Waste not, want notANS Nuclear CafeMarch 10, 2011, 7:00AM|Dale Klein, Ph.D.The time has come for the U.S. to recycle its spent nuclear fuelStubborn resistance to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, driven by some long-held myths, has caused the United States to fall behind other countries as the rest of the world moves toward a "closed fuel cycle" by recycling its nuclear fuel.More than 30 years of inactivity in this area has diminished our technological capability and intellectual capital to compete internationally. Not surprisingly, little funding has been available for radio-chemistry in our universities during that time, to a point where we now are all but irrelevant on the world stage.Areva's reprocessing center in La Hague, FranceFrance, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, and China all have invested substantially in programs to reprocess spent fuel. They have moved forward for two reasons: first, reprocessing recovers significant energy value from spent fuel that contributes to energy security. And, reprocessing substantially reduces the volume and radiotoxicity of high-level nuclear waste.The once-through nuclear fuel cycle, which is our practice here in the United States, is an enormous waste of potential energy.Part of the problem is one of perception: For decades, spent nuclear fuel has inaccurately been referred to as waste. But it is not waste. In fact, compared with other fuels used in the production of electricity, the energy density of uranium is remarkable-fully 95 percent of the energy value in a bundle of spent nuclear fuel rods remains available for re-use.The true waste is in our failure to capitalize on this valuable and abundant domestic source of clean energy. That's something we can ill afford to do, particularly in a carbon constrained environment.Spent fuel poolUtilities operating nuclear power plants continue to store spent nuclear fuel rods on site in pools of water, as they have for more 30 years, 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 the first myth-that we don't know how to safely store nuclear spent fuel.Critics of reprocessing also cite the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation as the biggest reason to oppose recycling. That, too, has acquired mythical status. The truth is that such concerns are largely unfounded.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. It just doesn't work for a strategic or a tactical nuclear weapon.If the United States is to get in the game and reverse decades of intransigence, it must establish an infrastructure for recycling nuclear fuel. The best way to do that, I believe, is by creating a public-private partnership that operates outside normal appropriations and has a charter to manage the fuel over a period of decades.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.Unless we act soon, within 10 years the United States will be the only major country in the world with nuclear power that lacks recycling capability. The time has come to get over our historic resistance to recycling nuclear fuel. After all, how can we tell other countries what they should or should not do with their nuclear waste when we refuse to take action ourselves?_________________________________KleinDale Klein, Ph.D., is associate vice chancellor for research at the University of Texas System and Associate Director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. He was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2006-2010 and served as its chairman from 2006-2009. About the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin:The Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin initiates compelling research on some of the most pressing issues facing America today-issues vital to our nation's energy security and economic vitality. Through a multi-disciplinary, collaborative approach with academia, government, and private industry, the Energy Institute seeks practical solutions to real-world challenges-good policy based on good science.For more on the Energy Institute, visit here. Tags:nuclear fuel cyclespent nuclear fuel reprocessingShare:LinkedInTwitterFacebook
DOE releases blueprint for advancing U.S. nuclearThe Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) last week released its Strategic Vision report, outlining its plan to support the current U.S. reactor fleet, demonstrate the latest innovations in nuclear energy technologies, and explore new market opportunities for nuclear energy.The 36-page document identifies five goals to address challenges in the nuclear energy sector, help realize the potential of advanced technology, and leverage the unique role of the federal government in sparking innovation. Each goal also includes supporting objectives to ensure progress.Go to Article
U.S., Russia finalize amendment to uranium import agreementThe U.S. Department of Commerce and Rosatom, Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, have signed a final amendment to the Agreement Suspending the Antidumping Investigation on Uranium from the Russian Federation. The amendment extends the 1992 pact through 2040 and reduces U.S. reliance on uranium from Russia during that time period, the DOC announced October 6.Previously, the agreement was set to expire on December 31 of this year. According to the DOC, the document’s expiration “would have resulted in unchecked imports of Russian uranium, potentially decimating the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States.”The final amendment is unchanged from the draft version, released for public comment on September 11. (For more specifics on the amendment, see our story on the draft here.)Go to Article
Advancing Nuclear: Paths to the Future"How do we move nuclear energy into the future?" was the question asked and answered in a variety of ways during a fascinating speakers' session that followed this morning's opening plenary. Several expert speakers in a variety of fields provided frank and illuminating commentary on the condition of nuclear now, and on the things that have to change for nuclear energy to be vibrant in the decades to come.Go to Article
In an Era of "Firsts," an "Almost" Powder Metallurgy Facility, Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation, Bayside, N.Y. From Will Davis' collection.The era of the "first nuclear build" in the United States (from the Manhattan Project of the Second World War at the earliest, through the final commercial plant orders in 1978) was by nature one of nearly continuous "firsts" in its opening decades, as nuclear energy moved from being a thought to a possibility to a reality and took on many forms and nuances.Go to Article
PGSFR: An Advanced Fuel Cycle and Power Solution for Koreaby Will Davis; information for this report obtained both from the 2016 ANS Annual Meeting session on Prototype Gen-IV Reactors and from representatives of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), its subsidiary Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor Development Agency (SFRA), KEPCO Engineering & Construction,+ and Argonne National Laboratory.Go to Article
Consolidated Storage of Commercial Used Fuel Used nuclear fuel storage; photo courtesy Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a division of the US Department of EnergyAn interesting session at the ANS 2016 Annual Meeting, sponsored by the Fuel Cycle & Waste Management Division, saw the presentation of a number of interesting papers relative to the ever-increasing problem of used nuclear fuel at the various commercial nuclear plant sites in the United States. Not only does the used fuel (which is a far better term than "spent fuel," these days, since it can conceivably be reused) continue to accumulate at the nuclear plants, but there is also a considerable amount of used fuel being stored at various sites where the nuclear plants have actually been shut down, decommissioned and completely removed for years. Considering this, and the need to inventory, characterize and eventually move this material, a growing amount of interest is being shown in this field.Go to Article
Surface storage of used nuclear fuel - safe, cost-effective, and flexibleIn August 2014, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. That action was the end result of several years worth of detailed analysis of the known and uncertain impacts of storing used nuclear fuel on the earth's surface in licensed and monitored facilities.Go to Article
Nuclear Video Matinee: Uranium Mining and MillingIt's hot out! Across much of the United States, the largest heat wave of the summer has been stagnating all week.Go to Article