Transcript Reprocessing - Federation of American Scientists

Plutonium Reprocessing
and Recycling
Ivan Oelrich
Federation of American Scientists
Airlie House
9 January 2006
202-454-4682
Legislative Status
• FY 2006 Energy & Water Appropriations bill provides:
– $80M for reprocessing R&D ($10M more than
administration request.)
– $50M for design, site selection, and implementation of
first reprocessing facility (not requested by
Administration).
• Estimates for next year’s request range from $250M to
$400M.
FY 2006 E&W Bill Rushes
Reprocessing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
$5M to each of four sites just to prepare proposals.
DOE program plan by March 2006
Begins site competition in June 2006
Conceptual design in FY2006
Engineering scale demonstration in FY2007
Select technology in 2007
Begin construction in 2010
Three Nuclear Fuel Cycles
• Once through thermal reactors
(current approach)
• Recovery of plutonium for one additional
pass through thermal reactors
• Repeated reprocessing and recycling of
uranium, plutonium, and other
transuranics in fast-neutron reactors
Three Options for
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Why Reprocess and Recycle?
• Original reason (1940s-1970s):
– Believed demand for nuclear power would be far greater than it
turned out to be
– Believed world uranium reserves were far smaller than they
turned out to be
• Current reason:
– Reduce amount of nuclear waste
• “Given the uncertainties surrounding the Yucca Mountain
license application process…”
– Additional uranium energy secondary
Problems?
• The physics of the Argonne proposal is
correct. It all works well in theory.
• The problems are in the economics and
engineering.
Economics
• Reprocessing is expensive, won’t make
economic sense unless uranium is over ten
times more expensive than it is today (or waste
disposal is much more expensive or impossible).
– No current forecasts foresee these uranium prices for
decades into the future
• Recycling requires constructing a whole new
fleet of fast neutron reactors.
– “Burning only 1% of the log” is not a good analogy for
current thermal reactors. Even “free” energy costs
money to extract, whether hydro, or solar, or wind, or
U-238.
Engineering
• Argonne proposals are not mature technology
– Electro-pyro reprocessing is in the laboratory demonstration
phase, not commercialized.
– Current French reprocessing does not reduce waste burden
• Past experience is not promising
– Fast neutron reactors have been built, and abandoned in the
past.
– Costs of reprocessing are high and always higher than
estimated.
– Major environmental problems with existing reprocessing
facilities.
– What is new?
Reprocessing and Proliferation
• Argonne National Lab claims counterproliferation as a particular virtue
– Partly true if unproven technology pans out, not true
with proven technology
• Even if pyro-reprocessing works, nothing
prevents further extraction of pure plutonium
• For three decades US has argued against
reprocessing by other countries, we lose moral
authority.
What’s the Rush?
• Urgency appears to be due to fear of failure to open
Yucca Mountain
– But proposal will not solve that problem, won’t be
ready in time.
– Huge political resistance to Yucca, but there will be
resistance to new fast reactors, too.
• Level of technical development does not warrant site
selection and demonstration plants
What to do?
• If Yucca opens: use once through fuel cycle and store
spent fuel in Yucca
• If Yucca doesn’t open: continue what we do today,
decade long spent fuel storage in pools, followed by
above ground storage. Dry cask storage, if done right,
could hold waste for up to an additional century.
• Continue research if promising, but not development
and demonstration, on reprocessing and fast reactors.
• THERE IS NO RUSH TO REPROCESS!
Summary of
Reprocessing Concerns
•
•
•
•
•
•
Technology unproven
Won’t save money
Requires new reactors
Won’t be ready in time to avoid Yucca
Does not prevent proliferation
Decision can be deferred
Main References:
• For:
– “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste,” Hannum, Marsh, Stanford,
Scientific American
– “Toward a Sustainable Nuclear Future: Closing the Fuel Cycle,”
Finck, Argonne Briefing
• Against:
– “The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel,” Bunn, Holdren, Fetter, van der Zwaan,
Nuclear Technology
– “Is U.S. Reprocessing Worth the Risk?” Fetter, von Hippel, Arms
Control Today