blatant Grok: That claim is *partially true* but *misleading and outdated*. Yes, *most countries do not recycle spent nuclear fuel today*—but *not* because it's "too dirty" or "impossible." It's primarily due to *policy, economics, and proliferation concerns*, not technical impossibility. In fact, *recycling is done safely and routinely in several countries*, and the "dirtiness" is manageable with existing tech.
Let’s break it down with facts: ------------------------------ 1. *Spent Fuel Recycling IS Done Today* Several countries *actively reprocess* (recycle) spent nuclear fuel: Country Facility Status *France* La Hague (Orano) Recycles ~1,100 tons/year. ~96% of spent fuel is recycled into MOX fuel. *Russia* Mayak & Zheleznogorsk Reprocesses VVER & BN-800 fuel. Developing closed fuel cycle. *Japan* Rokkasho (under commissioning) Planned to recycle 800 tons/year. Delayed but funded. *UK* Sellafield Historically reprocessed; now winding down but technically capable. *India* Tarapur, Kalpakkam Reprocesses PHWR & fast reactor fuel for thorium cycle. *France recycles 96% of its spent fuel* — the "dirty" plutonium and uranium are separated and reused. ------------------------------ 2. *"Too Dirty"?* — Not Really - *Radioactivity*: Yes, spent fuel is highly radioactive — but so is mining uranium ore. Reprocessing plants handle this with *remote operations, shielding, and vitrification* (turning waste into glass). - *Waste from reprocessing*: The *volume of high-level waste is drastically reduced* (by ~90%). What’s left is vitrified and stored safely. - *France’s La Hague* has operated for *50+ years* with an excellent safety record. No major accidents. Workers’ radiation exposure is *lower than airline pilots*. *Myth busted*: "Too dirty" is not a technical barrier — it's like saying surgery is "too bloody" so we shouldn't do it. ------------------------------ 3. *"Too Expensive"?* — Depends on Context Factor Cost Impact *Current U.S. policy* Bans commercial reprocessing (Carter-era, 1977). No infrastructure = high startup cost. *Once-through (U.S. model)* Cheaper *short-term* (~$1–2 billion less per plant lifetime). *Closed fuel cycle (France)* Higher *upfront* but *saves uranium* and reduces waste volume. *Future with fast reactors* Recycling becomes *cheaper than mining* new uranium (especially if U prices rise). *France’s electricity cost is ~30% lower than Germany’s* — partly because they recycle and have stable nuclear fuel supply. ------------------------------ 4. *Why the U.S. Doesn’t Recycle* - *1977 Carter Ban*: Feared plutonium could be diverted for weapons. - *Cheap uranium* (until recently) made mining cheaper than reprocessing. - *Yucca Mountain politics*: Focused on disposal, not recycling. - *But*: The ban was *lifted in 1981*, and *private reprocessing is legal* — just not economical yet. ------------------------------ 5. *The Future: Recycling is Coming Back* - *U.S. DOE* funds advanced recycling (e.g., *pyroprocessing* for fast reactors). - *Oklo, TerraPower, X-energy* plan to use recycled fuel or HALEU (from recycled material). - *Russia’s BN-800* already runs on recycled MOX fuel. - *China* is building a *large reprocessing plant* (500 tons/year by 2030). ------------------------------ Bottom Line Claim Reality "Nobody recycles spent fuel" *False* — France, Russia, Japan, India do it routinely. "Too dirty" *False* — Managed safely for decades with remote tech. "Too expensive" *Context-dependent* — cheaper long-term with rising uranium prices or fast reactors. On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 7:21 PM Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > That has to be the largest hand wave I've ever seen in this group. > Recycling spent fuel has so many issues that are being glossed over. > Recycling has completely gone away in the regular nuk world because it is > so bloody expensive compared to using the fuel that is available easier via > normal refining or reusing dead weapons. They say that they can repackage > spent ( dirty ) fuel without much reprocessing. This is _unproven_ except > in very small test cases. Spent fuel is a nightmare of contaminates.. > That's why all the spent fuel is just sitting in caskets on the reactor > sites. Nobody wants to tackle getting it any kind of usable form. > > On 10/27/25 4:43 PM, Chuck wrote: > > Recycle spent fuel. Not an issue. > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 27, 2025, at 10:44 AM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think the waste (spent fuel) disposal issue was bigger than people > remember. Big NIMBY problem. Remember Yucca Mountain? > > > > The other issue is commissioning time and cost. You can spin up a solar > farm in like 6 months, with almost no regulatory issues unless you need a > zoning variance. Just make a deal with the landowners. I’ll drive by a > field and see some pickup trucks and a crew putting in stakes, a month > later I drive by and there are solar panels, and a month after that it’s > hooked up to the grid. After the fact people will whine on Facebook they > are taking good farmland for solar, but actually that land grew corn to > make into ethanol for blending with gasoline. So you can grow corn to fuel > gasoline cars or grow electricity to fuel EVs. Different means, same > result. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2025 11:30 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: now we're blowing up boats in the > Pacific > > > > Don't forget Chernobyl. > > The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is a restricted area in Ukraine and > Belarus established after the 1986 nuclear disaster, with an initial radius > of about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) that was later expanded. Today, it > covers an area of approximately 1,600 square miles (4,143 square km) in > Ukraine, with a separate zone on the Belarusian side called the Polesie > State Radioecological Reserve. > > > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/27/2025 9:14 AM, Robert wrote: > > Nuclear, A handful of acres... Now who's smoking crack... Try at least > 2 miles square with buffer zones and towers and aux facilities... Diablo > Canyon, which is a more recent plant, doesn't need towers due to ocean > water cooling, and it's exclusion area is 2 miles on a side. Now if you > want to talk pie in the sky they are saying the new plants, which there are > none, are going to be 1/2 mile exclusion. But again, you want to > live/work within that space? > > Solar isn't any worse than Nuk and a whole lot less support facilities and > no shutting down the land use for the next 50-100 years. Some solar > facilities are being raised off the ground by 10 feet to make the areas > below usable, which is a benefit to the land owner. > > Around N. Nevada, the electrical companies are throwing up panels left and > right. Getting BLM land isn't that expensive and the power goes right next > door to the server farms. > > Redwood Industries, the massive lithium recycling company is taking the > battery packs that are 99% ok and fixing the couple bad cells and packaging > them into lower cost power banks in containers. > > My knock on Solar is that the weather is getting worse and the damage to > the facilities is, in a lot of cases, worked around instead of being > repaired. Easier to just throw up more area than repair large scale damage > for a year because old panels are a pita to fix... > > On 10/27/25 7:47 AM, Bill Prince wrote: > > AIs don't smoke. > > > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/26/2025 5:34 PM, Steve Jones wrote: > > How much meth was smoked before this post? > > > > You ever see the land lease and neigbor contacts on these? > > > > Nuclear, a handful of acres > > > > Same solar 4 to 6000 acres > > > > Same wind 100s of square miles > > > > 24x7 vs good times > > > > Once we bust the NRC and get gen3 reactors online, we will start giving > salmon their habitat back > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2025, 12:29 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: > > Petro-dollars are quickly becoming worthless. We've reached the point > where renewables (mainly solar) are the fastest, cheapest way to get power > to the grid. That will be the main driver going forward. Just in the first > half of this year China has put up over 200 GW of solar power. That is > roughly equivalent to 200 nuclear reactors. They did that in six months, > and it would have taken decades if it was nuclear. > > A barrel of oil is now around $60, and we are going into a glut, which > will drive the price of oil downward. If the price gets much below $50, > then all of a sudden all the shale-oil becomes a loser, and will get shut > down. > > It will be interesting how this plays out, but I'm not betting on oil. > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/25/2025 5:30 PM, Jan-GAMs wrote: > > It doesn't work that way. The petrol-dollar assholes will just get the > government to make it illegal and force us to use gas. > > On 10/24/25 19:46, Steve Jones wrote: > > George and Gracie did a skit > > "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham" > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 12:05 PM Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > IF we actually got functioning Fusion, the greatest benefit would be being > able to just forget about all these places... Take away the petrodollar > and they would blow away in the desert winds... > > On 10/24/25 9:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Yemen has a 10 year old civil war, partly a proxy war between Iran and the > Saudis. Yemen was formed by the merger of North Yemen and South Yemen, the > latter was a former British colony. > > > > The Houthis are technically a “movement” but they control the capital and > much of the territory and have their own government structure. The > internationally recognized and Saudi supported government moved to Adan in > the south after the Houthi revolution or coup. It looks to me like the > split might be roughly the former North Yemen under control of the Houthis > and the former South Yemen under control of the internationally recognized > government. I seem to remember that the Houthis were threatening to take > control of the whole country when the Saudis intervened. But the Saudis > were mainly just bombing stuff. > > > > The Houthis are Iranian puppets so you could compare them to Hezbollah, > but maybe more like revolutionaries, they control a good chunk of Yemen. > Not nice people. > > > > But Yemen is a mess. I think I read the British left because of > widespread terrorism and that was decades ago. If a giant sinkhole > swallowed the whole place, we would probably say good riddance. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *Bill Prince > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2025 10:08 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > Are the Houthis an actual country, or just another Al-Qaeda kind of group? > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > On 10/24/2025 7:53 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > So are the Houthis justified sinking vessels in the Red Sea from companies > and countries that support Israel’s war in Gaza? > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf > Of *Carl Peterson > *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2025 9:40 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > The Daily had a really good bit on this yesterday. Not particularly about > blowing up boats but about the competing interests in the Trump > administration re Venezuela. It's a great 30 min listen. > > > > Background: Maduro lost the last election in a landslide (30%/70%) but > refused to cede power. > > > > TLDL: > > Trump wanted to cut a deal and was working on it but Rubio won out and is > focused on regime change. > > > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/podcasts/the-daily/us-venezuela-maduro-boat-attacks.html > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:33 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Heh > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 9:13 PM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Might be safer to have a Maple Leaf flag. You could always run the stars > and bars, at least they would presume you would be armed and would fight. > > > > *From:* AF [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2025 7:41 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > So that American flag on the back is going to protect me from the various > other countries that decide to even up the score? > > > > > > On Oct 23, 2025, at 9:10 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Stop smuggling and you will be just fine…. > > > > *From:* AF [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh > *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2025 6:57 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > Someday I would really like to be able to sail around the Caribbean and > South America without having to worry about being randomly blown out of the > water for no reason at all. “Well, the US said it was OK to kill people > in international waters”. > > > > Mark > > > > On Oct 23, 2025, at 1:31 AM, Jason McKemie < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > It seems very telling that when they blew up a boat and people survived, > they sent them back to their home country vs prosecuting them. You can't > introduce that testimony into the public record. > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 11:44 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > Replying to myself, which is perhaps a sign I should be in therapy, but I > just realized one reason why the Coast Guard is underappreciated or at > least unknown compared to Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. They are part > of DHS not DOD. > > > > But now that DOD is calling itself the Department of War, maybe DHS is > just fine. Although one is Hegseth and the other is Noem, so flip a coin. > > > > Coast Guard is also much smaller, has a smaller budget, and a much smaller > PR budget. No money to toot their own horn. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 10:50 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > Yeah, but if it’s on the ocean, I’d prefer to see a Hawaii Five 0 style > chase. With McGarrett in a speedboat, and at the end he says “book ‘em, > Danno”. > > > > Besides, I think the Coasties are an underappreciated branch of the US > military. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 8:31 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > I prefer to see cartels bombed. When they started moving the fent, they > chose bombs. A little nose candy here and there, some dope, a little > crystal, even some heroin was manageable. But these ducks decided to move > shit that one mistake kills. Fuckbag dealers are putting it it club drugs > and on vicodins. Kids don't have a chance to make a mistake. > > > > Bomb the shit out of them. Sink their boats, cut their life jackets, chum > the waters, I don't care as long as they die. They don't want to give our > kids a second chance, their adults deserve as terrible a death as possible. > Idgaf about human rights, they don't, and I have no interest in the high > road. > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 6:45 PM Dev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Turns out drug dealers sometimes get shot, who knew? Maybe they were > delivering critical supplies to orphanages, because speedboats with three > engines mean urgent care is being delivered expeditiously? > > > > On Oct 22, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Article on the latest generation of US Coast Guard “Over The Horizon” > boats. > > > https://www.workboat.com/shipbuilding/test-driving-the-coast-guard-s-new-over-the-horizon-cutter-boat > > > > Generally deployed from a ramp on the back of a larger cutter along with > helicopters. These things vaguely remind me of the WWII PT boats. > > > > I would not want to try and outrun the Coast Guard. > > > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:24 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > Yes, and that's the primary argument against this practice. If we have > solid intel that they're carrying drugs, and we know where they are, then > as soon as they enter our territorial waters we can board the boat and > arrest them. The Coast Guard doesn't need a warrant or even a specific > reason to board a boat. Some of those boats are faster than Cutters, but I > don't have solid info on how often they actually escape when they're > already being tracked. It's hard to imagine they really get away often > because the Coast Guard also has helicopters, and they're allowed to > continue a pursuit into international waters (and onto land) as long as the > pursuit started in US waters. > > > > Regardless of how often they really get away, it's not normal to blow up > someone's boat as a law enforcement action. We also don't execute drug > traffickers, and even when the state executes someone there's a trial > first. > > > > but..... > > 1. post-911 we treat foreign terrorist organizations as enemy > combatants > > > 1. the executive branch gets to decide who counts as an FTO. The sec > of state, sec of treasury, and attorney general all have to agree, but they > also all have the same boss. > > > 1. Nobody can really stop the executive branch from declaring an FTO. > > > 1. Congress could pass a bill to override someone's listing as an FTO, > but to date they've never done it. > > > 1. The courts could overturn an FTO listing, but for a lot of reasons > it's almost impossible. > > > > > > So effectively the President and/or their cabinet has a completely legal > pathway to authorize military force against just about anyone, and there's > very little anyone can do about it. It's not that I have sympathy for drug > smugglers, it's that all we can do is take someone's word for it that it > was a drug smuggler. If anyone is totally comfortable with that then I'm > curious what your rationale is. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 3:00 PM > *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific > > > > *https://x.com/SecWar/status/1981049943306752361 > <https://x.com/SecWar/status/1981049943306752361>* > > > > I thought the Coast Guard was able to intercept boats and board them, > arrest people and confiscate cargo. I seem to remember they specifically > acquired high speed boats that were a match for anything a drug runner > might have. > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > -- > > Carl Peterson > > *PORT NETWORKS* > > 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E+Pratt+St,+Ste+2553+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Baltimore,+MD+21202?entry=gmail&source=g> > > Baltimore, MD 21202 > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E+Pratt+St,+Ste+2553+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Baltimore,+MD+21202?entry=gmail&source=g> > > (410) 637-3707 > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > > > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > > > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
