Transcript Slide 1

Sustainability Of U.S. Nuclear Energy:
Waste Management And
The Question Of Reprocessing
Nathan R. Lee
American Nuclear Society
2010 WISE Internship
August 4, 2010
Outline of Presentation
I. Motivation
II. Background
III. Analysis: Reexamining Reprocessing
IV. Policy Recommendation
the
Why Nuclear?
the
U.S. Nuclear’s Problem:
Waste Management
Contained Pools
Dry Casks
No Long-term
Solution Implemented
Waste Management Options
Reprocessing/Recycling
vs.
Direct Disposal
Spent Fuel
Geological Repository
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)
Yucca Mountain Repository
– 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
Worldwide Reprocessing
Advantag
es:
–
–
Reduct
ion in
high
level
waste
More
efficie
nt use
of fuel
supply
Disadvan
tages
:
–
Prolife
ration
risk
from
separa
tion of
plutoni
um
–
Not
econo
Source: Idaho
micalNational Lab, 2008
with
curren
t
uraniu
m
prices
Reprocessing Technologies
Aqueous
– 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
Pyro
– 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
Source: MIT Interdisciplinary Study, 2003
– Utilizes aqueous reprocessing
– U and Pu separated => recovered Pu inserted into new fuel
– One-pass recycle => not fully “closed” fuel cycle
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
Source: Idaho National Lab, 2008
Full actinide recycling
dramatically reduces radiotoxicity
Reexamining Reprocessing:
Economics and Fuel Supply
Source: International Panel on Fissile Materials, 2007
Price of uranium is not a present concern.
Reexamining Reprocessing:
Economics and “Breakeven” Price Analysis
“Breakeven” uranium price for reprocessing satisfies the following:
Cost of interim storage
& disposal of spent fuel
=
Cost of reprocessing
and disposal of HLW
Plutonium Recycle Breakeven Price:
–
$360 per kilogram of uranium (kgU)
Full Actinide Recycle Breakeven Price: $340 kgU
Current Uranium Price:
Value of recovered
fissile material
$45 kgU
Conclusion: Reprocessing is not currently economical.
Dose rate relative to IAEA self-protection standard
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.
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
Reexamining Reprocessing:
Summary of Analysis
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.
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, commercialscale process.
– In parallel to this program, the DOE should continue its research
initiatives in real-time monitoring to improve proliferation protection.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Alan Levin
Chris Henderson, Tim Kobetz
Sarah Leversee
Richie Hayes, Steve Kraft, Rod McCullum
John Buydos
Dr. James Bresee
Erica Wissolik
My Fellow Interns
American Nuclear Society (ANS)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ANS Fellow, Senator Corker
Nuclear Energy Institute
Library of Congress
Department of Energy
Inst. of Electrical/onics Engineers
WISE
Questions?
[email protected]