Plutonium and Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Hippel, Frank N. von

doi:10.1126/science.1064667

Cited by 44 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Implementing the technologies to achieve a closed fuel cycle is, however, still controversial because of the increased cost and proliferation risk. 12 Nuclear energy is poised to play an important role in meeting the nation's future energy needs in a carbon constrained world. In order for nuclear energy to realize this potential, a sustainable solution for nuclear waste management must be found.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle

Widder

2010

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ͑SNF͒ 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle

Widder

2010

Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The environmental and geopolitical problems that are associated with nuclear power stem in part from the accumulation of the transuranics Am, Cm, Np and Pu in used nuclear fuel [1]. By limiting the production of these four elements many of the concerns that surround the future development of nuclear energy would be significantly reduced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Burnable Absorbers on Inert Matrix Fuel Performance and Transuranic Burnup in a Low Power Density Light-Water Reactor

Recktenwald

Deinert

2013

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zirconium dioxide has received particular attention as a fuel matrix because of its ability to form a solid solution with transuranic elements, natural radiation stability and desirable mechanical properties. However, zirconium dioxide has a lower coefficient of thermal conductivity than uranium dioxide and this presents an obstacle to the deployment of these fuels in commercial reactors. Here we show that axial doping of a zirconium dioxide based fuel with erbium reduces power peaking and fuel temperature. Full core simulations of a modified AP1000 core were done using MCNPX 2.7.0. The inert matrix fuel contained 15 w/o transuranics at its beginning of life and constituted 28% of the assemblies in the core. Axial doping reduced power peaking at startup by more than ~23% in the axial direction and reduced the peak to average power within the core from 1.80 to 1.44. The core was able to remain critical between refueling while running at a simulated 2000 MWth on an 18 month refueling cycle. The results show that the reactor would maintain negative core average reactivity and void coefficients during operation. This type of fuel cycle would reduce the overall production of transuranics in a pressurized water reactor by 86%.

show abstract

“…Von Hippel (2001) claimed that even with these technologies, a cessation of reprocessing will always be more proliferation resistant because plutonium can be separated from the reprocessing product with extra effort and because of the protection that highly radioactive fission products provide against material diversion. Nevertheless, it has been assumed that some nuclear cycles that include reprocessing can provide an early warning of weapon assembly intentions and can thus be employed with a high level of confidence if a robust safeguards regime is in place (Yim 2006).…”

Section: Nuclear Weapon Proliferationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear power as a climate mitigation strategy – technology and proliferation risk

Lehtveer

Hedenus

2014

Journal of Risk Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed renewed interest in nuclear power in large extent due to the need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change. Most studies of cost and feasibility of stringent climate targets that include nuclear power focus on the currently available light water reactor (LWR) technology. Since climate mitigation requires a long-term commitment, the inclusion of other nuclear technologies such as mixed oxide-fuelled LWRs and fast breeder reactors may better describe the future energy supply options. These different options also entail different nuclear weapon proliferation risks stemming from uranium enrichment or reprocessing of spent fuel. To investigate this relation, we perform a scenario analysis using the global energy transition model. Our results indicate that meeting a scenario with a 430 ppm CO 2 target for 2100 is feasible without the involvement of nuclear power; however the mitigation costs increase by around 20%. Furthermore, a lasting contribution by nuclear power to climate change mitigation can only be achieved by alternative fissile material production methods and global diffusion of nuclear technologies. This in turn bears important implications for the risk of nuclear proliferation for several reasons. First, knowledge and competence in nuclear technology becomes more accessible, leading to the risk of nuclear programmes emerging in states with weaker institutional capacity. Additionally, even if the reprocessing step in a fast breeder cycle proves to be essentially proliferation resistant, the build-up of breeder reactor systems necessitates a long transition period with large-scale use of enrichment technology and its related proliferation risks. Our study does not include the costs posed on society by nuclear accident risk and by the need to upscale safeguards and regulatory capacity to deal with increased proliferation risk.Keywords: nuclear power; energy system model; nuclear weapon proliferation Introduction Recent years have seen growing concern over the possible effects of climate change and the need for immediate action (e.g. World Bank 2012). At the same time renewed interest in nuclear power has been observed among both countries and researchers alike, which the disaster in Fukushima has not significantly curbed (Rogner 2013). The call for an expansion of nuclear power has been to a large extent motivated by the need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change (e.g. Vaillancourt et al. 2008;Bauer, Brecha, and Luderer 2012). The advantages of nuclear power that are often emphasised are its low lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and base-load power production. To compare these advantages to those of *Corresponding author. Email: mariliis.lehtveer@chalmers.se © 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The mor...

show abstract

Plutonium and Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Cited by 44 publications

References 5 publications

Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle

Benefits and concerns of a closed nuclear fuel cycle

Effect of Burnable Absorbers on Inert Matrix Fuel Performance and Transuranic Burnup in a Low Power Density Light-Water Reactor

Nuclear power as a climate mitigation strategy – technology and proliferation risk

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About