Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste
Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy
from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce
the time nuclear waste
must be isolated
By
William H. Hannum
,
Gerald E. Marsh
and
George S. Stanford
It is not too soon for the U.S. to complete the basic development of the fastreactor/pyroprocessing system for metallic fuel. For the foreseeable future, the hard truth is this: only nuclear power can satisfy humanity’s long-term energy needs while preserving the environment. For large-scale, sustainable nuclear energy production to continue, the supply of nuclear fuel must last a long time. That means that the nuclear power cycle must have the characteristics of the ALMR and pyroprocessing. The time seems right to take this new course toward sensible energy development.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
WILLIAM H. HANNUM, GERALD E. MARSH and GEORGE S. STANFORD are physicists who worked on fast-reactor development before retiring from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory. Hannum served as head of nuclear physics development and reactor safety research at the DOE. He was also deputy director general of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris. Marsh, a fellow of the American Physical Society, worked as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations and is co-author of The Phantom Defense: America’s Pursuit of the Star Wars Illusion (Praeger Press). Stanford, whose research focused on experimental nuclear physics, reactor physics and fast-reactor safety, is co-author of Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry (Fidlar Doubleday).
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentPerhaps the "smartest" thing that we could do is to stop calling it nuclear "waste".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs this article makes clear, the byproducts of nuclear fission are potentially valuable in and of themselves. Instead of elaborate schemes to bury this stuff for thousands of years, we should "mine" its possible uses.
Treat it like garbage and it's a problem - treat it like gold and it won't end up dumped in a stream.
In 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 thisNuclear power's problems were and are primarily financial; the plants are simply not cost effective relative to the alternatives. We can build a 750 mW(e) combined-cycle plant for around $750 million or a 1200 mW(e) nuclear unit for 6 or 7 billion dollars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fast reactor concept, while technically intriguing, is likely to be even more of an economic problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiquid Metal Fast Reactors (LMFRs), of which the authors are touting, have a terrible operational record. The USA has built 3, of which 2 have had unintentional core melts. In 1996, the Japanese Monju LMFR leaked 5 tons of its highly radioactive liquid sodium coolant which caught fire, and has been shut down for 10 years. The French Super Phoenix had power oscillations which caused them to shut it down too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn 1972, President Nixon fired ORNL's Director, Dr. Weinberg for advocating the meltdown proof Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) because the GOP had selected the LMFRs instead. MSRs can and have operated on all 3 fissiles (U235, U233, & Pu239) and can best utilize thorium. Why not restart this Generation IV reactor instead?
REFs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors
The leak at Monju was not radioactive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChap, you are correct, the sodium leak was not radioactive as it was in Monju's Secondary Coolant circuit. I apologize for the mistake I posted above.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, had the leak been in the Primary Coolant circuit while the reactor was operating, the leak would have been highly radioactive due to the 15 hr halflife of Na-24, which emits energetic 1.4 MeV & 2.8 MeV gamma rays. Large amounts of Na-24 are created by neutron absorption within the LMFR's core.
Furthermore, sodium fires, even without complicating radioactivity, are difficult to contain because hot sodium reacts with air, water, carbon dioxide (CO2), and even concrete! It's ash is sodium oxide (Na2O), which will combine with any water to make highly caustic sodium hydroxide (NaOH), which is lye, or Draino (drain cleaner)!
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), coolant and fuel is melted LiF-BeF2 into which sufficient fissile (U-235, U233, &/or Pu-239) are dissolved. Molten salts do not react with air or water and freeze below 500 C, thereby encapsulating the radioactive materials (e.g., Fission Products). Furthermore, they do not require pressure vessels as they operate at atmospheric pressure. The USA has built and successfully operated 2 MSRs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: ARE (1954) & the MSRE (1960s).
REFs:
http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/msr.htm
http://nuclear.inl.gov/deliverables/docs/msr_deliverable_doe-global_07_paper.pdf
http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/pres/119930.pdf