Skip to main content

New Thinking Needed on Used Fuel Management Policy

A leading think tank called on Congress to address the nation's used nuclear fuel management and give "prompt consideration" to legislation that would help move critical federal programs forward. The Heritage Foundation issued a backgrounder last week on the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008: Modernizing Spent Fuel Management in the U.S. Here are the recommendations the paper makes:

To modernize spent fuel management in the U.S. and provide the flexibility, clarifications, and autho­rizations needed to move nuclear power forward in the United States, Congress should:

  • Set a deadline requiring the Secretary of Energy to submit a repository license applica­tion for the Yucca Mountain repository within the next few months.
  • Provide for a phased licensing regime for the Yucca repository that would store spent nuclear fuel, but actively monitor it and keep it available for retrieval. ...
  • Remove artificial capacity restraints on the repository. Technology, science, and actual physi­cal capacity should be the primary limiting fac­tors with respect to Yucca's storage capacity.
However, the Yucca Mountain program still faces many challenges and powerful opponents. The Nevada congressional delegation has long opposed Yucca Mountain, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the program's number one opponent.

Commentator Chuck Muth offers a compelling critique of Nevada's anti-Yucca campaign below:
When It Comes to Yucca, We’re Out of Loux

The state of Nevada’s knee-jerk, one-sided anti-Yucca campaign was again being sold at a forum yesterday, but a funny thing happened on the way to market: Few were buying it.
Some Nevada politicans are likely to remain opposed to Yucca Mountain regardless of the potential benefits to Nevadans in terms of jobs and investments. However, many policymakers and others are calling for the government to help move forward with aspects of the used fuel management program.

Last week, Sen. Pete Domenci (R-N.M.) said at a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing that the government should implement a nuclear fuel recycling program this year. He noted that the question about used fuel management is "the only thing that stands in the way of maximum acceptance of nuclear power."

Comments

Anonymous said…
Come on, Yucca Mountain is an idiotic repository. It's mostly dry ... except when it's not and then it's porous with high water mobility. And putting spent fuel as is, not even immobilized in a non-leachable matrix, full of trans-uranians and just protected by engineered barriers is a recipe for troubles.

The industry should support what is technologically optimal : reprocessing with full actinide recovery and recycling/incineration in fast reactors and fission products disposal as oxides in borated glass matrices in a salt dome (like WIPP) or a clay deposit after a cool-down interim storage for 50 or 100 years.

Oh, and the industry should also ask for its money back from the NWPA waste fund and the nearly $10 billions wasted on Yucca Mountain.

It will need the money to pay for reprocessing and it will be more than the $0.001/kWh sweet deal offered by the NWPA. Or at least, the NWPA looked like a sweet deal for a long time and now the industry is deservingly stuck with its spent fuel after 30 years spent playing the proverbial ostrich.

The charade must end on Yucca Mountain and the NWPA. Time to show a bit of courage to push for reprocessing and a sense of responsibility to pay for it.
Anonymous said…
"The charade must end on Yucca Mountain and the NWPA. Time to show a bit of courage to push for reprocessing and a sense of responsibility to pay for it."

So where are you going to put the vitrified HLW that arises from reprocessing? and the irradiated MOX fuel...you can only reprocess MOX and recycle its Pu once or twice before the isotopics preclude further LWR fuel use.

Even an FBR breeder economy will ultimately produce thousands of tons of waste requiring repository disposal. In that sense, "closing" the fuel cycle is an oxymoron.
Anonymous said…
Anonymous #2,

If you can't understand the difference between actinides and fission products and the constraints they respectively put on geological disposal, you probably should bother commenting on nuclear power. Same thing if you can't understand the difference in leaching behavior between porous UO2 ceramics and borated glass.

Even an FBR breeder economy will ultimately produce thousands of tons of waste requiring repository disposal. In that sense, "closing" the fuel cycle is an oxymoron.

Good god, I wish we had to deal with thousands of tons of waste!

Given that a 1 GWe fast reactor would create about 800 kg of fission products a year, thousands of tons of waste would mean that we are very far along on the path to nuclear powered civilization. That would be awesome news!

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…