Feedback | Help | View MyArticles
jres nameplate
  • Volume/Page
  • Keyword
  • DOI
  • Citation
  • Advanced
   
 
 
 

Facebook Podcast Flickr Twitter UniPHY Group iResearch App

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy / Volume 2 / Issue 6 / COMMENTARIES

FULL-TEXT OPTIONS:

J. Renewable Sustainable Energy 2, 062801 (2010); http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3506839 (10 pages)

Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle

Sarah Widder

Energy and Environment Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Blvd., P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05, Richland, Washington 99354, USA

View MapView Map

(Received 25 February 2010; accepted 7 October 2010; published online 17 November 2010)

Nuclear power can play an important role in our energy future, helping to meet increasing electricity demand while at the same time decreasing carbon dioxide emissions. However, the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States today is unsustainable. The 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes the U.S. Department of Energy as responsible for disposing of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) generated by commercial nuclear power plants operating in a “once-through” fuel cycle in a deep geologic repository located at Yucca Mountain, NV. However, unyielding political opposition to the Yucca Mountain site has hindered the commissioning process to the extent that the current administration has recently declared the site unsuitable. In light of this, the DOE is exploring other options, including closing the fuel cycle through reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel. The possibility of closing the fuel cycle is receiving special attention because of its ability to minimize the final high level waste package by separating and isolating the most long-lived components, as well as recovering additional energy value from the original fuel. Reprocessing and recycling of SNF can decrease the volume of waste stored by a factor of 4 and reduce the timeframe of storage from hundreds of thousands of years to thousands of years. Reprocessing and recycling technologies are, however, still very controversial because of the increased cost and proliferation risk reprocessing can present. Estimates of increases in the levelized cost of electricity with reprocessing range from about 10% to 50% due to large uncertainties in the financing, construction, and licensing of a new plant. Ultimately, the U.S. will need to compare each of these fuel cycle options with respect to sustainability, proliferation risk, commercial viability, waste management, and energy security to define the future of nuclear power.

© 2010 American Institute of Physics

Article Outline

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. ONCE-THROUGH VERSUS CLOSED FUEL CYCLE
  3. ISSUES IMPACTING THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
    1. Sustainability: Resource utilization and energy security
    2. Environmental impact: Waste characteristics and disposal pathways
    3. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle and the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation
    4. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear energy’s commercial viability
  4. CONCLUSION

RELATED DATABASES

Web of Science

View this record in Web of Science

View Web of Science related articles

KEYWORDS and PACS

Keywords

nuclear fuel cycle facilities, nuclear power, radioactive waste disposal, radioactive waste processing, radioactive waste repositories, radioactive waste storage

PACS

  • 28.41.Kw

    Radioactive wastes, waste disposal

  • 28.41.Vx

    Fuel cycles

  • 89.30.Gg

    Nuclear fission power

  • 28.41.Bm

    Fuel elements, preparation, reloading, and reprocessing

ARTICLE DATA

Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3506839

PUBLICATION DATA

ISSN

1941-7012 (online)

Publisher

$abstract.society.value is a Member of CrossRef American Institute of Physics

  1. “Annual energy outlook 2009,” Energy Information Administration Report No. DOE/EIA-0383, 2009. Release date full report: March 2009.
  2. Energy Information Association, Nuclear Energy, “May 2009 monthly energy review,” Release date: 26 May 2009. U.S. Department of Energy, 6 December 2009.
  3. “Reactor license renewal,” Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 13 May 2008.
  4. Institute for 21st Century Energy, “Revisiting America's nuclear waste policy,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, May 2009.
  5. J. M. Deutch, C. D. Forsberg, A. C. Kadak, M. S. Kazimi, E. J. Moniz, J. E. Parsons, L. Pierpoint, and Y. Du, Update of the MIT 2003 Future of Nuclear Power Study (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2009).
  6. J. M. Ogden, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 24, 227 (1999).
  7. D. Knox, “Powering the nuclear renaissance: Nuclear vs. competing generation technologies,” Nuclear Innovation North America LLC.
  8. L. Alexander, “Remarks at the National Press Club on nuclear power,” 13 July 2009.
  9. Obama for America, “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: New energy for America,” Campaign Issue Statement, 2008, http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf.
  10. “Congressional Record—House, 8 March 2007, p. H2332,” United States Congress, http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2007/2007_h02332.pdf. Retrieved on 6 July 2009.
  11. A. G. Croff, L. L. Wymer, J. H. Tavlarides, J. H. Flack, and H. G. Larson, “Background, status, and issues related to the regulation of advanced spent nuclear fuel recycle facilities,” Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 2008.
  12. F. N. von Hippel, Science 293, 2397 (2001). [ISI] [MEDLINE]
  13. K. Hiruta, Fuel Cycle Initiative Conference, Presentation, 25 June 2009.
  14. “2008 Uranium marketing annual report,” Energy Information Administration, Released: 26 May 2009.
  15. R. Price and J. R. Blaise, “Nuclear fuel resources: Enough to last?,” NEA News 2002, No. 20.2, Issy-les-Moulineaux, Ranska.
  16. B. L. Cohen, Am. J. Phys. 51, 75 (1983)AJPIAS000051000001000075000001. [ISI]
  17. C. D. Ferguson, “An assessment of the proliferation risks of spent fuel reprocessing and alternative nuclear waste management strategies,” Testimony to Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development, and Demonstration Strategy Be?, 17 June 2009.
  18. C. French, “Nuclear nations rush to lock in uranium deals,” Reuters, AP, 18 June 2009.
  19. “GNEP PEIS observations,” EnergySolutions LLC. Presentation. U.S. Department of Energy, 14 February 2009.
  20. L. Price, Testimony to Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives Hearing on Advancing Technology for Nuclear Fuel Recycling: What Should Our Research, Development and Demonstration Strategy Be?, 17 June 2009.
  21. “Closing the fuel cycle,” Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, www.gnep.doe.gov, Retrieved March 2009.
  22. E. Y. Vernaz, “Nuclear waste in France: Current and future practice,” Presentation at Materials for Nuclear Waste Management at Geological Society, Burlington House. Retrieved from http://www.rsc.org/images/etienne%20%vernaz_tcm18-48267.pdf, 18 January 2006.
  23. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Waste classification,” Title 10: U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.55, 2001.
  24. D. Klein, NRC Commissioner. Interview. 30 June 2009. NRC Headquarters, Rockville, MD.
  25. “Reprocessing and nuclear terrorism,” Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/nuclear_proliferation_and_terrorism/reprocessing-and-nuclear.html. Retrieved 8 July 2009.
  26. D. E. Shropshire, K. A. Williams, E. A. Hoffman, J. D. Smith, D. J. Hebditch, J. J. Jacobson, J. D. Morton, A. M. Phillips, and J. P. Taylor, “Advanced fuel cycle economic analysis of symbiotic light-water reactor and fast burner reactor systems,” Idaho National Laboratory, DOE, January 2009.
  27. M. Bunn, “Assessing the benefits, costs, and risks of near-term reprocessing and alternatives,” Testimony for the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Appropriations, United States Senate, 14 September 2006.
  28. C. Severance, “The economics of nuclear power: Is new nuclear competitive?,” Presentation. Foundation of Nuclear Studies, 10 July 2009.
  29. M. Bunn, S. Fetter, J. P. Holdren, and B. van der Zwaan, The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2003).
  30. F. Bailey, “French operating experience in recycling used nuclear fuel,” Presentation. Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, 2009, Areva.
  31. A. Lovins and I. Sheikh, The Nuclear Illusion (Rocky Mountain Institute, Snowmass, CO 2008).
  32. M. Holt, “Nuclear waste disposal: Alternative to Yucca Mountain,” Congressional Research Service, 6 February 2009.
  33. “Yucca Mountain project: Budget and funding,” Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy, http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/budget/index.shtml, 2009. Retrieved 7 July 2009.
  34. “Safely managing spent nuclear fuel,” Nuclear Energy Institute, April 2007.
  35. P. Meier, “Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation systems and applications for climate change policy analysis,” Ph.D. thesis, Fusion Technology Institute, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 2002 (Note: Used numbers of tons CO2/GW electricity for calculation of estimated reductions).

Figures (click on thumbnails to view enlargements)

FIG.1
Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources in 2016. Reported in $2007/MW h. Data source: EIA, 2009 Annual Energy Outlook (Ref. 1).

FIG.1 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.2
Radioactivity of spent nuclear fuel and reprocessed waste as a function of time. Data source: Vernaz (Ref. 22).

FIG.2 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint

FIG.3
Total levelized cost of electricity for a once-through and two reprocessing recycling scenarios including uncertainties. Data source: Shropshire (Ref. 26).

FIG.3 Download High Resolution Image (.zip file) | Export Figure to PowerPoint



Close

Google Calendar

ADVERTISEMENT

Your Recent History Recent History Help

Recently Viewed

  1. Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle
JRSE
Copyright ©   American Institute of Physics
Rights and Permissions  |   Disclaimer   |   Subscriptions and Pricing
close