The Case for Nuclear Fuel Recycling

A little noticed item in the popular press was a study by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States.  This privately funded study concludes that large scale nuclear fuel recycling integrated with a repository such as Yucca Mountain costs about the same in the short term, but is more attractive for long-term nuclear fuel management. The following was digested from their press release and the study.

The recycling relies on existing technology ― with appropriate modifications ― and can provide an operational transition to future technology developments such as Advanced Fuel Cycles and fast reactors. The technology assumed for the study is based on that used at at AREVA’s existing European plants (La Hague and Melox).

The study reports that recycling, as part of a portfolio strategy in which an integrated treatment and recycling plant complements a repository offers specific benefits including:

• Increasing the capacity of Yucca Mountain by a factor of 4 by recycling newly discharged fuel within four years and cooling the vitrified high level waste for 25 years at the recycling facility.
• Providing a comparable cost of disposal while eliminating the need for a second repository during the 50 years of recycling plant operation.
• Creating an effective long term hedge on rising fuel costs by providing 20-25 percent of the annual nuclear fuel needs in the U.S. through recycled products.
• Reducing used fuel inventory at reactor sites in the short term by removing the newly discharged, hotter fuel for recycling.
• Eliminating the need for additional storage at reactor sites while recycling some of the older legacy fuel in dilution with new fuel.

Cost estimates of the once-through strategy at Yucca Mountain have significantly increased from initial estimates, in part because of increasingly stringent design requirements. Moreover, at the current rate of used fuel generation, additional repository capacity is likely to be needed for fuel discharged after 2035, even considering that Yucca Mountain capacity could be expanded to 120,000 tons

The recycling strategy has gained recognition through the demonstrated, long-term operational effectiveness of recycling technologies over more than 40 years of industrial experience, in combination with a higher level of confidence based on economic data from actual operations. This return of experience has also enabled some successive process and design improvements.

There are four operational treatment plants in the world: the first one at La Hague, France, operating in conjunction with the MOX fuel fabrication plant at Melox, and operated by AREVA, the second one at Sellafield, U.K., operated by British Nuclear Fuels, the third one in Ozersk, Russia, operated by the Russian government (Mayak plant), and the fourth one at Rokkasho-mura, Japan, operated by Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited1. There are currently no operational repositories for commercial used fuel, while some are currently in the development or licensing phase (e.g., Yucca Mountain, U.S., Olkiluoto, Finland).

The study was conducted for Bethesda, Maryland-based AREVA, Inc., BCG performed the first extensive study of proprietary operational and financial data from decades of AREVA's nuclear recycling experience at the La Hague and Melox facilities in France.

This study is aimed at back-end economics and does not enter into discussion of additional topics or criteria such as public acceptance, environmental or non-proliferation issues, even though BCG acknowledges their importance for decision makers as they weigh the merits of alternative choices.

AREVA is the leading U.S. nuclear vendor and a key player in the electricity transmission and distribution sector. The Boston Consulting Group Energy practice helps companies navigate an increasingly complex and uncertain business environment. 

Whether everyone approves of nuclear power or not, it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.  This report addresses one way of dealing with our nuclear waste and I thought it was worthwhile to share with you.  By my most optimistic projections it would be after 2040, more likely 2050, before renewable energy technologies could begin to produce up to 50% of our electrical needs, increasing their penetration beyond 40 to 50%, if that, is dependent on developing energy storage technologies that could deal with the intermittency of renewable sources and/or huge intercontinental grid connections to take advantage of energy production at different times in different geographical areas. In the meantime coal and nuclear will have to fill the gap. Power from nuclear plants is only slightly less than from coal plants without carbon capture but coal plants with carbon capture are considerably more expensive (see earlier post), so I foresee that both of these technologies will continue to be the mainstay of our our electrical infrastructure for a long time. If either the electric car or the fuel cell car become common, while our dependency of liquid fuels will decrease, the amount of electrical generation use of nuclear and/or coal will have to most likely increase when our off peak resources are used up, although production of hydrogen, because it is storeable, is a good candidate for production from renewable sources.

Resource: Economic Assessment of Used Nuclear Fuel Management in the United States, Boston Consulting Group, July 2006, Press release, Summary, Full Report

Comments

[amazingdrx]

Yep, let them try it at Yucca or some other remote,already contaminated site. The nuclear industry has so many contaminated sites nto choose from!

Don't allow even one more nuclear power plant anywhere else until they prove they can handle the waste with these kinds of reactors, and prove that these reactors can be operated safely and cost effectively. Generating electric power that competes without subsidies with the cost of renewable energy sources like wind, wave, and solar power.

And verify this with real open, public oversight, not industry self (no) regulation.

But only allow this to go forward if/when the nuclear and fossil fuel corporate interests agree to an end to subsidies for their industries.

This is the kind of compromise representatives of we the people would offer up were they really representing our best interests.

[john]

WOW!!!

1) You're projections for when renewables energy can run this country are way, way off. you must be one that believes there is no conservation in the mix (an efficient SSL light bulb is just one example). And you must not believe in the technologies you write about.

It would also be nice if the energy monopolies would quit stalling wind power development. It's already been proved they are using the same folks that worked for the tobacco companies who form phony front groups to stall wind power development.

The renewable energy revolution is also going to mean a re-regulation of electric utilities. The present system is broken beyond repair and the corporations that run utilities can't be depended upon to run them for national interest . That means no cap on net-metering allowing consumers independence from utility monopolies.

2) The report you site must be politically blind. As long as Harry Reid is minority leader Yucca mountain will be stalled. If he should become Majority leader, Yucca mountain will be stripped of funding and killed. And take my word for it - no other state will take nuclear waste.

3)Your cost estimates associated with nuclear power are far, far too low. You must be figuring costs in the limited way that the nuclear industry does that excludes the massive tax subsides nuclear energy recieves. $13 billion in the 2005 energy bill alone.

Why are pro-nuclear bloggers always telling us that solar or wind can't compete until it costs reach such and such a kw. But we never hear that argument about nuclear power.

The nuclear industry are somewhat like communists. they want to be the central party of enengy. They will make all your energy decisions for you and give you energy from cradle to grave - gouging you all along the way.

[Paul Dietz]

Comparing reprocessing to the storage of spent fuel at Yucca is a false dichotomy. The real strategy that will be followed is above-ground storage in sealed armored dry casks. This is significantly cheaper than either of the other two options.

Dry cask storage will be adequate until the fission products decay so much that the residual plutonium might become a proliferation risk, but this would take centuries. But even if you decide to bury or reprocess at that time (or dispose of the waste in space, or some other solution that a few centuries of technological progress would allow), the present cost is low because of discounting effect of nonzero interest rates.

[amazingdrx]

"You're projections for when renewables energy can run this country are way, way off. you must be one that believes there is no conservation in the mix"

I like this formula: 1/3 of our power from large scale wind and offshore wind/wave platforms, 1/3 from small and medium sized distributed wind and solar on rooftops and over parking lots, and 1/3 from conservation.

I think it can be proven to be possible with present technology. Solar, wind, wave, geothermal heat pumps for heating and cooling, electric plugin vehicles, superconducting energy storage could do it with mass production.

It would take an effort on the scale of WW 2 war production to make it happen though. But we are in a war and terror cycle over oil and an assault from global climate systems due to fossil fuel combustion created greenhouse gases.

This is every bit as serious an assault on human civilization as the axis powers were in WW 2.

[hendrik]

Wouldn't the process called "breeding" enable us to produce energy without actually producing waste? Which president was it that said no to breeding methods proposed? Oh yeah, Carter, a trained nuclear engineer.

[Paul Dietz]

Wouldn't the process called "breeding" enable us to produce energy without actually producing waste?

Of course not. Fission products are still produced. Also, not all the actinides get recycled in the reprocessing step. Advanced reprocessing (not yet in use) would allow as much as .1% of the actinides to remain in the waste stream; current systems do much worse.

[petropest]

I like your site. Some very detailed information.

[Energy Saving Lighting]

I would like you to look at a range of lighting products that claim to money and more importantly energy.

With UK utility bills seemingly increasing by the week anything that can be installed quickly and efficiently must be considered to reduce energy consumption.

The site is www.saveiteasy.co.uk

I look forward to a review at some stage

[Charlie Clay]

Reducing lighting bills quickly, using reliable technology can be achieved by using EasiFit T5 kits; not only is consumption reduced, and power factor increased, but maintenance of your lighting scheme is dramaticaly reduced.

The resulting savings are - cash, energy, labour & parts, and importantly with (WEEE) waste..

See www.chalmor.co.uk