sustainability of u.s. nuclear energy: waste management and the question of reprocessing nathan r....
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainability Of U.S. Nuclear Energy:Waste Management And
The Question Of Reprocessing
Nathan R. LeeAmerican Nuclear Society
2010 WISE InternshipAugust 4, 2010
Outline of Presentation
the
I. Motivation
II. Background
III. Analysis: Reexamining Reprocessing
IV. Policy Recommendation
Why Nuclear?
the
U.S. Nuclear’s Problem:Waste Management
Contained Pools
No Long-termSolution Implemented
Dry Casks
Waste Management Options
Direct DisposalSpent Fuel Geological Repository
Reprocessing/Recycling
vs.
What Is the “Waste”?
Enriched Uranium
Source: Department of Energy Nuclear Energy Roadmap, 2010
Reprocessing Benefits and Drawbacks
Advantages:– Reduction in high level waste– More efficient use of fuel supply
Disadvantages:– Proliferation risk from separation of plutonium– Not economical with current uranium prices
U.S. Waste Management Policy
– President Carter banned federal funding for reprocessing on proliferation grounds (1977)
– Nuclear Waste Policy Act endorsed policy of direct disposal, mandating geological repository (1982)
– Failure to site Yucca Mountain repository raises doubts about viability of direct disposal policy
– Obama Administration has called forth the Blue Ribbon Commission to reexamine waste management policy
Yucca Mountain Application Under Review
Yucca Mountain Repository
Worldwide Reprocessing
Advantages:
– Reduction in high level waste
– More efficient use of fuel supply
Disadvantages:
– Proliferation risk from separation of plutonium
– Not economical with current uranium prices
Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008
Aqueous
Reprocessing Technologies
Pyro
– originally developed in Manhattan Project to extract plutonium
– current method separates waste streams using organic solvent
– Plutonium Uranium Recovery Extraction (PUREX) is dominant
– reprocessing technique employed worldwide
– utilizes electrorefining in high-temperature salt bath
– developed for fast reactor metal fuel, but potentially adaptable for conventional oxide fuel
– demonstrated on engineering scale; not commercial level yet
Reexamining Reprocessing:Analysis Overview
Selected Fuel Cycles for Analysis:– Direct Disposal– One-pass Plutonium Recycle– Full Actinide Recycle
Issues for Analysis:– Waste Burden– Economics– Proliferation Concerns
Reexamining Reprocessing:Use in One-Pass Plutonium Recycling
– Utilizes aqueous reprocessing– U and Pu separated => recovered Pu inserted into new fuel– One-pass recycle => not fully “closed” fuel cycle
Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003
Reexamining Reprocessing:Use in Full Actinide Recycling
– Utilizes pyroprocessing
– All actinides separated, fabricated into new fuel
– Iterative recycling => fully “closed” cycle
– Innovation still required
Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003
Reexamining Reprocessing:Waste Burden
Full actinide recyclingdramatically reduces radiotoxicity
Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008
Reexamining Reprocessing:Economics and Fuel Supply
Price of uranium is not a present concern.
Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007
Reexamining Reprocessing:Economics and “Breakeven” Price Analysis
“Breakeven” uranium price for reprocessing satisfies the following:
Plutonium Recycle Breakeven Price: $360 per kilogram of uranium (kgU)
Full Actinide Recycle Breakeven Price: $340 kgU
Current Uranium Price: $45 kgU
Conclusion: Reprocessing is not currently economical.
Cost of interim storage & disposal of spent fuel
Cost of reprocessing and disposal of HLW
Value of recovered fissile material= –
Reexamining Reprocessing:Proliferation Concerns
– Unprocessed spent fuel is “self-protecting”
– No separated waste stream qualifies
Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007
Conclusion: Proliferation risks do not support reprocessing.
Dos
e ra
te re
lativ
e to
IAEA
sel
f-pro
tecti
on st
anda
rd
Reexamining Reprocessing:Weighing the Issues
Waste Burden: – Immense time period of concern elevates issue to highest importance– Achieving “intergenerational equity” is essential
Economics:– Fuel cycle/waste management accounts for only 10-20% of total
generation costs
Proliferation:– U.S. has proven history of protecting its nuclear liabilities– Established international reprocessing market eliminates “deterrent”
value of foregoing reprocessing
Waste Burden:Reduction of waste burden strongly supports reprocessing.
Full actinide recycle is best option.
Economics:Reprocessing is not currently economical.
Costs not insurmountable.
Proliferation:Reprocessing adds proliferations risks.
These risks can be mitigated.
Reexamining Reprocessing:Summary of Analysis
–
–
Policy Recommendation
– Maintain the current once-through cycle for the time being. Proceed with siting a geological repository for direct disposal.
– The DOE should establish an integrated research, development, & demonstration program for reprocessing and advanced reactor technologies to prepare transition toward a full actinide recycle.
– The program should emphasize improving the pyroprocessing technique from a batch process to a high-throughput, commercial- scale process.
– In parallel to this program, the DOE should continue its research initiatives in real-time monitoring to improve proliferation protection.
AcknowledgementsDr. Alan Levin American Nuclear Society (ANS)Chris Henderson, Tim Kobetz Nuclear Regulatory CommissionSarah Leversee ANS Fellow, Senator CorkerRichie Hayes, Steve Kraft, Rod McCullum Nuclear Energy InstituteJohn Buydos Library of CongressDr. James Bresee Department of EnergyErica Wissolik Inst. of Electrical/onics Engineers My Fellow Interns WISE