Energy Central News

Curated power industry news from thousands of top sources.

News

U.S. Must Start From Scratch With a New Nuclear Waste Strategy, a Stanford-Led Panel Says

Source: 
Targeted News Service (Press Releases)

STANFORD, California, Dec. 10 -- Stanford University issued the following news release:

* * *

- Thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel are in temporary storage in 35 states, with no permanent solution being discussed. International experts led by Stanford show how to end this status quo.

The U.S. government has worked for decades and spent tens of billions of dollars in search of a permanent resting place for the nation's nuclear waste. Some 80,000 tons of highly radioactive spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants and millions of gallons of high-level nuclear waste from defense programs are stored in pools, dry casks and large tanks at more than 75 sites throughout the country.

A Stanford University-led study recommends that the United States reset its nuclear waste program by moving responsibility for commercially generated, used nuclear fuel away from the federal government and into the hands of an independent, nonprofit, utility-owned and -funded nuclear waste management organization.

"No single group, institution or governmental organization is incentivized to find a solution," said Rod Ewing, co-director of Stanford'sCenter for International Security and Cooperation and a professor of geological sciences.

The three-year study, led by Ewing, makes a series of recommendations focused on the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The report, Reset of America's Nuclear Waste Management Strategy and Policy, was released today.

A tightening knot

Over the past four decades, the U.S. nuclear waste program has suffered from continuing changes to the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act, a slow-to-develop and changing regulatory framework. Erratic funding, significant changes in policy with changing administrations, conflicting policies from Congress and the executive branch and - most important - inadequate public engagement have also blocked any progress.

"The U.S. program is in an ever-tightening Gordian knot - the strands of which are technical, logistical, regulatory, legal, financial, social and political - all caught in a web of agreements with states and communities, regulations, court rulings and the congressional budgetary process," the report says.

The project's steering committee sought to untangle these technical, administrative and public barriers so that critical issues could be identified and overcome. They held five open meetings with some 75 internationally recognized experts, government officials, leaders of nongovernmental organizations, affected citizens and Stanford scholars as speakers.

After describing the Sisyphean history of the U.S. nuclear waste management and disposal program, the report makes recommendations all focused around a final goal: long-term disposal of highly radioactive waste in a mined, geologic repository.

"Most importantly, the United States has taken its eyes off the prize, that is, disposal of highly radioactive nuclear waste in a deep-mined geologic repository," said Allison Macfarlane, a member of the steering committee and a professor of public policy and international affairs at George Washington University. "Spent nuclear fuel stored above ground - either in pools or dry casks - is not a solution. These facilities will eventually degrade. And, if not monitored and cared for, they will contaminate our environment."

Not a new idea abroad

The new, independent, utility-owned organization would control spent fuel from the time it is removed from reactors until its final disposal in a geologic repository. This is not a new idea. Finland, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada all have adopted a similar approach - and their nuclear waste management programs are moving forward. Finland expects to receive its first spent fuel at its geologic repository on the island of Olkiluoto in the mid-2020s.

"Initially, I was skeptical about placing utilities with nuclear power plants in control of the spent fuel from commercial reactors," said Ewing. "But as we discussed the advantages of this cradle-to-grave approach, I was persuaded, particularly because this is the approach taken by other successful programs."

Essential to the success of a new organization would be access to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Reassigning responsibility to a new organization - whether controlled by the federal government or nuclear utilities - would require an act of Congress. The report recommends that the Nuclear Waste Fund, more than $40 billion, be transferred to the new organization over several decades. If the new organization successfully develops a geologic repository, this repository could also be used for highly radioactive defense waste.

"The status quo is a big liability for the future of nuclear power, an established source of carbon-free electricity," said Sally Benson, co-director of Stanford'sPrecourt Institute for Energy and a member of the report's steering committee. "These recommendations will, I hope, break the gridlock in Washington and prompt concrete action to solve this problem."

To read all stories about Stanford science, subscribe to the biweekly Stanford Science Digest.

Benson is also a professor of energy resources engineering. She and Ewing are members of Stanford'sSchool of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.

The Reset of America's Nuclear Waste Management project was funded by the Precourt Institute for Energy, the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Center for International Security and Cooperation. The meetings at George Washington University were supported by the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Discussions

Mark Silverstone's picture
Mark Silverstone on Dec 13, 2018 8:36 am GMT

I am curious to know if this approach will allow for more options for long term storage of nuclear wastes to  be discussed and investigated.  I have heard that the average reactor complex generates about 5 cubic meters of high leveI radioactive waste per year. Is that true? If so, it is not that much to consider the following:  The possibility of storing this waste at the bottom of newly drilled holes, as if it were an oil well. The target formations would have to be chosen with the purpose in mind. But I should think that the right formation - it may be anywhere from 3000 feet below surface to 10,000 feet? - would create an acceptable level of risk.  It would not be cheap. But it would be realistic.  There are risks with this, e.g. getting the stuff stuck in the hole that is not the target. But, I believe that there are mitigation measures that can reduce the risk, mostly in the selection of the location.

I would be glad to hear from about this if anyone can supply information.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Dec 13, 2018 9:44 pm GMT

The petroleum industry says the U.S. "must start from scratch" on nuclear waste, does it? Good luck with that one.

"A Stanford University-led study recommends that the United States reset its nuclear waste program by moving responsibility for commercially generated, used nuclear fuel away from the federal government and into the hands of an independent, nonprofit, utility-owned and -funded nuclear waste management organization."

Stanford's Precourt Institute, funded by fossil-fuel magnate Jay Precourt and home of its Natural Gas Initiative, has been working overtime to slow the Nuclear Renaissance by funding research on how to completely power civilization using renewables, butterfly wings, and pixie dust.

Now, a vain attempt to throw sand in nuclear's gears by re-setting, re-thinking, and re-analyzing a subject which has been settled for three decades - how to safely store spent nuclear fuel. The answer is Yucca Mountain Repository, and the only major stumbling block is an endless supply of money streaming from beneficiaries of the most profitable industry in the world - money focused on pushing nuclear energy as far into the future as possible.

After it's too late to do anything about climate change, it won't matter where the spent fuel is stored.

 

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »