By
Mike Noon
April 10, 2008
“Nuclear” has a negative connotation for most people in the United States. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest, which is home to the famous site in Hanford, Wash. The decision to locate a nuclear plant and test location right next to a large river, which may have seemed like a great idea in the 1940s, has brought untold trouble to Columbia River residents.
Even so, nuclear power is always included in discussions about the United States’ energy policy. Proponents envision atomic energy replacing fossil fuels, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and providing a stable power source for future generations. Opponents point to the increased risk of nuclear proliferation, the chances of a serious nuclear accident and the hazardous waste that is produced.
The controversy arises from our focus on nuclear power as an energy source. Why spend so much money and effort on improving atomic energy when there are already more viable alternatives in solar, wind and biofuels? Both sides may be able to agree if we focus on nuclear waste reduction rather than on power generation.
The United States has more than 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. For perspective, that amount would fill an area the size of a football field 10 feet high. This waste is currently being stored at the dozens of nuclear plants across the United States. This type of storage was intended to be short-term, and the waste would eventually be transported to a stable repository operated by the government. That repository is the controversial Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that has repeatedly delayed opening due to technological hurdles and local opposition.
Even if the repository does open, it will be near full capacity. The site is designed to only hold about 70,000 metric tons of waste, meaning that the current 50,000 metric tons accounts for most of the storage space. Within a decade, Yucca Mountain could be full.
The large volume of waste produced can be traced to existing U.S. policy. Nuclear reactors use about 5 percent of their energy in the enriched uranium fuel before being replaced. This spent fuel is then discarded as “waste,” though it still contains a considerable amount of useable fuel. The reason for this is that traditional reprocessing methods produce weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, posing a serious proliferation risk. Newer methods are better able to extract the uranium without producing enriched plutonium.
Expanding the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel can vastly reduce the amount of waste, but will not reduce the radioactivity of the waste. Current nuclear reactors produce significant quantities of transuranic elements — those heavier than uranium — that can stay radioactive for thousands of years. However, there are ways to reduce this hazard.
The fast neutron reactor is one of the more unique designs because it can create more nuclear fuel than it consumes. One of the side effects is that it can reduce the transuranic elements to less radioactive forms that stay hazardous for hundreds, rather than thousands, of years.
A combination of spent fuel reprocessing and fast neutron reactors can considerably reduce the problems of nuclear waste in the United States. But there is little guarantee that companies will adopt these technologies due to the expense. The solution may be to ban or significantly increase the price of uranium mining.
Nearly 50 percent of U.S. uranium fuel comes from decommissioned Russian nuclear weapons. The reprocessing of existing spent fuel is estimated to provide almost 30 additional years of fuel. A ban or significant price increase in new uranium fuel would still allow for several decades of operation for existing plants while encouraging the implementation and development of waste reducing technologies.
Nuclear power is not the energy panacea that many have claimed. However, through effective application of technology and policy, it can be used to reduce hazards associated with nuclear waste. Although this is not a perfect solution, it may be an area where both advocates and opponents of nuclear energy can find some agreement.
[Reach columnist Mike Noon at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]
9 Comments
#1 Susanne E. Vandenbosch
on April 10, 2008 at 10:36 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
This is an excellent description of the present status of commercial nuclear reactor waste disposal.
The only caveat I have is that in additon to the cost of the recycling and fast reactor combination is concern abot the safety of this combination. Fast reactors are sodium cooled and sodium bursts into fire when it comes into contact with water. Also this combined process requires dozens of cycles and this increases the risk of exposing workers to radiation. I have experience both with the sodium phenomena and reprocessing of nuclear reactor waste and am fortunate to have survived both. Nevertheless, research and development on this promising combination should be continued.
Susanne E. Vandenbosch,co-author of Nuclear Waste Stalemate: Political and Scientific Controversies (2007)
#2 Gen-IV
on April 10, 2008 at 4:52 p.m.(Eugene, OR | Unverified Name)
Solar, Wind & Biofuels are not viable. Even if we used all our farmland biofuels wouldn't be nearly enough, and would make food extremely expensive. Ethanol or other biofuels require freshwater, natural gas for fertilizer, and diesel for tractors. The numbers for biofuels just don't add up.
Wind & Solar don't fare much better. Wind & Sun are not only diffuse, but intermittent. It takes alot of energy to make wind turbines & solar panels, then they wear out and have to be replaced. Since wind & sun are weak energy sources, they will always have a low EROEI. What kills wind & solar as that to store the energy for when it isn't windy or sunny is extremely expensive and inefficient. Even in the desert, there are only about 2,000 effective hours of sun per year (21% capacity), and even in the windiest coastal areas the wind only blows about 1/3 of the time. So to actually provide reliable, base-load power from wind & solar, those low EROEI energy sources could become and ENERY SINK due to storage & sransport inefficiencies. We may never develop a "super battery" to efficiently store power from wind & solar. As such, nuclear fission is the ONLY scalable sloution.
#3 Rod Adams
on April 10, 2008 at 6:15 p.m.(Tampa, FL | Unverified Name)
Ms. Vandenbosch's comment exposes a limited understanding of the various options available for used fuel recycle. Fast reactors using sodium are only one of several proven options.
There are, for example, fast gas cooled reactors, intermediate energy gas cooled reactors, heavy water reactors like the CANDU design, and liquid fueled reactors using either salts or fluorides. There was a successful breeder reactor experiment in the Shippingport reactor - that one used light water as a coolant and thorium as the fertile material.
Fuel recycle is an important concept and one that needs further development. That development should be encouraged but not necessarily funded and controlled by the federal government.
I fully agree with Gen-IV's comment that wind, solar and biomass are simply not sufficient. Humans figured that out nearly two centuries ago when our global population was much smaller and less dependent on commercial energy. Now, our only effective choices for reliable energy are fossil fuel combustion and heavy metal (uranium, plutonium, and thorium) fission.
In the period from 1970-1990, the world built enough nuclear power plants to provide the energy equivalent of 12 million barrels of oil per day. Just think what we can do using modern technology if there is widespread encouragement and support instead of a protective reaction to keep our status quo energy sources.
My experience and education has led me to the conclusion that fission is a superior choice for many applications and should be used whenever possible. Others might have different opinions, but I challenge them to show with numbers and technical paths just how they plan to provide the energy that people desire based on energy sources that have taken several millennia of technical development (wind, solar and biomass have all be around that long) to reach a state where they supply a total of about 5% of our energy needs.
#4 ME 2002
on April 11, 2008 at 3:50 a.m.(Stuttgart, Germany | Unverified Name)
Actually, wind power is viable. Denmark gets up to 30% of its electricity from wind power. The UE is committed to 20% or more in the next decade or so.
Local wind is intermittent, but on a larger scale, it is always windy somewhere, offshore is a likely area of wind power development.
The energy cost of a wind turbine (the amount of energy used in production) is returned in the first months of service. They are built to last 20 years and will last longer.
When the cost of power takes into account externalities (pollution, shipping costs) wind comes out a clear winner.
#5 Susanne
on April 11, 2008 at 7:23 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
I want to thank Rod Adams for calling my attention to other types of fast reactors.
#6 Jim
on April 11, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
RE: #4 ME 2002. You have a point. However, where does Denmark get the remaining 70% and where will the EU get the remaining 80%?
Additionally, we need to replace as many oil and gas based energy sources as possible which if transferred to the electrical grid put an even greater demand on electrical power generation.
I am also concerned about the nasty process of producing silicon based solar panels and what we will do with the millions of tons of them when their life cycle has been completed.
If somone comes up with a good far off shore design for a wind turbine then I agree this is a good way to go, but I favor advanced nuclear fuel cycles over placing many thousands of wind turbines on our hill sides, deserts and shore lines.
Posted by Jim
#7 gen-iv
on April 11, 2008 at 8:59 p.m.(Eugene, OR | Unverified Name)
Much has been written about Denmark's success as the world's wind power pioneer. But the regularly repeated claim – that Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind sources – is highly misleading. That 20 percent of electricity is not supplied continuously from wind power. Denmark’s wind supply is so variable that it relies heavily on neighbors Norway and Sweden, taking their excess production. In 2003 its export figure for wind power electricity production was as high as 84 percent, as Denmark found it could not absorb its own highly variable wind output capacity into its domestic system. The scale of Denmark’s subsidies was such that in 2006-07 the government increasingly came under scrutiny from the Danish media, which claimed the subsidies were out of control. Denmark has already maxed-out its windiest coastal areas, and future wind farms are expected to perform even more poorly. If, in theory, a city were getting everything from wind, the power wouldn't be available most of the time, period. In germany, E.ON Netz uses "shadow stations" of coal to back up wind capacity when it isn't windy-- perhaps nuclear baseload would be a better choice?
Also, wind turbines have not been lasting the expected 20 years, and many have malfunctioned or snapped far earlier.
As for fast reactors, lead or helium can be used rather than sodium. But even sodium is safe as long as it is doesn't come into contact with water vapor. The BN-600 sodium fast reactor, in Beloyark, Russia, has been successfully operated since 1980. There are about 300 years of successful operating experience with industrial sodium, and in some ways it is safer than LWRs, which use pressurized water. The sodium doesn't have to operate under pressure.
#8 Susanne
on April 28, 2008 at 10:10 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
For Rod Adams: I have not been able to locate any gas-cooled fast reactors. Can you give me a reference? The only fast reactors I know of are sodium-cooled. These include Phoenix 1 and 2 in france which are scheduled to be shut down. asocium cooled reactor in Japan which experienced a fire in 1984, one at Hanford which has had its liquid sodium coolant removed, one at Idaho Falls and St. Vrain in Colorado which is no longer operating.
#9 susanne
on May 23, 2008 at 12:09 p.m.(None, None | Unverified Name)
There is another fast reactor in the Ural Mountains of Russia. This reactor, the Beloyarsk nuclear power plant is cooled by liquid sodium. On May 6, 2004 there was a fire at this plant caused by leaking liquid sodium. A similar fire accurred at the plant in October 1993. It seems to me that there are three strikes (that I know of) against sodium-cooled fast reactors.
I still have not been able to find a gas-cooled fast reactor and suspect that it is still on the drawing boards. Does anyone know about an operating gas cooled fast reactor?
Post a comment