Today I’m thinking about reprocessing. Ever since Yucca Mountain got canned, there have been whispers of possible U.S. government support for a closed fuel cycle. Disregarding for the moment proliferation, energy needs and cost concerns, what effect would reprocessing have on nuclear waste?
A recent Wall Street Journal blog post states “The appeal of nuclear fuel reprocessing is that it can reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced by nuclear power plants”. Is that statement true? There are a whole host of websites from organizations I am unfamiliar with that say no. These include The Public Citizen [and are France and England really still dumping their nasties into the sea?], The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The World Nuclear Organization, which appears to represent the nuclear industry, says
“Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX [mixed-oxide fuel; PuO2+UO2] assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.” Where are any of these people getting their information? I assume that the effect on waste volume and radioactivity would also depend on the reprocessing method (PUREX is standard, but there are others), and I would like to see an analysis and comparison for the various reprocessing methods.
One possible perk of reprocessing is that separating out individual elements and isotopes would allow us to create tailored waste forms for each one. My PhD advisor (Ewing) has been plugging tailored waste forms for years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We're going to have to go with the latter option - more waste. For more information, see this factsheet by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
ReplyDelete