Essentially all nuclear fuel recycling is performed using a process known as PUREX (plutonium uranium extraction), which was initially developed for extracting pure plutonium for nuclear weapons. In PUREX recycling, used fuel assemblies are transported to a recycling plant in heavily shielded, damage-resistant shipping casks. The fuel assemblies are chopped up and dissolved by strong acids. The fuel solution then undergoes a solvent-extraction procedure to separate the fission products and other elements from the uranium and the plutonium, which are purified. The uranium and plutonium are used to fabricate mixed oxide fuel for use in light-water reactors.
Recycling helps to minimize the production of nuclear waste. To reduce the demand for storage space, a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle would separate the short-lived, high-heat-producing fission products, particularly cesium 137 and strontium 90. These elements would be held separately in convectively cooled facilities for 300 to 500 years, until they had decayed to safe levels. An optimized closed (fast-reactor) fuel cycle would recycle not just the uranium and plutonium but all actinides in the fuel, including neptunium, americium and curium. In a once-through fuel cycle, more than 98 percent of the expected long-term radiotoxicity is caused by the resulting neptunium 237 and plutonium 242 (with half-lives of 2.14 million and 387,000 years, respectively). Controlling the long-term effects of a repository becomes simpler if these long-lived actinides are also separated from the waste and recycled. The removal of cesium, strontium and the actinides from the waste shipped to a geological repository could increase its capacity by a factor of 50.
Because of continuing interest in advancing the sustainability and economics of nuclear fuel cycles, several countries are developing more effective recycling technologies. Today an electrometallurgical process that precludes the separation of pure plutonium is under development in the U.S. at Argonne National Laboratory. Advanced aqueous recycling procedures that offer similar advantages are being studied in France, Japan and elsewhere.
Ensuring Nonproliferation A critical aspect of new nuclear energy systems is ensuring that they do not allow weapons-usable materials to be diverted from the reprocessing cycle. When nations acquire nuclear weapons, they usually develop dedicated facilities to produce fissile materials rather than collecting nuclear materials from civilian power plants. Commercial nuclear fuel cycles are generally the most costly and difficult route for production of weapons-grade materials. New fuel cycles must continue to be designed to guard against proliferation. —J.A.L., R.G.B. and J.F.K.
How Secure are Nuclear Plants from Terrorists?
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, raise troubling questions about the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks. Although stringent civilian and military security countermeasures have been implemented to stop determined assaults, the deliberate crash of a large commercial airliner looms in the imagination. So, should Americans be worried? The answer is no and yes.
A nuclear power plant is not an easy target for an airliner flying at high speed, because an off-center hit on a domed, cylindrical containment building would not substantially affect the building structure. Located at or below grade, the reactor core itself is typically less than 10 feet in diameter and 12 feet high. It is enclosed in a heavy steel vessel surrounded by a concrete citadel. Reactor containment designs differ in their details, but in all cases they are meant to survive the worst of nature’s forces (including earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes). Despite not being designed to resist acts of war, containment enclosures can withstand crashes of small aircraft.
Even though the reactor core is protected, some of the piping and reactor cooling equipment, the auxiliary apparatus and the adjacent switchyard may be vulnerable to a direct hit. Nuclear power stations, however, are outfitted with multiple emergency cooling systems, as well as with emergency power supplies, should power be disabled. In the improbable event that all of these backup precautions were destroyed, the reactor core could overheat and melt. But even in this extreme case, which is similar to what occurred at Three Mile Island, the radioactive core materials would still be contained within the pressure vessel.
If nuclear plants have an Achilles’ heel, it is the on-site temporary storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel. Although these depositories usually contain several used fuel assemblies and therefore more total radioactivity than a reactor does, most of the more dangerous radioactive isotopes in the old fuel have already decayed away. This is particularly true for the gaseous fission products that could get into the air, whose half-lives can be measured in months. Spent fuel assemblies that have been removed relatively recently from reactors are kept in deep pools of water to cool them and shield the radiation they emit. These open-air pools are surrounded by thick-walled, steel-lined concrete containers. After a few years, the materials are transferred into concrete, air-cooled dry fuel-storage casks.
Although cooling pools provide a relatively small and, hence, difficult target for terrorists, a pinpoint attack could drain a pool’s water, causing the fuel to overheat and melt. Experts say that a standard fire hose would be enough refill the pool. Even if the fuel were to melt, little radioactive particulate would be produced that might become airborne, specialists say. An airliner crash into dry fuel-storage casks would probably just knock them aside. If any casks cracked, broken bits of oxidized fuel cladding could carry some radioactivity skyward, according to nuclear safety experts.
Some experts believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will soon order the reinforcement of auxiliary nuclear plant equipment and waste storage facilities.
Should such a terrorist onslaught occur, plans are in place to evacuate nearby residents, although it must be said that critics claim these schemes to be impractical. It is thought, however, that there would be about eight to 10 hours available to get out safely, long before evacuees received a significant radioactive dose. The most severe potential adverse effect could be long-term contamination of the local area by airborne particulates, which would be expensive to clean up. —The Editors
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentIn retrospect it’s too bad our environmental friends gave the “man made global warming” treatment to nuclear power in the 60’s by using superstition and scare tactics to intimidate people with bad information. I’m sure they thought they we’re justified in their views at the time but now we realize the extreme damage of their ignorance. If we had gone nuclear 40 years ago we could have averted spewing gigatons of tons of carbon into our atmosphere and averted the “tipping” point we find our climate in today. Not to mention we could have spent the last 40 years making nuclear power safer and more efficient and the United States less reliant on fossil fuels. This is just one example of how environmentalist can do incalculable damage to our nation and to our climate when they start screaming before they know what they’re talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Next Generation Nuclear Plant will be a demonstration of the technical, licensing,operational, and commercial viability of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology for the production of process heat, electricity, and hydrogen. This nuclear based technology can provide high-temperature process heat that can be used as a substitute for the burning of fossil fuels for a wide range of commercial applications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe substitution of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor for burning fossil fuels conserves these hydrocarbon resources for other uses, reduces the vulnerability to the cost and supply of natural gas and oil, and eliminates the emissions of greenhouse gases attendant with the burning of these fuels. The HTGR is an inherently safe nuclear reactor concept with an easily understood safety basis that permits substantially reduced emergency planning requirements and improved siting flexibility. For more information about this project log onto to nextgenerationnuclearplant.com .
My main concern as a laymen is the waste that is produced in this process. Where does it go? What do we do with it? Time and time again, I see reports of waste storage facilities that contaminate the land and environment near them. Also, this waste is transported via the rail system. What happens when the disposal cars go off the tracks and dump reactor waste over well-trafficked areas? I am willing to accept nuclear power, but I don't think we can contain the waste products in a responsible way. Please prove me wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI fear the next generation of nuclear plant will run into the same financial problems that hamper the conventional nuclear units. The proposed high temperatures, which greatly complicate the design and small output (appears to be around 300 mW(e)) appear to cause the next generation to be simply too costly from a commercial viability standpoint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSafe storage or disposal of used nuclear fuel is purely a political issue, NOT a technical one. First of all, used nuclear fuel is not waste. It is extremely valuable slightly burned fuel. When removed from a reactor the used fuel still contains about 95% of energy content it had when new. The day will come when the USA will want to reprocess used fuel and burn it again. Until then it is completely safe stored at existing nuclear plants. In fact, it makes no economic sense to expend resources to transport used fuel thousands of miles to an underground storage location only to have to repeat the process in reverse in a few years when we decide to reprocess it. Consider this: with nuclear energy 100% of the hazardous by-products are contained and controlled and paid for by the utilities. Contrast that with other forms of energy that exhaust toxic emissions and CO2 into the air with no regard for the health or environmental impacts, and no financial accountability for the eventual consequences!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre all you proponents completely insane?!!! Nuclear power might not produce carbon emissions but it does produce NUCLEAR WASTE! In addition, the naturally occurring elements spent during this energy production are responsible for sustaining the Earth's magnetic field and the more fuel we manipulate the more we alter said field. The truth is we no longer need ANY power companies at all. The future is without carbon emission, without ever increasing or maintaining failing infrastructure and without the bloated, wasteful expenditures of despotic energy consortia. Modular energy or "point of need" production and consumption models are the only sustainable plans and they are in truth the most readily available and easiest to upkeep.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen it comes to Nuclear Waste it is just better to make less of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThorium Molten Salt Reactors make dramatically less nuclear waste.
It is not necessary for us to leave a mountain full of radioactive contaminants in Nevada as our legacy to our children’s children.
Cleaner, superior, less waste generating nuclear technology exists.
Thorium Fuel Cycle Molten Salt Reactors are better technology and deserve your investigation and support.
Conventional Technology LWR reactors burn 35 metric tons of enriched Uranium-235/Uranium-238 fuel to generate 1 gigawatt of energy and in that process generate 35 metric tons of high level waste all of which has to be stored for ~25,000 years in Yucca Mountain repository.
Thorium Molten salt reactors burn 1 metric ton of Thorium-232/Uranium-233 fuel to produce 1 gigawatt of energy and in that process generate 1 metric ton of fission product waste all of which decay to benign levels within 400 years (83% of the fission products decay to the benign level of the natural radioactive background in 10 years) and only approximately 30 grams of the original 1 metric ton of Thorium fuel becomes Plutonium-239 which may be burned as reactor fuel or stored in Yucca Mountain. The 1 ton of fission product waste would not require storage in the long term Yucca Mountain repository. When the fission products are first removed from the TMSR they are very radioactive but the material decays very rapidly to where only 17% of the fission products remain radioactive after 10 years. All of the fission products decay to benign levels in less than 400 years.
The majority of the spent fuel rods produced as waste by current technology LWRs contain (96.5%) good unburned U-238 and Pu-239 fuel . LWR reactors are only about 3% efficient at burning their nuclear fuel. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors burn in excess of 98% of their Thorium Fuel while making energy and shorter lived fission products. It is even possible to configure Molten Salt Reactors to run on LWR spent fuel waste dissolved into the molten fuel salt and burn the remaining 96% of the unburned LWR Uranium fuel in the Molten Salt reactor producing dramatically more (3200%) useful energy than was produced through the first burning of the fuel rod in the current technology LWR. Using Thorium Molten Salt Reactors to burn LWR spent fuel from old fuel rods extracts much more energy value from the LWR fuel. Running the Molten Salt Reactor on Uranium spent nuclear fuel from old fuel rods would generate a significant amount of Transuranic waste however.
Yes, someone here is "insane". but it doesn't appear to be the proponents. I think the alteration of the magnetic field is affecting the function of your cerebral aura.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd say hi to Amory Lovins, that old fraud, for us.
Someone here is demonstrating signs of "insanity", but it doesn't look like the proponents. Maybe the atomically-induced alteration of the magnetic field is playing havoc with your cerebral synapses. Or maybe you are just a natural-born anti-nuke loon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless, say hi to that old fraud Amory Lovins for us.
Dennis Earl Baker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this103 - 66 Duncan avenue west
Penticton British Columbia V2A6Z3
Phone/Fax 778-476-3673
25/11/2009
The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the world on the Latest Climate Science. Has again indicated urgency in action is imperative. Here's my solution and immediate areas of impact.
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
RE : The solution to climate change.
( human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen )
The USA discharges Trillions of tons of sewage annually, sufficient quantity to sustain electrical generation requirements of the USA.
Redirecting existing sewage systems to containment facilities would be a considerable infrastructure modification project.
It is the intense radiation that causes the conversion of organic material into hydrogen, therefore what some would consider the most dangerous waste because of its radiation would be the best for this utilization.
I believe the combination of clean water and clean air, will increase the life expectancy of humans.
The four main areas of concern globally are energy, food,water and air!
The radiologic decomposing of organic materials generates Hydrogen
By using our sewage as a source of energy we also get clean air , clean water, and no ethanol use of food stocks. Eat food first, create energy after.
Simply replacing the fossil fuel powered electrical generating facilities with these plants, would reduce CO2 emissions, and CH4 emissions, to acceptable levels, globally.
This would require a completely new reactor facility capable of converting human waste into hydrogen and then burning the hydrogen to generate electricity on site.
This solution is sellable to citizens because of all the side issue solutions. I've been able to convince most simply with concept of using nuclear waste to a productive end.
Superbugs ( antibiotic resistant ) apparently are created in the waters sewage is discharged into, which is one more side issue solution.
Anything not converting into hydrogen will potentially be disposed of using Transmutation.
The water emitted from hydrogen burning will have uses in leaching heavy metals from other contaminated site clean ups.
I thank you for your consideration, please feel free to contact me anytime.
Dennis Baker
Thorium Molten Salt reactors would be great but they face more technical hurdles before they are ready.They say the High Temp Gas reactors won't have a prototype until 2021.I would like to see the timetable sped up.Barak has done nothing to educate or sell these systems.It is so ignorant to call this waste. The oxygen you breathe was excreted .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.neatorama.com/2010/04/02/us-military-developing-poop-powered-nuclear-reactors/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.neatorama.com/2010/04/02/us-military-developing-poop-powered-nuclear-reactors/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read once that large coal fired power stations emit large amounts of radioactivity in the form of thorium in the ash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs thiss true?
people yacking, hollering and worring about nuclear power plant wast and its contanment schould get their head out of there ass and take a lock at the millions of tons of hot nuclearer wast barried in las vegas nevade's back yard. go to google maps about a hunderad or so miles north of vages and have a look for yourself at the thousand pluse underground nuclear boom creaters in the nevada proving gorunds count. them your self. it was estmated that the booms droped on japan and the lettle boy tested at trinty in new mexieco all produced about a 1,000 tons or more of raido active wast each with no storage contanment and they were smale ones. talk about being worried about containment of recator wast in a nevada mounton at least its in containers first. that stuff under nevada proving grounds is only in the ground water and with all hinds of raido active gases seaping up into the air every day. belive you, me i would much rather have the clostest house that is bilt to a nuclear powerplant then live enywhere in southeren nevada. as i read some where that the deployment of proper breader reactors that brun wast as well as create new fuel would take some where around 30,ooo years to produce as much nuclear wast as our world wide testing of nuclear booms and inefecint powerplants have already produced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes cold fired power plants do release radioactive in their ash but not just thoruim but all kinds of other raidioactives that are buried with the coal. they also releace smale amounts into there ehust stacks into the air. due to the large number of coal plants world wide it is estmated that the total amount of raidioactive elements released into the inviroment by coal plants far exceds and may be by servial times the amount released by the world nuclear power plants. although this raidioactive release is a bad thing. the release of sulferdioxide, forming acide rain is servial million times worse to the envirment and our lungs. along with co2 emisions make coal plants the worst for the enviroment as my grandparence said about coal its dirty and nasiy. their is no such thing as clean coal. wona know about raidioativiy of coal ass just take a gigercounter to the blocks in a cinder block building then compair to a wood fram building.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe push for nuklear power is by the corporations that will benefit from the building of the plants. Last time, people were paid to not work in order to get that 15% guaranteed profit, no matter how much the overcosts were. Geo thermal woworks better and is much cheaper. This is why the corporations don't want geo--too cheap to make! Geo have very little danger, also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps. But there are still lots of caveats to uranium-based nuclear that have yet ( maybe never?) to be worked out. But here's something that was achievable - fuel efficiency. If North America had taken efficiency to heart after the '73 embargo, it would have prevented the spewing of gigatonnes of CO2 AND kept TRILLIONS of dollars in American pockets. Truly a crying shame - now a financially devastated economy, a fractured political system and can't get anything done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this