Used nuclear fuel is a good energy source
Ever since the government banned its use in the recycling of used nuclear fuel nearly 35 years ago, “reprocessing” has been a dirty word. Many nuclear scientists and engineers, however, believe a new commitment to reprocessing is the key to solving the nuclear waste problem and ushering in a new generation of advanced power reactors. Hundreds of nuclear professionals recently sent a joint letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House science adviser John Holdren urging such action.
Housed in cylindrical rods, used fuel is periodically removed from a reactor and stored in engineered water pools or above-ground dry casks at nuclear power plant sites. The United States currently has 65,200 metric tons of used fuel in storage, of which 610 metric tons are at the Callaway Nuclear Plant near Fulton.In spite of the doubts from skeptics, reprocessing is a game-changing technology that could turn a huge amount of used fuel left over from the production of nuclear-generated electricity into a significant energy resource.
Often mistaken for nuclear waste, used fuel contains large amounts of valuable plutonium and uranium that can be extracted and then chemically reprocessed into a so-called mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel that can be used in a nuclear plant to produce more electricity. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter ended reprocessing in the United States, citing proliferation risks and hoping other countries such as France and Great Britain would do likewise. They didn’t.
They have continued to reprocess used fuel — in the case of France, using recycling as part of its nuclear program to obtain 80 percent of its electricity and to sell surplus power to neighboring countries.
Reprocessing has great potential value for the United States. Using it along with breeder reactors would recover 90 percent of the original energy that remains in the fuel after one use in a reactor. And it would extend uranium resources for hundreds of years and reduce by at least 50 percent the amount of long-lived nuclear waste that would need to be stored in a deep-geologic repository. Additionally, the heat and toxicity of such waste would be reduced, enabling the United States to store all of the long-lived waste from power reactors and the weapons program in a single repository instead of having to find sites and pay for the construction of multiple repositories.
Such a reprocessing plant could be located at the Savannah River Site. Both South Carolina senators — Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint — are outspoken supporters of nuclear power who favor the idea of building a used-fuel reprocessing plant at this nuclear installation.
Another facility to convert surplus weapons plutonium into MOX fuel for power reactors is under construction at the Savannah River Site, providing thousands of jobs and revenue for South Carolina.
How ironic that Congress has approved the processing of weapons plutonium into MOX fuel for commercial electricity production but has yet to do the same for reprocessing used fuel stored at nuclear power plants. This contradictory policy is absurd.
Given the strong political support in South Carolina for nuclear power, why not build a plant there to demonstrate the technology for reprocessing used fuel? And why not tap into the Nuclear Waste Fund for that very purpose?
Users of nuclear-generated electricity already have paid $17.9 billion into the trust fund since it was established more than 30 years ago. The fund continues to grow by $800 million annually to cover the costs of nuclear waste management. Considering the uncertain future of the Yucca Mountain project, now is the time to resurrect used-fuel reprocessing. This would simplify the challenge of nuclear waste storage and disposal.
If reprocessing is revived in the United States, used fuel could become an important energy source. If not, it will remain in storage indefinitely as a lost opportunity.
William H. Miller is a professor with the University of Missouri’s Nuclear Science and Engineering Institute.
