure, and proliferation-resistant as possible. I believe that while several elements
of GNEP deserve strong support, the current GNEP focus on moving rapidly toward large-scale
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel will take us in the wrong direction on each of these counts, and
hence is likely to do more to undermine the future of nuclear energy than to promote it.1 Moreover,
I believe that reprocessing will not be required to provide either sufficient uranium supplies or
sufficient repository space for many decades to come, if then. I fear that the new focus on rushing
to construction of commercial-scale facilities is precisely the wrong direction, and will distort the
R&D effort. I will elaborate on each of these points in this testimony.

       But first, let me emphasize the two key take-away points:
(1) We should f