A page on energy issues and a nuclear homework page
One of the recurring claims in the nuclear power debate is that disposing of the spent fuel is an unsolved and insoluble problem.
They're both right and wrong. Politically the problem may well be insoluble. But technically, it's a solved problem.
It's both easy to do and already funded. But you can lead a horse to water...!!!
The technical solutions
The KBS-3 process
The KBS-3 process is the worst of the solutions. But it is available and well researched. Canada is developing its own process along the same lines. The funds already set aside from the operations of nuclear power plants in the USA easily cover it there, and should in other countries too (it depends a bit on their local politics).
Or at least, the funds will cover it provided the greenies are not allowed to waste them by endless political stonewalling. While they play these games, the interim storage in dry casks is perfectly acceptable both technically and environmentally. (But this is I suggest also political suicide, and an excellent example of the pathetic PR record of nuclear power.)
The KBS-3 process is based on study of the natural fission reactors at Oklo. The waste from these has not migrated into the biosphere for the last 1.7 billion years, and counting.
Recycling
Reprocessing is the best way to eventually deal with the PWR fuel accumulating in dry casks.
Nearly all of the long-lived radioactive waste in spent nuclear fuel is either fissile or fertile, so it is itself fuel. It's just plain stupid to bury it, especially if we're concerned about sustainability, and rather ironical that "environmental" groups oppose this form of recycling.
The IFR
There is no need to create significant long-lived nuclear waste in a nuclear power plant, none at all.
The technology to avoid this was developed for Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II (aka EBR2) and demonstrated in years of successful power station operation. Its crossover period is under seventy years, and after that the earth is permanently less radioactive as a result.
There's also even the prospect of converting spent fuel from other power reactors to metal and using it to fuel an IFR. That was not tried at EBR2 but there seems every reason to think it should work, and it's worth having a go.
Other newer and proposed designs also offer less long-lived waste by better fuel use. It's good to investigate them. But this one is ready to roll out today. We should be building EBR3.
The political problem
Democracy is based on the principle that a million men are more likely to be right than one man. Let's have that one again too... Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
The Party cares only for power - George Orwell, 1984
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest - Paul Simon, The Boxer
There are two enormous political problems.
One is widespread ignorance and fear of the unknown. As I've often reported, I was once laughed off the stage when I asked an anti-nuclear speaker to clarify whether Plutonium had a longer half-life than Uranium. His arguments depended on that being the case, and it made him quite hostile to be asked. He hesitated a bit, and I'm guessing that he was realising that he didn't really know. But eventually he angrily said of course it was true, and asked what I was "trying to pull". (See crossover period for why this matters.)
And most of those present believed him. And this was at a general meeting of students at a major university. It's scary.
And the other is, there is a significant anti-nuclear-power industry (should we perhaps call it ANP?) which has all the worst characteristics of a fundamentalist religion. See greenwashing and pollies and participants.
The American solution
In some countries, and notably the USA, these political games combine to make a formidable obstacle to nuclear power in general, and even to responsible disposal of the existing waste.
As in many countries, the disposal of this existing waste is fully funded (unlike the disposal of that leftover from bomb production during the Cold War). Overfunded, even. But so far, the only use of these funds has been in talkfests and cancelled projects (again unlike the military waste there, for which a repository project, the Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant,, is proceeding, relatively quietly... not all greenies presumably realise that ignoring the military waste won't make it go away, but the more thoughtful of them do).
But leaving it in the dry casks for now is not an altogether bad idea. One day it may even be valuable as fuel. And even if not, the funds to dispose of it should still be there whenever the American "environmentalists" get around to admitting that it's not going to go away, and that maybe using it as a political playing piece will one day be seen as the cynical and irresponsible thing that it is.
Maybe. There is also the possibility that these funds will be frittered away on these talkfests and cancelled programs, or misappropriated for a war, or lost in a financial crisis. That's why this delay is irresponsible, and perhaps even the main reason.
But the other problem is, it does give the impression that there is a real technical problem. And some exploit this fear most effectively. See the pathetic PR record of nuclear power.
My solution
It's not original. It is called the Surface Retrievable Storage Facility. It hasn't had much press lately, because it doesn't appeal to either side of the discussion. In a polarised debate, that often means you have it right, in my experience. It's not necessarily above-ground, but it is not deep burial either.
Basically it is a centralised long-term dry cask. It needs to be engineered to last unattended for the crossover period of the spent fuel at least, just in case. Which is achievable. Even Cheops achieved that.
But I'm confident that the spent fuel will be retrieved and reprocessed long before that. It's just not economic for the moment. I would even use the same facility for the fission products separated by reprocessing. Vitrify them of course, and then store them inside but perhaps nearest to the door, to deter access by the naive to the relatively fragile spent fuel beyond. I note that the French have legislated that their underground repositories for waste from reprocessing must be retrievable. Good call IMO.
The Netherlands on the other hand are storing waste from reprocessing of their spent power station fuel (which is performed in France) and some other nuclear waste above ground at COVRA. Another good call.
See also
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.