“The news release issued today by Friends of the Earth is inaccurate and draws incorrect conclusions about the performance of the MOX lead test assemblies and the overall state of the Department’s mixed oxide fuel program at the Savannah River Site.  Shaw AREVA MOX Services and the National Nuclear Security Administration remain steadfast in our commitment to dispose of surplus weapons plutonium in a manner that results in the safe, affordable, and carbon-free generation of electricity for the benefit of American public.  Not only will the fuel produced at the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility produce enough energy to power one million homes for 50 years, but the disposal of weapon-grade plutonium is a key component of President Obama’s commitment to strengthening international arms control and nonproliferation programs.  In addition, the Department of Energy has evaluated numerous approaches for disposing of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and, simply put, there is no, ‘cheaper, safer and faster alternative.’  This critical project also is important for the Southeastern region of the United States, where it will create jobs and stimulate the local economy.” –NNSA Spokesperson Jennifer Wagner

Based on the feedback from these stories, we can clearly see people have been doing better homework by checking different sources on the internet and deciding for themselves who is the more credible source.  I think Americans are also getting sick and tired of being told they cannot move forward with the most powerful clean energy source ever discovered simply because the government is too incompetent to deal with what amounts to a small warehouse of spent nuclear fuel.

 
We certainly wouldn’t use the word “incompetent,” but we agree that the U.S. government needs to step it up, particularly when it comes to approving and helping put in place a used fuel recycling program like France has successfully operated for decades now.  As we’ve talked about on multiple occasions, recycling offers a solid solution to the used nuclear fuel “problem.”

Some highlights include Hanson’s analysis of the main benefits and criticisms of recycling:

The main benefits associated with recycling are that it makes waste management easier, provides strategic flexibility and confidence for the long term, and saves natural resources and is able to burn plutonium, thereby reducing proliferation concerns.

• Makes waste management easier by reducing the volume of high level waste for disposal. “When such waste is vitrified, or specially-packed into a highly compact glass-like waste form for final storage, and added to the volume of compacted structural waste, the total volume necessary for final disposal is 75% less than the volume required if the used fuel is disposed directly in a repository.”
• This saves space in the geological repository, and “when a high-level waste repository eventually opens in the U.S., one would want to make optimal use of every cubic unit of emplacement.” The quantity of used fuel from U.S. reactors is already very large, about 60,000 metric tons. “If Yucca Mountain were to open in the next decade, the amount of fuel available for emplacement would already completely fill the repository’s legal capacity.” Even further, by extracting plutonium and uranium from the waste, it reduces the toxicity by a factor of about 90%.
• Recycling saves “15% of natural uranium resources. Recycling plutonium into mixed oxides, or MOX, fuel, allows about 12% of natural uranium savings…a total savings of at least 27% of natural uranium resources.”
• It is a means to burn plutonium, thereby, reducing proliferation concerns. “Recycling plutonium in MOX fuel consumes roughly one-third of the plutonium through single recycling and significantly alters the isotopic composition of the remaining plutonium, thus severely degrading its potential weapons attractiveness.”

Hanson also addressed the criticisms of used fuel recycling:

• On non-proliferation concerns, “the U.S. government has demonstrated an ability to prevent diversion of its weapons material, there is no reason to believe it could not prevent diversion of material recovered from used fuel by the same means. If recycling is done by a commercial entity, the government could impose its own safeguards in addition to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards to prevent diversion.”
• About the associated cost, Hanson highlighted the Boston Consulting Group Study from 2006 which the economics of “once-through” and recycling are comparable within a 10% difference, attributed to the increasing cost of uranium, high total life-cycle costs of a geological repository, and the significant cost savings created by the 2,500 metric tons capacity of the recycling facility.
• Concerning the volume of waste generated, he explained that there are “two streams classified according to their ultimate disposal pathway: surface disposal and underground, or geologic, disposal, the latter being order of magnitude more complex, more expensive, and more sensitive to implement.” Comparing the volume of material (high level waste) for underground disposal, reduced by at least 75%, the projected increase for low-level waste, disposed in near-surface facilities, would amount to “only 2.5% of the volume of such waste disposed annually in the U.S.”

Importantly for the future, Hanson stated firmly that “it is time for America to regain global leadership” and “a used fuel recycling facility should be built in the U.S. Britain, France, China, Japan, and Russia have already built or are developing recycling capabilities. America was the first to develop this technology, we were the first to send a man to the moon, and it is time for America to take the lead again.”

“Nuclear energy is an essential part of our energy mix…it provides clean baseload generation of electricity” – Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Wednesday, March 11

Energy Secretary Steven Chu (photo courtesy Obama-Biden Transition Team)

Energy Secretary Steven Chu agreed with assertions from both Democrats and Republicans that nuclear energy should be a continuing part of the U.S. clean energy mix. He said he is prepared to act on the DOE loan guarantees for new reactors and encouraged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to move forward on licensing new plants. He reiterated the Administration’s position published in the budget outline that Yucca Mountain is not a workable solution. However, he also admitted that a long-term used-fuel strategy is the obligation of the federal government and that he will convene a blue ribbon panel to study the issue this year. He added that closing the fuel cycle should be studied as part of that strategy.

Though people who follow the debate over used nuclear fuel are well aware of the benefits of recycling, we’ve found that many in the general public don’t even know that it’s an option.  There’s a lot of confusion out there about used fuel recycling – whether it’s feasible, practical, and safe.

So we’ve prepared this brief FAQ about nuclear fuel recycling and about AREVA’s innovation in this crucial part of our nuclear future.  We hope you’ll find it useful.  Please be sure to post any other questions you might have about recycling in the comments section… we’re always looking for ways to engage in better and more fruitful dialogues about nuclear fuel recycling.

Why should the US recycle used nuclear fuel?

First and foremost, here in the U.S., that is a decision that has to be made by the government – taking into account its own policy determinations and the needs of U.S. utilities.  Nevertheless, we think that recycling is an economically, environmentally and socially responsible approach.  Here’s why:

1. As with other materials, used fuel recycling is an effective process for optimizing the use of energy.
   In the U.S.:
   • 2,000 tons of used fuel are unloaded on average each year by U.S. 
     reactors.
   • 58,000 tons of used fuel are stored on reactor sites and require  management for the foreseeable future.
   • Recycling 54,000 tons of used fuel would provide enough fuel to run all US reactors for 7 years.
2. Recycling fosters energy independence and contributes to the energy security of the U.S.  According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the demand for electricity is expected to increase significantly over the coming decades.  Fuel recovery decreases the need to import raw materials.
3. Recycling reduces the need for new uranium by 25%.  Fuel recovery helps the environment by reducing mining.
4. Recycling is a competitive solution compared to a once-through approach in which used fuel is stored for a period of time and then disposed in a geologic repository.

   Recycling accounts for just a few percent of the cost of one kilowatt-hour produced. In the U.S., a recent study carried out by the Boston Consulting Group revealed that the cost of including a recycling component to the repository program would produce life cycle costs comparable to a once-through repository strategy. Moreover, the price increases for uranium that have been experienced over the last year make recycling even more cost competitive and raw material recovery an increasingly interesting prospect.

   AREVA has already treated more than 22,000 tons of used fuel from several countries. That means that recycling costs are well known. This is not the case with the once-through approach, for which there is no existing industrial facility at this time, making it difficult to forecast the ultimate cost.

   As a reminder… the objective of BCG’s study was to review the economics of the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle and, in particular, a fuel cycle which includes developing a recycling component in the US using a technology consistent with America’s nonproliferation objectives.

5. Recycling makes the management of used nuclear fuel an easier task.
   • It reduces long-term radiotoxicity in the repository by a factor of 10.
   • It reduces the volume of waste by a factor of at least four.
   • It integrates the most difficult wastes into durable, manageable glass form.
6. Recycling postpones or eliminates the need for additional civilian repository capacity.

   In the US today, the first national repository is limited by statute to a maximum capacity of 63,000 metric tons of civilian used nuclear fuel. The total volume of used fuel to be generated in the country by 2100 is expected to significantly exceed the statutory capacity. Implementation of recycling will postpone or eliminate the need for siting, funding, and constructing additional geological repositories.

7. Recycling contributes to reduction of used fuel inventories at reactor sites. It eliminates the need for additional investments in interim storage capacity.

What role could AREVA play in the future of U.S. spent fuel recycling?

Currently, AREVA and its team of US and Japanese industry leaders are under contract with DOE to explore the commercial viability of used nuclear fuel recycling and advanced recycling reactors in the U.S.

AREVA operates the largest and most successful used fuel treatment and recycling plants in the world, with the La Hague and Melox plants. Today, we have  commercially-available technology that can be implemented in the near future.

Is a repository needed with recycling?

With or without recycling, a geological repository is necessary to receive unusable radioactive materials (fission products which are not recyclable) for final disposal. However, with recycling, the volume and toxicity of this waste would be significantly reduced, saving the need for additional repositories.

What affects the decision-making process about used fuel in the US?

Dealing with used nuclear fuel is more of a public confidence issue than a technical issue.  It’s often demonized because of a lack of knowledge.  Recycling used nuclear fuel is an industrial solution available today. It’s based on existing and proven technologies, which provide assurance of the highest levels of safety and security. It is manageable and managed.

We hope these answers have been useful to you… if you have any additional questions or comments, we’d love to answer them!  Please leave them in the comment box below.

Yucca Mountain

During a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing yesterday, the discussion of the future of the Yucca Mountain project raised the possibility of recycling nuclear fuel as part of the nation’s used fuel management strategy.

Recycling nuclear fuel would enable us to reduce the volume of material for disposal by a factor of at least four and reduce toxicity by a factor 10 (based on experience in France). It also turns the most difficult waste into a vitrified form (glass logs) that is more stable, durable and manageable for long-term storage in a repository. If recycled, the 60,000 metric tons of used fuel stored at nuclear plant sites could provide enough fuel to power America’s 104 nuclear reactors for seven to eight years.

If the U.S. turns to recycling we could defer having to find and build a second or third repository, perhaps forever. Recycling would postpone or eliminate the need for additional repository capacity. There’s no doubt that locating a geological repositories requires some level of acceptance by the local community. But this task would be made easier if you can limit its size and avoid having to build multiple repositories.

AREVA has recycled used fuel in France for customers in Europe and Japan for several decades and continues to do so today. This technology is safe, mature and cost effective. In the United States, we recycle glass, aluminum and paper; why not recycle nuclear fuel? In addition to the reduction in the amount of waste we must dispose, we would also conserve the amount of new uranium that we must use. Facing the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide, this is important to consider in terms of U.S. energy security as well.

In the end, we believe that recycling is just common sense.