It's easy to contribute articles, article proposals, commentary and analysis and be published online through Energy Central!
Sound interesting? Contact the editor for more information.
Spent Fuel is too valuable to be Nuclear Waste
'When in trouble or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.' This describes the dominant environmental activist characteristic when faced by rational science of any kind. One could also add 'And never acknowledge the facts'.
This is especially true concerning the subject of nuclear waste management or disposal of relatively trivial quantities of well-managed waste; recycling spent nuclear fuel; or even admitting that nuclear power is the most socially valuable, cost-effective, versatile, capable, safe, and environmentally friendly of all of our reasonable primary energy options. Use of nuclear power does not lead to risk of war nearly as much as our increasing reliance upon politically unstable sources of expensive oil and gas, as several of the last few wars have shown.
What is Spent Fuel?
Uranium fuel that has been in a nuclear reactor at power, typically from about 1 year (CANDU) to about 6 years (PWR, BWR) or more (marine propulsion reactors - 20+ years), and which is then discharged from the reactor core, is described as 'spent' fuel. The difficulty with this definition is that even this once-through fuel is NOT 'spent' in the true sense of the word. It is still a massive potential source of energy. 'Spent' fuel from commercial reactors still contains from 95 to 99% of unused uranium that can be and is re-cycled and re-used in some countries, but not in the U.S. although it once was. If fully utilised, each kilogram of uranium could produce 3.5 million kWh of electricity rather than about 50,000 to 250,000+ kWh(e) as at present (about 7,800 MWdays (thermal)/tonne (CANDU) to about 45,000+ MWdays(th)/tonne - PWR). However, even if not reprocessed in the short-term, the resource does not disappear or become worthless just because it has been through the reactor for only one cycle instead of many. Discarding it or managing it as ‘waste’, does not make it waste, as it is still a highly valuable resource. Whether it is recycled in the short or long-term, is immaterial, as it can be (and will be) re-cycled and re-used in the future. It is extraordinarily valuable for its unused energy content, and it doesn't suddenly disappear from society as some seem to believe or would like to see. This will happen, once the politicians recognize that they will eventually have to make some difficult decisions about energy, and with them, their likelihood of re-election if they get it wrong. This recently happened in California, and it is likely to confront Governor Schwarzenegger in short order, maybe even this coming summer, even if he can eventually turn the political steamroller around. Whether spent fuel actually gets put into the Yucca facility or not, is several years away (maybe 2015 now), and is also still very much up in the air, though few politicians would dare to admit it. Its fate can change with the stroke of a political pen or a court decision. If, through political inertia, spent fuel is placed into Yucca, it is worth taking bets as to how long it will reside there before it is recovered and re-processed in our rapidly changing, and increasingly vulnerable and politically-manipulated, energy climate. We may choose not to recycle it at this time, but our descendants are likely to view any spent fuel we might discard, as a gold-mine of energy. Leaving it out of Yucca is the best thing we could do for everyone, so I hope the various activists don't realize that their obstruction to Yucca is desirable in some ways even though their concerns and fears are more science fiction than anyone inside of our Hollywood-media entertained populace (Silkwood, China Syndrome, Mutant Ninja Turtles) might believe. The potential energy value in 'spent' nuclear fuel is 'impressive'
The use of individual fuels to produce electricity is compared in Table 1. It also shows the energy density of our common fuels along with a rough comparison of their fuel costs to produce 1 gigawatt-year (1,000 MW(e) for one year) – 8,760,000 MWh - of electricity.
At today's approximate electricity value (about $40/MWh for baseload electricity), the gross ultimate electrical value of the use of 1 tonne of various significant fuels is:
But back to uranium. It comes out of the ground, is purified, refined, converted to yellowcake, and then sells for about $29,000/tonne (about $13/pound, or about $29/kg). It is usually then enriched to become 3% to 4% U-235 fuel that costs about $200,000/tonne in the reactor (plus fabrication costs), with about 7 tonnes of uranium-238 (depleted uranium) rejected and stockpiled (Table 2). In one pass through the reactor, which takes up to about 4 to 6 years, this 1 tonne of enriched fuel produces about $10,000,000 worth of electricity, despite only about 3% of it being fissioned (used) by the time of discharge. The depleted uranium is generally regarded as relatively worthless, even though it is far from this. Now, would anyone - who claims to be rational - willingly choose to bury a refined product (spent fuel) that even after one cycle of use, still has a future potential gross electricity value of at least $130,000,000/tonne (or about 260 billion dollars for each year's worth of U.S. spent fuel) and is recyclable? It would be like junking a Mercedes after driving it for a few days. Even pure gold is worth only $14,000,000/tonne, and look how we protect and recover that. Consider these approximate figures (assuming the resources were all used to produce electricity, for ease of comparison):
This analysis could go on, and evaluate the potential energy contained in the total world estimated uranium resource at increasing resource prices (including ocean uranium), and include the thorium resource, but I think I made my point already. Any spent fuel placed into Yucca would be worth (potentially) more than all of the gold in Fort Knox (Hollywood blockbuster anyone? But I’ll be the technical advisor)! We're hording the wrong stuff folks! We should be recycling, reprocessing, and re-using this energy resource as befits a rational, technologically-advanced, energy-intensive society, so increasingly dependant upon energy imports. To neglect it (as we do with DU), or to consider putting such a massive amount of potential wealth and energy back into the ground, and to behave as though it were waste - as is still considered for spent fuel - defies logic, especially when it can be safely and easily re-cycled.
The accumulated surface-stored stockpile of DU so far (Table 2), is potentially worth (for its untapped electrical energy) about $83 trillion in the U.S. alone, or about 8 times the value of the U.S. annual economy. It is sitting around, when it could all be eventually brought back into an advanced reactor cycle as originally planned, researched and defined almost 60 years ago, and exploited to the very great benefit of everyone. Rather than do this, however, we continue to agonize and moan about uncertain and high priced oil supplies from mostly unstable suppliers abroad; the availability and supplies of natural gas; and terrify ourselves about the possible extreme environmental effects from burning coal and other fossil fuels. Surely it is also time that we began to get concerned about the socially destructive aspects of having insufficient or unaffordable energy. Go figure!
Ah well! So much for environmentalist cant about recycling everything, and being concerned about resources, sustainability, waste, pollution, energy conservation, Global Climate Change, and the environment.