My field of inquiry is nuclear engineering. I plan to argue that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is a safe, proven method that could help increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain furthering its useful life.
I have identified three journals from which I’d like to draw my information: Nuclear News Periodical, Radwaste Solutions, and Nuclear Science and Engineering. Additionally, I will be interviewing Dr. Fentiman of the department of nuclear engineering here at Purdue.
Intro: In this section I will discuss the proposal to include background information. My focus will not be on Yucca Mountain but on the reduction of heat that occurs through reprocessing.
Source: Radwaste, Interview
Main point 1: European countries reprocess with successful results.
Support 1: Reduction in waste storage (NS&E)
Support 2: % of Nuclear power by each country (Nuclear News)
Support 3: Discuss the required guarding of weapons grade plutonium (wherever I can find information on that, it might be hard)
Main point 2: Urex technology does not produce weapons grade plutonium.
Support 1: Process, facts, testing (Radwaste)
Support 2: Financial Analysis of the process (Internet)
Main point 3: Yucca Mountain is an expensive investment that is costing everyone lots of money. Increasing its capacity is in the best interest of taxpayers and the energy industry.
Support 1: History (Internet)
Support 2: Case study, Prairie Island. (XCEL Energy website)
Support 3: Current planned capacity and the limitations placed on it (Radwaste, Interview)
Support 4: DOE Lawsuits and financial implications of having to build another repository (All sources).
Conclusion: I will restate the problem and the solutions provided by technology. I will discuss the current law preventing reprocessing fuel and a call to action to change it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment