UK moves a step closer to nuclear waste solution

Something potentially rather interesting is happening deep within the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the branch of the UK government responsible for dealing with nuclear waste overall and the country’s 100-tonne plutonium stockpile in particular.

For several years now the wheels of policy been grinding towards a ‘solution’ to the plutonium issue apparently designed to please Areva, the French state-owned nuclear conglomerate which is responsible for the EPR reactor design and is also heavily invested in MOX – ‘mixed oxide fuel’, where plutonium and uranium are blended together into fuel rods for re-use in civil nuclear plants.

Areva has put tens of billions into MOX capability. The problem is, however, as the NDA is clearly now beginning to realise, that MOX is the worst of all possible options for plutonium management. Why? Because it is diabolically expensive, creating a difficult-to-handle fuel that you have to pay utilities to burn. And perhaps worse, it doesn’t even get rid of plutonium – after a full MOX cycle, you in fact end up with more plutonium than you started with because new plutonium isotopes are created from irradiated uranium-238.

So why should the UK government fork out countless tens of billions for this white elephant? It is instructive to note that Areva’s MOX plant under construction in the US at Savannah River, South Caroline is already nine times over budget whilst still being little more than a giant hole in the ground (the cost has gone from $0.5 billion to $5 billion and counting). No-one wants MOX in their reactors, because it is far more expensive than virgin uranium fuel and has to be handled with massively increased security due to the presence of plutonium.

The fact that there are no customers for MOX is unintentionally highlighted in the UK’s latest missive from the NDA which suggests that Japan might be both a customer for MOX fuel, and a co-investor in any fabrication plant. At the moment, it looks like a better business bet would be to try to sell MOX to the Martians – Japan is in the process of (ill-advisedly, in my opinion) shutting down its entire nuclear programme due to the political backlash from the Fukushima accident, and is hardly likely to cough up for a huge offshore investment like this.

The idea of renewed Japanese largesse is especially ludicrous given that the existing Sellafield MOX Plant was closed last year largely because Japan cancelled all its orders following the tsunami disaster. This recent history also begs the rather obvious question: why, having just closed a billion-pound, loss-making MOX plant – following the exit of its one remaining customer – would you want to go and straightaway build a new one?

Luckily the civil servants at the NDA, and their cousins over at DECC, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, are not stupid. They know a MOX plant will never actually be built, and that Areva has wasted billions already on what is essentially obsolete technology. That’s bad for Areva, and therefore the French taxpayer, but isn’t our problem. Hence the very intriguing spin put on the NDA statement, which is that the authority is “seeking proposals on potential alternative approaches for managing the UK’s plutonium stocks” even as it simultaneously “progresses its preferred policy of converting the material into mixed oxide fuel”.

In other words, the NDA is looking for a way out of the MOX dead-end before the policy process grinds so far forward that they find themselves too politically committed. No doubt Areva is knocking loudly on the NDA’s door and vociferously lobbying anyone who will listen, but the fact this they have backed the wrong horse and will lose big-time – because there is a far better option already on the table. That – as this World Nuclear News piece suggests – is GE’s PRISM fast reactor concept.

Last month I had a meeting with some of GE’s top people, including the chief engineer for the PRISM – and I have to say I found their strategy highly compelling. The PRISM is a metal-fuelled fast reactor cooled by molten sodium. It operates at atmospheric pressure – meaning no expensive pressure vessel – and the characteristics of the fuel and the molten-sodium coolant (which conducts heat away from the core 90 times more effectively than water) make it fully passively-safe. (An early version, called the Experimental Breeder Reactor, was subjected to a loss-of-coolant flow experiment in 1986 – it duly shut itself down with no outside intervention.)

Perhaps more importantly, fast reactors can burn up all the energy in the uranium and plutonium fuel, whilst utilising MOX only increases the energy use from 0.6% to 0.8%. Because of this, as the Guardian recently reported, if all the UK’s spent fuel, depleted uranium and plutonium stockpiles are combined, they include enough energy to run the country for 500 years at current electricity use rates – without the need to mine another scrap of uranium, and without the emission of a single tonne of CO2. (Greenpeace is vociferously opposed, despite its supposed great concern for global warming, no doubt because a solution to nuclear waste leaves it high and dry after 35 years of misguided anti-nuclear activism.)

Areva’s submission to the NDA’s original plutonium consultation asserted that fast reactors are not an option until 2040 or later. However GE’s executives told me that they could get one up and running in 5 years – the PRISM is fully proven in engineering terms and basically ready to go. Nor will the UK taxpayer be asked to fund upfront capital costs – instead the proposal is for the NDA to pay a fixed price per kg of plutonium dealt with, whilst the PRISM plant will also generate a return by selling commercial electricity. (1 PRISM block has a rated capacity of 600 megawatts.) The risk of going over-budget – always a concern for first-of-a-kind projects – remains with GE.

Making plutonium unusable for bombs is only part of the deal, and not even the best part. (It is actually already unusable for bomb, because of different plutonium isotopes like pu-240, which make it non-weapons grade, so this entire thing is a political rather than a technical concern anyway.) For me, the most compelling reason to look seriously at the PRISM is that it can burn all the long-lived actinides in spent nuclear fuel, leaving only fission products with a roughly 300-year radioactive lifetime. This puts a very different spin on the eventual need for a geological repository – instead of something that will be designed to safeguard radioactive material for a million years (technically a very improbable idea), safeguarding waste for 300 years is a very different, and much less challenging, proposition.

The PRISM is not going to be a shoo-in, however. Politically the term ‘fast reactor’ reminds British people – and the government – of Dounreay, a fast reactor built in Scotland that operated as a prototype for many years but has had problems with waste management and decommissioning. Dounreay, however, whilst it was sodium-cooled, did not share many of the PRISM’s key engineering advances – in particular the pool versus loop coolant design, and metal versus oxide fuel. (Metal fuel expands if it overheats, shutting off the fission reaction and making a meltdown physically implausible.)

So don’t expect the PRISM to be selected as a preferred technology just yet. GE has a lot of work to do to convince the NDA and other stakeholders that the metal-fuelled fast reactor is a serious, and commercially-viable proposition. But I think the NDA’s latest statement is another nail in the coffin of MOX – and that has to be a good thing.

18 comments

  1. George S. Stanford says:

    Mark:
    IMHO, you’re right on the money, in all respects. Pity that Areva has such a stake in such an expensive inefficient dead-end technology.
    G. S. Stanford
    Reactor physicist, retired

  2. Colin Megson says:

    A Thorium Fuelled Molten Salt Reactor can be configured to also burn the transuranics – safely – it would take a piddling £300 million to get the first-of-a-kind built.

    Best UK news yet for Thorium advocates! Do your bit to help: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/2012/03/all-party-parliamentary-group-appg-on.html

    • Siôn Eurfyl Jones says:

      Thorium keeps bumping into the ‘if it seems too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true’ argument. People, usually with deep vested interests in existing technology, always cite ‘ issues and concerns’ but are never able to articulate those in any convincing way. So in the case of Thorium, it really does seem to be true!

  3. Atomikrabbit says:

    Fast reactors like PRISM or IFR (or LFTR, or Areva’s ANTARES) are certainly a better idea than MOX, if farther away in the development cycle, but MOX fuel fabricated from reprocessed LWR fuel does not have ”to be handled with massively increased security due to the presence of plutonium”.

    This is because of the presence of the same Pu-240 and other unsuitable (for the bomb maker) isotopes, and the dilute percentage of Pu (only about 7%) in the fuel mixture.

    If GE can get a successful PRISM going in 5 years it will serve to jumpstart the nuclear renaissance into Generation IV designs much faster than many think possible, and thoroughly dishearten the likes of Greenpeace, because it will solve all the problems they have grown rich complaining about.

  4. Meanwhile, the Guardian also reported yesterday 72 percent opposed to new nuclear “in their area”, 61 percent of which are “strongly opposed”.

  5. Gidon Gerber says:

    Could the PRISM reactor also run on plutonium from decomissioned nuclear weapons?

  6. Proteos says:

    I find it is no good to argue that moxing leaves more plutonium in the end than in the beginning. If used in a (nearly) closed uranium cycle, fast reactors consume no plutonium in fact. The point is to use plutonium as a resource, and stop considering it as waste. The fact that fast reactors could use plutonium for many cycles is the true selling point compared to mox which only one through (but can be reused afterwards in fast reactors).

    The huge selling point is the fact that GE seems to be willing to bear the financial risks. Competitors may have to offer something similar if they wish to be chosen. However, that would depend on how much GE wants to be paid for each kg of plutonium.

  7. Ray Hunter says:

    I am the former Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Dept. of Energy. Based on the science and engineering development efforts and the operations of EBR-II at the Argonne National Laboratory, DOE decided in 1986 to baseline future development of the sodium cooled fast reactor on metal fuel and pyroprocessing. While billions had been spent on mixed oxide and aqueous reprocessing including construction and operations of the FFTF, it was clear that metal fuel and pyroprocessing provided the safest, most economic and only path forward to deal with the LWR spent fuel issue. The PRISM is the American design resulting from the 1986 DOE decision. I am more convinced today we made the right decision and the PRISM is readly doable and the best option to meet the needs of the UK NDA.

    • Enrico Petrucco says:

      Dear Sir,
      While I respect your opinion and authority I have greater respect for the opnion and authority of Alvin Weinberg and it seems that there is information that may refute some of your statements. Certainly, using liquid sodium as a coolant poses considerably different dangers to pressurised water. At ORNL the initial development work on LFTR designs would suggest that not only is it a prefered technology in safety terms, but it may in fact be superior in every possible sense. The only purpose for operating a fast breeder preferentially to a LFTR would be to generate material for making new nuclear bombs. Civilian nuclear power should be completely disconnected from military purposes.
      As of March 1st, an All Party Partiamentary Group (APPG) has been formed on Thorium Energy in the UK. It is certain that it will draw the conclusions that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the potential to lead civilian power requirements and could simultanously be used to aid the decommissioning of old nuclear bombs as well as provide only minimal opportunity to create more bombs. That is not the case with fast breeders. It is now abundantly clear that using Thorium as a nuclear power feedstock is significantly more intelligent than continuing on any other path with regard to fission technology.
      China will soon have a demonstration LFTR and the rest of the world would be intelligent to consider pursuing a similar nuclear roadmap.

    • Joel Riddle says:

      Enrico, I am a big fan of the promise held by the LFTR and using thorium as a fuel and am a native of East Tennessee near Oak Ridge, where the Molten Salt Reactor work was completed long before I was born.

      That said, the IFR and LFTR can both hold a place in the future energy mix. The LFTR will not be capable of burning up the transuranics present in our existing partially-used fuel. Utilizing the IFR to disposition those transuranics and lessening the time that “spent” fuel is “hot” would be a much more elegant solution than trying to bury all that alleged “waste” and could well prove to be quite economic. If proven economic, IFRs of some form could hold a place in the primary energy mix, even if LFTRs are madly successful. I don’t think it is an either/or situation.

    • Enrico Petrucco says:

      LFTRs could handle the reduction in UK Plutonium stocks while providing economically favourable nuclear waste processing facilities which would reduce storage requirements.
      I do not see a satisfactory solution to Xenon evolution in solid fuel of LWRs or IFRs without undesirably excessive fuel reprocessing.
      The reasoning for government funding/support of the development of IFRs over LFTR designs can be best rationalised with an intention to secure production of weapons grade Plutonium – not a civilian objective and directly opposed to the purpose of reducing current Plutonium stocks.

  8. R Horn says:

    I do hope you’re right and that this potentially liberating technology becomes usable.
    What a fantastic possibility.

    I think you’re somewhat unfair on Greenpeace though.
    “…no doubt because a solution to nuclear waste leaves it high and dry after 35 years of misguided anti-nuclear activism.”
    Um, no, because they are genuinely concerned about nuclear tech, and because there are yet serious questions to be answered, and because there are other options on the table.

    • A Loyd says:

      There is 1000 nuclear reactors worldwide.

      Solar has already killed more people than nuclear. Greenpeace are a crock generating money from hush money.

  9. The most useful thing I’ve learned from accountants is the idea of ‘sunk costs’. It doesn’t matter how many billions Arvea have spent. If PRISM is more cost effective in the future then all past expenditures on other systems are irrelevant.

  10. “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” means that satisfying every possible objection means waiting (and burning coal in the meantime). Calculations should take the carbon costs of delay into account. There is a point of diminishing returns when perfecting any technology. The zero risk airplane, car and even easy chair exist only in imagination. The Marianas Trench would work just fine to dispose of nuclear waste — let’s stop being so precious while we spew burnt coal into the atmosphere.

    Just a note: anyone who makes his living as a professional “environmentalist,” isn’t one. Too much conflict of interest and personal benefit from preserving the status quo.

Post a comment