August 12th, 2009 | 11:03 am

Power Engineering Article Looks at Recycling Option in the U.S.

Cooling Pool at AREVA's La Hague Recycling Facility

Cooling Pool at AREVA's La Hague Recycling Facility

Power Engineering’s most recent issue included a great piece on the need to rethink the situation for recycling nuclear fuel in the United States.

The article by Senior Editor Nancy Spring points out the key benefits that come from recycling used nuclear fuel. “In ballpark figures, it takes around 30 metric tons of fuel each year to power a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant. That creates 20 tons of waste. Because 96 percent of each fuel assembly is re-useable, with recycling the volume of waste is reduced by a factor of five. Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 because the lower the volume of waste, the lower its toxicity. Plus, plutonium is removed from the final waste stream.”

Spring also notes how AREVA “operates the largest nuclear fuel reprocessing/recycling plant in the world. At the La Hague facility in northwest France, spent fuel from 90 to 100 nuclear reactors can be recycled each year, separated into uranium, plutonium and fission products, each one bound for the next use or final storage,” which is why she recently went to interview AREVA’s Remi Coulon.

As the director of the back-end sector, strategy and international projects, he answered some tough questions about the future of nuclear energy and recycling in the United States. “As you see, this won’t happen overnight, but we are honestly convinced that this is a sustainable path worth pursuing. Under appropriate conditions, the industry believes it is possible to privately finance such a project with the right guarantees. This project will fuel the economy for decades with recycled fuel, while contributing to solving a long-lasting national commitment regarding nuclear waste,” Coulon said.

For the complete article and interview, check out Power Engineering.

  • Jim
    Gabriel,
    You are theoretically correct, but in the process of recycling nuclear fuel today, the statement is correct (but maybe could have been worded better). Because there are just a few major players in spent fuel radiotoxcicty, removing any of them results in a larger overall reduction in the overall value. So, you get more reduction in radiotoxicity by removing Pu than from removing equal amounts of Zr-93, even though both are recognized contributors.

    I think the intent was, if you remove the 7 or so major contributors, you get huge reductions in the sum total value compared to the left-over waste volume. The phrase should probably have read more like "Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 when these major contributors since reducing their volume greatly reduces the overall toxicity of the whole" or something like that.
  • Gabriel
    "Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 because the lower the volume of waste, the lower its toxicity"
    I don't see why?
    The toxicity is the volume of water required to dilute the waste to a maximum permissible concentration.
    If you juste remove the less radiotoxic elements, you can have a lower volume with almost the same toxicity.
blog comments powered by Disqus