The idea of turning waste into something useful is consistently intriguing to me. Be it old batteries, solar modules, or used nuclear fuel, extracting value from items meant for disposal seems beneficial universally.
In the realm of nuclear energy, determining how to manage waste has always posed difficulties, as the materials must be handled with caution. In a recent article, I explored the implications of advanced nuclear reactors for spent fuel management. The introduction of new coolants, fuels, and operational strategies in corporate designs may necessitate certain changes.
My research also clarified another lingering question: Why does the world not recycle a greater amount of nuclear waste?
There remains a significant quantity of usable uranium in spent nuclear fuel when removed from reactors. Maximizing the use of spent fuel could reduce both waste and the requirement to extract new materials, but the procedure is expensive, complex, and not entirely effective.
Currently, France boasts the most extensive and established reprocessing initiative globally. The La Hague facility in northern France can reprocess approximately 1,700 tons of spent fuel annually.
This facility employs a method known as PUREX—spent fuel is dissolved in acid and undergoes chemical processing to extract uranium and plutonium, which are then separated. The plutonium is utilized in the production of mixed oxide (or MOX) fuel, which can either be used in a blend as fuel for conventional nuclear reactors or in its pure form in certain specialized structures. The uranium can subsequently be re-enriched and utilized in standard low-enriched uranium fuel.
Reprocessing can reduce the overall volume of high-level nuclear waste that necessitates specialized handling, according to Allison Macfarlane, director of the school of public policy and global affairs at the University of British Columbia and a former NRC chair.
However, there is a caveat. Presently, the gold standard for permanent nuclear waste disposal is a geological repository, an underground storage site. Heat, rather than volume, often serves as the major limiting factor regarding how much material can be stored in these facilities, contingent upon the specific repository. Spent MOX fuel emits considerably more heat than conventional spent fuel, Macfarlane explains. Thus, even if the volume is reduced, the material might occupy as much, or even more, space within a repository.
Creating a genuine closed loop is also complicated: The uranium produced from reprocessing is tainted with isotopes that can be challenging to separate, Macfarlane notes. Currently, France essentially conserves the uranium for potential future enrichment as a kind of strategic reserve. (Historically, some has also been sent to Russia for enrichment.) And although MOX fuel may be utilized in certain reactors, reprocessing it once it’s spent presents technical challenges. Thus, currently, the optimal scenario is that fuel could be reused twice, rather than infinitely.
“Every diligent analyst recognizes that regardless of your recycling process’s efficacy, a geological repository will ultimately be necessary,” asserts Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Reprocessing also possesses its negatives, Lyman points out. One danger stems from the plutonium generated during the process, which can be utilized in nuclear arms. France manages this risk through stringent security measures and by rapidly converting that plutonium into the MOX fuel product.
Reprocessing is furthermore quite costly, and the supply of uranium isn’t significantly constrained. “At this time, there is no economic incentive for reprocessing,” states Paul Dickman, a former Department of Energy and NRC official.
France absorbs the additional expenses associated with reprocessing primarily for political motives, he continues. The nation lacks uranium resources, relying on imports. Reprocessing aids in safeguarding its energy autonomy: “They’re inclined to pay a premium for national security.”
Japan is presently in the process of building a spent-fuel reprocessing facility, although delays have beset the initiative, which broke ground in 1993 and was initially slated to go live by 1997. The facility is now anticipated to commence operations by 2027.
Emerging technologies might enhance the appeal of reprocessing, and organizations like the Department of Energy ought to conduct extended research on advanced separation technologies, Dickman suggests. Some firms developing advanced reactors plan to implement alternative reprocessing techniques within their fuel cycles.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
