CleanEnergy Footprints

Reprocessing is a terrible idea. It leave nasty products that have to be disposed of — and the plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. DO NOT ALLOW IT.

I like to think I am one of the nuclear proponents that has worked hard to teach my colleagues that recycling used nuclear fuel to recover the unused energy value is simply the right thing to do. I have been writing about this for more than 15 years. Here is one example article that I first posted on the web in 1995 – soon after it came into existence.

http://atomicinsights.com/1995/06/minimize-waste-focus-on-recycling.html

The fuel that we remove from our current generation of reactors still contains about 95% of its potential energy. The value of that energy is incredibly large – 20 times more than the already large amount of energy that we have been able to use during the first pass through the reactors.

Did you know that US nuclear power plants produce the energy equivalent of 4 million barrels of oil per day using just 2,000 tons of commercial nuclear fuel every year? Anyone who wants to conserve resources and reduce the material impact of human society on the earth’s environment should stop saying “no nukes” and start saying “know nukes.”

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast

“Reprocessing is a terrible idea. It leave nasty products that have to be disposed of — and the plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. DO NOT ALLOW IT.”

I want you to think about what you just said in the context of what reprocessing does:
You start with nasty stuff that needs disposed of in thousand-generational repositories; you finish with most of it becoming fuel (in the form of uranium and plutonium), a small amount of toxic but much less nasty stuff (depleted uranium; can be put back where the original uranium was found), and a very small amount of highly nasty stuff that needs disposed of in 300 year repositories (in the form of fission products).

It’s key in this article’s argument to use “volume” instead of “mass” – you can’t increase the mass of nuclear waste without running a reactor. This article is talking about the dilution of the nuclear waste streams as a result of reprocessing; primarily, the fission product stream is stored as a liquid with a much lower density than it would have if still contained in fuel rods. This is a /good/ thing, as it enables much easier heat removal during the 10 year period when the fission products are at their most active.

If you think reprocessing a terrible idea, you simply don’t understand what’s being asked.

First of all, I want to thank the moderator of this blog for not deleting comments that are opposed to her views, as is all-too-common on some anti-nuclear sites.

This (recycling) technology is one of the several solutions to the so-called nuclear waste problem – the best involves refissioning in a fast-neutron spectrum reactor, which can turn residual U-258 and all other fissionable or fissile isotopes into massive quantities of emission-free baseload electrical energy, leaving only the fission products, which will decay down to background levels of radioactivity in about 300 years.

Absent that, recycling as it is done today is an effective means of extending uranium supplies for many decades and obviating the need for more mining. Processing waste volumes are manageable and also recycled. And no usable weapons material is produced.

For those who would argue with the last statement, please explain why, with tens of thousands of tons of used power reactor fuel readily available, not one weapon has ever been produced from it?

For a somewhat technical, but highly readable tutorial on the subject:
http://depletedcranium.com/why-you-cant-build-a-bomb-from-spent-fuel

Also see:
http://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/reduce-reuse-recycle-good-for-aluminum-good-for-uranium.html

I would request that our commenters please spend time reading some of the scientific sources listed above. By every conclusion stated above, reprocessing does not have the benefits that are touted by the industry. It is a very important fact that it increases the volume of waste, which complicates the existing waste problem we have in this country. It does not reduce proliferation risks, but creates an entirely new risk in itself. If reprocessing does not reduce the volume of waste, does not reduce the really radioactive elements, increases “transuranic”/Greater than Class C waste and does not reduce proliferation risks: What are the benefits of ‘tinkering’ with highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel?

Again, I encourage you to read and respond directly to the scientific studies referenced in this blog.

We generally do not delete comments just for having a different perspective, however we do delete comments that are offensive. Personally, I believe that conversations must take place between “opposing” viewpoints to encourage intelligent debate and find common ground. Thanks–

I must apologize that, despite your request to speak to a specific reference above (I have read them), in the interest of brevity I will not write a paper responding to each one. Instead, I would like to pose a question:

What SHOULD we do with our spent fuel?

As a young nuclear engineer – AND a conservationist – I am, in fact, quite concerned with the answer to this question, but disinclined to believe that any simple answer exists. Though the NRC’s decision to cancel the Yucca Mountain Project is, on one hand, a problem for the industry**, on principle I agree that an ultra-long-term hole in the ground is NOT the answer for spent fuel. It is foolish to think we can safeguard something for longer than we have existed on this planet, not to mention wasteful and a disservice to future generations. While reprocessing – especially using the French (current) system – WILL increase the *volume* of waste, it has the benefit of significantly decreasing the term of it’s toxicity. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the RIGHT direction.

We could use fast reactors to use even more of this waste, thereby further reducing what is left to be ‘disposed’ of, but as several of your references point out, this technology is not commerically ready. There are many reasons for this, and not all of them are technical – in fact, politics and economics have done far more to stymie these development efforts than technical hang-ups. But with time and support, this technology CAN be made to work, and work well. And time is something we do have.

Mind you, the same political and economic roadblocks have long been present in the development of other alternatives to fossil fuels. Ideological concerns aside, we can, with relative ease, dive into the earth and get more oil, coal, and natgas – so what economic incentive has there been to spend a far GREATER sum on researching replacements? Historically, very little. The idea of an electric car, for example, is not at all new … Thomas Edison worked on a battery for such a vehicle. Yet, over a century later, we are only beginning to really work towards making them a reality – and they are still comparatively expensive. All “alternative” resources are; the difference that sets nuclear apart is that wind and solar by necessity rely on natural gas back-ups, and so have backing from the oil/gas industry. Food for thought.

**Also bordering on illegal. US nuclear operators have been paying our government a spent fuel tax since very early on, on the condition that the government would use this money to provide a geological repository. There are billions of dollars in that pot now … a perfect example of the aforementioned political roadblocks.