Reply #11: You are wrong, Reagan revoked the ban on reprocessing way back in 1981, it's still "a goofy idea"

[bananas]

The reason we don't use reprocessing is because it's expensive and unnecessary.
Ford and Carter banned reprocessing to set an example for other countries.
Although wikipedia mentions "the key issue driving" the ban was proliferation, it does not mention the fact that there was no good reason to do it anyway because it was known to be completely unnecessary and extremely expensive.

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

In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On April 7, 1977 , President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead. <4> . After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.<5>

Bush wanted to begin reprocessing with his GNEP program, it was "a goofy idea" according to MIT, the National Academy of Sciences, the Federation of American Scientists, and just about everyone else. After the National Academy of Sciences report came out, Congress defunded it.

MIT's "most important recommendation" back in 2003:

Thus our most important recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/index.html

In 2007, the National Academy of Science came to a similar conclusion, as reported at the Federation of American Scientists blog:

http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/national_academy_of_science_re.php

National Academy of Science Report Calls for Putting the Brakes on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Program.

This afternoon, a committee of the National Research Council, a research arm of the National Academy of Science, issued a report that is extremely critical of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, an administration plan to restart separating plutonium from used commercial nuclear reactor fuel, something the United States has not done for three decades. I have argued that the goals of GNEP, while scientifically possible and perhaps someday economically justifiable, are decades premature. I am relieved to discover that the committee report comes to essentially the same conclusion.

<snip>

While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so.

John Deutsch, one of the main authors of the MIT report, called the GNEP reprocessing plan "a goofy idea":

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_power_and_fuel_cycle/gnep.html?formAction=297&contentId=525

<snip>

A telling point is that almost no independent analysts, that is, those not working for the Department of Energy, have anything good to say about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. In the Greenwire article cited above, Deutsch called GNEP a “goofy idea.” Even overall supporters of nuclear power, like Ernest Moniz of MIT (Moniz was, along with Deutsch, cochairman of the panel that wrote the very influential MIT study, The Future of Nuclear Power), oppose GNEP if for no other reason than it is premature. It may be a good idea at the end of the 21st Century, but not now. Even the nuclear power industry is at best tepid in its support, worrying that GNEP is a diversion from the immediate problem of a geological repository. Recent questions from members of Congress highlights another concern: even potential supporters of the idea of reprocessing are wary of entrusting the gargantuan technical task to the Department of Energy because DOE has shown repeatedly and consistently that it is incapable of managing such complex projects.

<snip>