Sunday, February 20, 2011

Spent nuclear fuel is actually full of energy

Former NRC official says the time has come revive long-dormant reprocessing program

NRC INTERVIEWFailure to pursue a program for recycling spent nuclear fuel has put the U.S. far behind other countries. It represents a missed opportunity to enhance the nation's energy security and influence other countries.

These themes are the heart of a talk by Dale Klein, Ph.D., (left) the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) given Sunday, Feb 20 at a session of the AAAS annual meeting being held in Washington, DC.

Dale Klein, who is now Associate Vice Chancellor for Research at the University of Texas System, said largely unfounded concerns and "long-held myths" about the reprocessing of spent fuel have prevented the U.S. from tapping into an extremely valuable resource.

Spent nuclear fuel, which includes some plutonium, often is inaccurately referred to as waste, Klein said.

"It is not waste," he said. "The waste is in our failure to tap into this valuable and abundant domestic source of clean energy in a systematic way. That's something we can ill-afford to do."

Energy density matters

DensityComparisonCompared to other fuels used in the production of electricity, the energy density of uranium is remarkable,

Klein said, noting that 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of spent nuclear fuel rods remains available to be re-used.

"The once-through nuclear fuel cycle, which is our practice in the U.S., is an enormous waste of potential energy," he said.

Critics cite the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation as the biggest reason to oppose recycling. But such concerns are largely unfounded, Klein said.

"While it is true that the plutonium in recycled nuclear fuel is fissionable, no country in the world has ever made a nuclear weapon out of low-grade plutonium from recycled high burn-up nuclear fuel," he said. "It just doesn't work for a strategic or a tactical nuclear weapon."

U.S. is on the sidelines

While the U.S. has sat on the sidelines, other countries, including France, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, and China have dedicated significant resources toward their reprocessing programs, Klein added.

"U.S. leadership in this area has been lost, and the underlying technological capability and intellectual capital needed to compete internationally have diminished to near irrelevance."

Reprocessing not only recovers significant energy value from spent fuel, it substantially reduces the volume and radiotoxicity of high-level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel is safely stored in dry casks

Today, U.S. utilities operating nuclear power plants continue to store spent nuclear fuel rods on site in pools of water, before eventually moving them to dry cask storage. And while there is some debate over whether the casks should be located in one central storage site, the practice is widely accepted as safe and secure.

"That's another myth – that we don't know how to safely store nuclear spent fuel," Klein said.

Public-private partnership need for reprocessing

partnersEstablishing a program to recycle nuclear fuel will require a public-private partnership that operates outside normal Congressional appropriations and has a mandate to manage the fuel over a period of decades, he asserted.

The government's Blue Ribbon Commission, chartered by the Department of Energy, is charged with making recommendations for the safe, long-term management of spent fuel. The 15-member commission is to issue a draft report this summer, with a final report to be completed in January 2012.

"At a time when we are seeking ways to limit carbon emissions from the generation of electricity, the recycling of spent nuclear fuel would appear to be a particularly good fit."

The full text of Klein’s talk is available from AAAS as part of the conference proceedings.

# # #


Robert Steinhaus said...

Each year America's current 104 LWR reactors produce 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. The energy value left in 2000 tons of spent fuel rods after they are considered expended and are removed from operation in America's LWRs is approximately

7.0 x 10^12 KW(thermal)-hours of additional energy [1]

if all fissile and fertile uranium in the spent fuel is completely burned in an appropriately designed alternate technology molten salt reactor. The value of the electricity that would result from fully burning all of the 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is

$US 274 billion dollars a year

presuming a 40% efficient conversion of thermal energy into electrical energy and a 2009 average cost of electricity of 9.79 cents per KW-hour.
All that is needed to convert “waste” into resource is an investment in fast neutron spectrum reactor technology needed to completely burn SNF and close the nuclear fuel cycle. I believe that the most effective and safe technology for doing this in the Liquid Chloride Fast Reactor[2] (but there are also many fans of the Integral Fast Reactor which could do the job at a higher ultimate cost).

[1] "Spent Fuel is too valuable to be Nuclear Waste", Dr. John K. Sutherland EnergyPulse Insight, Analysis, and Commentary on the Global Power Industry (2003)

Atomikrabbit said...

“The value of the electricity that would result from fully burning all of the 2000 tons of spent nuclear fuel is $US 274 billion dollars a year”

Will somebody more numerate than I please calculate how much this will cost the fossil fuel industry annually and how much they would be willing to spend to stop it?

As everyone reading this blog knows, the problem is not technical, but political.

Caroline said...

@Robert - Could you please translate the amount of electricity still available in the fuel rods into a visualizable number like number of households for a year? That would be helpful for me and others I think who are not that literate about electricity. I know households vary in size so maybe just do it per person?

One other comment. The sooner that the USA starts reprocessing the sooner the general public will wake up to realities that currently they are ignorant of. The number of times I have conversations with people who instantly critique nuclear energy saying " What about the waste?" is disheartening. When this matter is finally addressed by actually shipping fuel rods to a place for reprocessing and the news media report it, the sooner the public are going to accept and welcome nuclear energy.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps somebody can explain to me how reprocessing of used fuel here in the U.S. in any way furthers proliferation? I have been confused about it since, I think it was Carter, announced the new policy.

What is the concern here? That Mario working the night shift at the loading dock may pass a few barrels of plutonium nitrate solution to his buddy Muhamad, who is is pulled up with this pickup truck? That's just preposterous.

That the operator of the plant may cut a deal with some foreign power selling them half the production? That too is plain absurd. None of that could ever happen given the amount of scrutiny such a plant would unquestionably be under.

So where is that proliferation risk? Don't get me wrong, I am against proliferation as much as the next guy. I just don't understand the source of even the theoretical risk.