PLUTONIUM PROBLEM: Fast reactors might help consume unwanted plutonium while producing electricity, given that the radioactive element is an energy source like the plutonium 238 pictured here used as a power supply for some satellites.
Image: Courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The U.K. has nearly 100 metric tons of plutonium—dubbed "the element from hell" by some—that it doesn't know what to do with. The island nation does not need the potent powder to construct more nuclear weapons, and spends billions of British pounds to ensure that others don't steal it for that purpose. The unstable element, which will remain radioactive for millennia, is the residue of ill-fated efforts to recycle used nuclear fuel.
One solution under consideration is to recycle the plutonium yet further—by using it as fuel in a pair of new, so-called "fast" reactors. Such nuclear reactors can actually "consume" plutonium via fission (transforming it into other forms of nuclear waste that are not as useful for weapons). The U.K. is considering a plan to build two of General Electric's PRISM fast reactors, the latest in a series of fast-reactor designs that for several decades have attempted with mixed success to handle plutonium and other radioactive waste from nuclear power. The idea remains that fast reactors, which get their name because the neutrons that initiate fission in the reactor are zipping about faster than those in a conventional reactor, could offer a speedy solution to cleaning some nasty nuclear waste, which fissions better with fast neutrons, while also providing electricity as a by-product.
"If they really want to get rid of plutonium, a fast spectrum reactor is safer and gets rid of more of it," than other options, argues nuclear engineer Eric Loewen, chief consulting engineer at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. "It just seems like humans are grappling with the question: 'How do we do it better?'"
The U.K. is hardly alone in struggling to cope with nuclear waste, whether plutonium or otherwise. The U.S. remains a nation in search of a solution for what to do with its nearly 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, which has a small fraction of plutonium mixed in it. A recent blue ribbon commission impaneled by President Obama suggested looking for communities that would volunteer to take the waste, for a fee.
Nor is the U.K. alone in considering fast reactors as a solution for eliminating plutonium. Japan's has built a fast reactor known as Monju to recycle its used nuclear fuel. France had one for awhile, too, but it has since been shut down due to difficulty operating the plant as designed. In fact, most such fast reactors have proved difficult to run reliably. "At one time or another, [fast reactors] were a priority program in the U.S., Japan, France, Germany, Italy and Russia," notes physicist Thomas Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "They were largely failures in all those places and in two nuclear navies, so one should think twice before trying it again."
Novel design
The trouble with fast reactors has largely been related to what's used to cool them—liquid sodium in the case of GE's PRISM and many others. The better half of table salt, this element cools a fast reactor nicely and also ensures there is no perpetual chain reaction. And, thanks to a more than 800-degree Celsius boiling point, it can operate at low pressures, unlike conventional reactors. But sodium also reacts explosively with either air or water, necessitating elaborate safety controls in places where it must get close to water in order to create steam to turn a turbine to make electricity, such as steam generators. As a result of numerous fires from leaking systems, operating sodium-cooled fast reactors to date have been shut down more than they have run. "You can't take the top off and look down in the reactor and correct any problems," Cochran notes. "You have heroic maintenance issues any time you need to go into the reactor."
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThe last paragraph seems to sum up the issues nicely: while fast reactors may reduce the weapons grade waste of light water reactors to non-weapons grade nuclear waste, it's still dangerously radioactive nuclear waste that must be secured, somehow - yet to be determined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuilding a bunch of small, expensive fast reactors as proposed by GE fundamentally only disperses and multiplies potential problems, and vastly increases the number of expert staff necessary to operate and address potential problems. To illustrate the extreme, we could all put micro fast reactors in our homes, maximizing the benefit of GE's approach. The consequences of contamination or an explosion would be reduced and restricted to a small neighborhood! Of course, the probability of a contamination or explosion event would be increased!
didn't politics trump the science employed in the Nevada storage site? We have ~ 100 power reactors in this country and they continue to store spent fuel on site - doesn't sound like an anti-terrorist control measure to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe world is going to hell fast as the reactors. Anyone ever thought of stopping nuclear power and get rid of that material from hell. Is the whole world going to be one nuclear reactor with freaky mutants living and running them for just a little electricity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm surprised at the poor level of research in this article. For one, the author describes fast reactors as something of the past, when new ones are currently being built in China, India and Russia. Also, fast reactors do actually "eliminate" i.e. fission nuclear waste, so that ultimately only short-lived fission products remain. This process is by no means trivial, and the recycling step of the fuel is perhaps the most challenging one, but certainly not impossible. And what is this nonsense that we will never run out of uranium? Of course the cost of mining new uranium will increase, as will demand as nuclear power remains the one proven technology to decarbonise the power supply, eventually making fast reactors more economical than LWRs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the fundamental flaw of the article is something else. The whole set-up of corporate spokesperson (biased) vs "environmental" group spokesman (biased) is baffling. There are actual scientists with actual experience of designing and operating these things you know? Two of the main EBR-II scientists very recently published a book about the project for christ sake, how hard is it to do a bit of reading or call them up to get a clear picture of how these systems actually work?
Anders don't fool yourself - those EBR-II scientists are biased too. I don't know which way they're biased on this topic (I haven't read their book), but like every other human being they have their own personal bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as an unbiased perspective. Perspective IS bias.
"Ultimately, however, the core problem may be that such new reactors don't eliminate the nuclear waste that has piled up so much as transmute it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure they do. Take Pu-239 (half-life 24k years) and U-238 (half-life 4.5G years). Convert to fission products (half-lives up to 30 years). Wait a generation; more than half of it is gone. Wait a century; more than 90% is gone.
Hi gang. Why not use some intermediary liquid, solid or semi-solid that is not as explosive with the sodium to extract the heat from the superheated sodium? Then use that heated medium to power the steam. You might lose some of the heat during the transfer, but it would be less dangerous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember reading in grad school (late 70's) a report issued by the American Physical Society about simulations of Fukushima style melt downs (where fuel pools at the base of the reactor) in some proposed fast breeders designed to burn reactor residue fuel such as plutonium, etc as described here. Report maintained sufficient density could be achieved in some simulations such that a critical (ie explosive) density could be reached .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not remember other details, but given all the problems noted above, the additional risks of exposure of liquid Na alone in a Fukushima level incident seem to be rather hairy.
ddbtinc: "didn't politics trump the science employed in the Nevada storage site?'...yes, it's called democracy. The people of Nevada were finally consulted. A lesson to any federal government imposing future pprojects of this type without citizen input.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a geologist who has worked on and off in uranium exploration I'm pleased to read another acknowledgement that uraniumn supplies are far from limited. The front end costs of exploration and eventual extraction of uranium are a fraction of the portential costs of plutonium storage and disposal.
Don't be ridiculous, bias due to economic (both parties here) or ideological (Cochran) factors is something very different from an opinion based on relevant expertise and experience with arguments to back it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, some reactor designs under some conditions can have accidents, also, water is wet. Unless you can specify the design or the conditions there isn't really much to discuss, is there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsual Big Oil informercial from its' favorite stenographer at Sciam.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNumerous errors as others have pointed out.
China is spending spending $100M annually developing the American invented MSR (MSR). The UK is looking at building the blueprinted IFR (GE Prism) for service in 5 years. India's first of 5 to 2020 fast breeder is going into service this year at half the cost of new American designed AP1000's.
The first of kind cost of the AP-1000's is under $2B each in China built by American engineers to American standards with NRC observers present at all times. and $5B in the US (VC Summer) build by American attorneys. Biello like all Big Oil steno's likes to add in $2B to the cost based at Vogtle's unrelated to nuclear transmission grid buildouts.
Advanced Nuke power gets lip service service only from the Obama adminstration riddled with Big Oil purchased bureaucrats pushing the Big Oil's politically correct and lucrative renewable/gas backup agenda. Here's IFR advocate Stephen Kirsch begging the nuclear obstructionists betraying their country in the White house to let the IFR go.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/28/why-obama-should-meettill/#more5076
"Obama suggested looking for communities that would volunteer to take the waste, for a fee"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis does not get rid of the spent fuel! It simply passes the problem on to someone else. And how do you know that these governments will remain friendly after they take on material which could be further processed into weapons grade material?
The best way would be to invest money into using up all of the fissile material so that the waste is not dangerous and like the U.K., turn it into energy.
The answer is simple. LFTR. We will be buying these from China in 10 years. What a shame that the technology our tax dollars invented back in the 50s is now being developed by our "favorite" trading partner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlvin Weinberg, the patent holder of the ubiquitous LWR (light water reactor), argued for the benefits of the Thorium-Uranium thermal fuel cycle over the complicated Uranium-Plutonium fast cycle back for electrical generation in the 60s. As is typical, the decision was made by politicians that are only thinking about the next election.
If a tenth of the funding over the following decades for fast breeders went to continuing the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) at ORNL we would not be having this discussion now.
If you are not familiar, please watch this great Google Tech Talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
I am staggered that this article makes no mention of molten salt reactor technology. This provides a potentially low cost route to convert the plutonium and actinide waste mountain into uranium 233 (from thorium). Once the process is completed we then have a thorium/uranium 233 economy which almost eliminates the problem of high level waste. Sodium cooled fast reactors are really only sensible for the uranium plutonium cycle which we really should move away from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd say sell it to the Iranians. They've been looking for plutonium for a long time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's easy, they already are producing enriched Uranium, just make a simple graphite pile reactor and breed PU-239, the only weapons suitable plutonium, just like North Korea is doing. Reactor grade plutonium is NOT weapons suitable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr you can dump the nuclear waste in the Mariana trench. 35,000 ft of seawater is safer than the 40 ft storage pools being used in nuclear plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDerick_in_TO - thanks for making a very good point. I'm constantly surprised by folks arguing that we need to bring in the perspective from group X because they are "unbiased". There ain't no such animal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept me, of course.
Incidentally, I felt that one of the responses you got was inappropriate. Your original point was made courteously. There was no need for the use of words like "ridiculous" in response,
From the article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A recent blue ribbon commission impaneled by President Obama suggested looking for communities that would volunteer to take the waste, for a fee."
This is the best the blue ribbon boys could come up with? Take it down to Mayberry or East Podunk where they're having budget trouble and would be willing to take a few tons of the most poisonous substance known in order to finance a new high school gym.
Put the plutonium in the tested hands of Andy and Barney. I hope these blue ribbon guys are serving pro bono.
"...take a few tons of the most poisonous substance known..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you get that little tidbit of information from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club - which one?
Bernie Cohen, who actually has handled plutonium, offered to eat an ounce of plutonium if Ralph Nader would eat an ounce of caffeine - which sent Ralph Nader scurrying, whimpering like a puppy with his tail between his legs.
www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html
"...There is no direct evidence for plutonium-induced cancer in humans, but there have been a number of experiments on dogs, rabbits, rats, and mice. The results of these are summarized28 in Fig. 1, where the curve shows the expectation from our calculation. It is evident that the animal data give strong confirmation for the validity of the calculation.
The 2 million fatalities per pound inhaled leaves plutonium dust far from "the most toxic substance known to man." Biological agents, like botulism toxin or anthrax spores29 are many hundreds or thousands of times more toxic. Plutonium toxicity is similar to that of nerve gas,29 but given the choice of being in a room with equal quantities of plutonium dust and nerve gas, the latter would be infinitely more dangerous. It rapidly permeates the room air, whereas plutonium, being a solid material, would be largely immobile.
In fact, it is rather difficult to disperse plutonium in air as a respirable dust. Individual particles tend to agglomerate into lumps of too large a size to be inhaled. In the experiments on animals, substantial effort and ingenuity was required to overcome this problem30 and arrange for the plutonium dust to be inhaled.
The calculational procedure used here to obtain our result, 2 million deaths per pound inhaled, follows the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). It would be impossible to obtain a very different result without sharply deviating from them; at least three independent investigations have used them to evaluate the toxicity of plutonium26,27 and they have all obtained essentially the same result. These ICRP recommendations are used by all groups charged with setting health standards all over the world, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the United States. They are almost universally used in the scientific literature..."
"physicist Thomas Cochran of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "They were largely failures in all those places and in two nuclear navies, so one should think twice before trying it again.""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Cochran notes. "You have heroic maintenance issues any time you need to go into the reactor.""
Look who is talking: an anti-nuclear zealot. Read the book: "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees, 2008; and read
http://BraveNewClimate.com
"turn it into fuel form, put it in the reactor, make it more radioactive, and then put that into the ground"
"More radioactive" means shorter half life so it will be radioactive for a shorter time.
Fast reactors need not always be sodium cooled.The Russians are going to build a lead alloy cooled power reactors, safe from fire risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nextbigfuture.com/2012/03/russian-plans-first-svbr-100-lead.html
Even if the reluctance to fast reactor is too much, the valuable plutonium can be used in conjunction with thorium in existing AGR or proposed EPR's for a large amount of power.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dae.gov.in%2Fpubl%2Fglbrchth.pdf
"Why not use some intermediary liquid, solid or semi-solid that is not as explosive with the sodium to extract the heat from the superheated sodium?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey do use two separate sodium circuits, transferring heat between them via metal walls; thus, radioactive sodium, if it leaks, leaks into the second circuit, which is also sodium, but not radioactive -- except due to the leak, of course. But this would be promptly detected, allowing shutdown and repair.
The Monju experience of leakage of this nonradioactive sodium to air is that it reacts with air, but not explosively.
Radio active metals and its disposing are very much challenged issues face by modern world. What I suggests is if there is way to explore them and utilized I hope there should be a way of proper disposal as Nutron 3rd Law.The best thin is exploring the way of disposing them before it gone to be deadly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the forgotten element here is the four factor. Reduce consumption of energy by four by 2050 through effiency measures means we can get by on renewables, with perhaps gas and CCS. And store the plutonium in the pentagon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with radioactive material is the speed or velocity that these particles are traveling.The particles themselves are no different from the proton neutron electron positron that make up every atom in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if these high velocity particles could be channelled through a tube which was designed to contain these radioactive particles.
Once they were contained and moving in a straight line down the tube a series of baffles would intercept and slow down each of the different particles rendering them harmless and more importantly create electricity and other commercial products. By this means turning a costly waste product into a viable commercial profitable business.