Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, including an informative history of reprocessing in the United States. The article, entitled, "We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, and Can Do It Safely, at Reasonable Cost," by Clinton Bastin, offered some historical perspective on an important nagging question -- what to do with spent nuclear fuel.Nuclear power plants use less than 1% of the energy potential contained in the uranium, and one of the biggest challenges for advancing nuclear power plant development in the US is what to do with the waste. Currently, plants are built with attached storage facilities for the spent nuclear fuel, usually enough room for storage of all of the waste products from production during the 40-60 year life-cycle of the plant. The question that remains unanswered is "where" does it go after that?
The US, so far, sees long-term underground storage as the most viable solution to the problem. One nagging problem, however, is that nuclear waste can be used in weapons production, so the transportation and storage of spent nuclear fuels has associated risks of theft and nuclear proliferation. In France, nuclear fuels are routinely reprocessed today, although not without safety, security issues, and high costs. Any handling of nuclear fuels, where 20 seconds of exposure can cause death, has associated safety risks, and there have been a number of safety incidents in the history of reprocessing. But, the biggest impediment to the implementation of reprocessing in the US is cost. Simply put, it is less expensive to mine and process new uranium than it is to reprocess, at least according to existing models. Also, while reprocessing returns about 96% of uranium back to fuel, the other 3-4% includes near-weapons-grade Plutonium (a proliferation issue) and other isotopes that would require additional reprocessing to safely extract for commercial use. Therefore, in most people's minds, reprocessing is dangerous, cost prohibative, and doesn't completely negate the need for some kind of storage.
The new Bastin article, one of many written by this former manager of the DOE Savanah River plutunium reproccessing plant, is frank about the difficult history of reprocessing, but hopeful about new technology development and opportunities in reprocessing, including an early DuPont proposed plant design that might cost less than a quarter of existing technologies. Bastin wrote, "The costs for reprocessing in the DuPontdesigned LWR Fuel Recycle Complex would have been about $250 per kilogram of uranium. This compares to about $1,000 per kilogram charged by the British and French for reprocessing, and $5,000 to $15,000 per kilogram for reprocessing in the French-built facility at Rokkasho Mura in Japan."
The question about what to do with Spent Fuel was put on hold in 1974 when the US decided to implement a moratorium on new nuclear power plants. At the time, both nuclear operations safety and nuclear waste concerns drove the government to their decision. However, in the intervening 30+ years, plant design and operational safety have advanced leaps and bounds as countries around the world have continued to implement new plants. The, spent fuel issue, remains unresolved, and for most politicians today, remains the biggest issue to resolve before returning to the vision of nuclear power as a primary electricity producer in the US.
To read the complete article, click here.
