Crossposted with National Geographic's Great Energy Challenge Blog and TheGreenGrok.com.
While we debate about building new nukes, waste builds -- and builds up -- at the ones we already have.
 The United States is home to 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, much of it stored in storage pools like this. (Department of Energy) |
The tsunami-induced nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex has sparked renewed debate about nuclear power's future. Countries such as Germany and Switzerland have decided the risk ain't worth the juice and have announced plans to end their nuclear power programs. No such decision appears imminent in the United States although it is unclear if any new plants will get built.
Should nukes be part of our energy future? That question will surely be debated for some time. But what about the spent fuel from reactors? Where is that in the debate?
The leaked radiation at the Fukushima plant didn't come from the reactors alone. A failure to keep water circulating in pools storing spent fuel rods led to meltdowns, fires, and ultimately sizable releases of radioactivity. And today, some 87 days after the disaster began, plant operators at the Tokyo Electric Power Company are still struggling to stabilize the spent fuel pools.
The storage pool failures at Fukushima are highly relevant to America. The United States currently has about 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. More than two-thirds of that waste is stored in storage pools much like those at Fukushima. The rest is locked up in dry cement casks that are generally deemed safer because they are air-cooled (not water-cooled) and less susceptible to sabotage.
Now, two new reports -- one from a subcommittee of President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future and the other by Robert Alvarez, a former adviser at the Energy Department now a scholar at the Institute of Policy Studies -- recommend that we can and should do better.
Initially, all our spent fuel was supposed to be reprocessed for use in breeder reactors and so there'd be no need for long-term storage or disposal. But because of proliferation concerns and economic considerations, reprocessing was abandoned (under President Carter). In 1982, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act laid out a new plan: In exchange for a fee collected from nuclear power plant operators, the federal government agreed to take the fuel off the hands of the power companies for permanent storage/disposal.
That, of course, did not happen; the country has simply not had the political will (I'm pretty sure we have the technical know-how). And so, in the words of the Blue Ribbon Commission, "current storage arrangements have evolved in an ad hoc fashion," and "with a few minor exceptions, all commercial spent fuel is being stored by default at the sites of the reactors where it was generated," awaiting the government to decide what to do.
65,000 metric tons of spent fuel in the United States ... most of it, according to Alvarez, in pools containing "some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet" ... stored in an ad hoc fashion. With more on the way. Our current fleet of 104 commercial nuclear plants generates an additional 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel annually. With Obama's cancellation of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, there's no end in sight.
The Blue Ribbon Commission's draft report does not find the current storage system unsafe per se, but recommends that a more efficient arrangement would involve establishing "one or more consolidated interim storage facilities," where spent fuel could be stored in dry casks for a period of decades to a century or more, awaiting final disposal, including possible reprocessing.
Alvarez is a lot less sanguine. He notes that several fuel storage sites are in seismically active earthquake zones) and others, such as the Indian Point facility in New York (about 38 miles from Manhattan), are near high-population areas where an accident could have tragic and economically devastating consequences. Alvarez calls for a 10-year program to move spent fuel into dry cask storage. "The cost of fixing America's nuclear vulnerabilities may be high," he writes, "but the price of doing too little is incalculable."
This isn't the first time experts have called for upgrading our system for storing spent fuel. (See here and here.) Not much has ever happened on this front, so it remains to be seen what, if anything, will happen now.
I don't know about you, but "spent nuclear fuel" and "ad hoc" don't mix well in my book. So here's a simple proposal: Until we decide on what to do with nuclear waste and then show some follow-through, let's shelve all talk of new nuclear plants. Call it the Waste Plan Before New Nukes Plan.
Follow Bill Chameides on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheGreenGrok
Sarah Lovinger: Environmental Toxins: What You're Not Being Told
Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear Energy: America's Chernobyl
10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy
Nuclear Waste @ National Geographic Magazine
With No Long-Term Solution, Nuclear Pallbearers Bury Waste in ...
Nuclear Waste Next Door: Japan Crisis Spotlights America's ...
And we need nuclear power – if not then we can look forward to lots more coal fired plants.
China is building 31 nuclear plants – the US 1.
How stupid can we be, Our energy policies are a disaster.
The New Clear Soulution via LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Each metric tonne of thorium consumed in a LFTR could produce:
9900 GWe*hr of electricity (at 45% conversion efficiency)
up to 15 kg (8400 watts*thermal) of Pu-238 for NASA space missions
20 kg of molybdenum-99 for medical procedures
5 g of thorium-229 for targeted alpha therapy medical procedures
3300 thermal watts of strontium-90 for heating sources
150 kg of stable xenon
125 kg of stable neodymium
that’s about
$600M worth of electricity
~$100M worth of Pu-238
~$200-300M worth of Mo-99
and about $300K worth of xenon and neodymium
and many lives saved through clean electricity and medical radioisotopes.
See Kirk’s talk on Google Tech Talk posted Dec 6th 2010 – Is Nuclear Waste Really Waste?
search youtube forTEDxYYC-Kirk Sorensen-
Tally Ho
Alex Cockburn
I read after the first Gulf War that many people were poisoned by the so-called "spent" nuclear fuel, after it had been used against Saddam's tanks. Is this somebody's brainstorm for getting rid of nuclear waste by using it as ammunition?
I have also read that "spent" nuclear fuel is used as ammunition in last-ditch, point-defence gatling guns, aboard US Navy ships. I assume that most of that nuclear fuel used in gatling guns is going to end up in the ocean, but to what effect?
I get the point that uranium metal is exceedingly dense and heavy, and so has more stopping power than either lead or iron as a projectile, but if it is poisonous, what does it do to our own soldiers, civilians, and the environment? Is the military excused from having to examine the environmental effects of its ordinance?
So called "spent" nuclear fuel (used once) still contains 96% of the usable fuel for a nuclear reactor and is very radioactive due to fission products.
Reprocessed spent fuel is not typically used in U.S. munitions, although trace compounds associated with reprocessed spent fuel have been discovered in some armored tanks. http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabc.htm
The NRC needs to be forced to release an unredacted version of the Post-Closure Safety Evaluation Report (SER Vol. 3) to the public so the people know what is going on... BTW -- Ask yourself this: Why would a redacted version of the Safety Evaluation Report be issued if it agreed with Harry Reid's position??? It wouldn't!!!! If the NRC's safety determination supported this administration's desire to shutdown the Yucca Mountain Project, they would be beating that drum like crazy!!!
And the alternative to nuclear is COAL fired plants. A boom in building them is started. People like you need to wake up to the fact that wind and solar cannot meet our needs now for peak power and are very costly. Add to that the NIMBY factor.
"A new burst of coal-fired power plant construction now underway – the largest in decades – will put 43 new coal plants on American soil in the next five years, and all of them will escape the performance standards written into the climate bill now moving through Congress.
The 43 plants are either already under construction, near construction or permitted. "
http://solveclimatenews.com/news/20090716/43-new-coal-plants-would-escape-climate-bill-co2-standards
Its not over for Yucca Mountain. The Blue Ribbon Comission might have another say.