Nuclear testing: The Idaho National Laboratory’s Experimental Breeder Reactor, a sodium-cooled nuclear reactor decommissioned in 1994, was a predecessor of a new design from GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.
Idaho National Laboratory
The maker of nuclear power plants is promoting a process to use the waste as fuel.
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, one of the world's biggest providers of nuclear reactors, says it has an alternative to burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the proposed waste repository that the Obama administration has said is now "off the table." Based in Wilmington, NC, GE Hitachi wants to use nuclear waste as a fuel for advanced nuclear power plants, significantly reducing the volume of waste and the length of time that most of the waste needs to be stored.
National labs in the United States and GE have been developing the technology over the course of a few decades, but in recent years the company "put it on the shelf" because of a lack of U.S. interest in reusing nuclear waste, says Eric Loewen, chief consulting engineer for advanced plants at GE Hitachi. The technology involves separating nuclear waste into different types of useable fuel, some of which can power conventional nuclear power plants, and some of which require advanced "fast neutron" reactors, which are being used in power plants elsewhere but not in the United States.
The company hopes a new blue-ribbon panel appointed by the Obama administration to find a new nuclear-waste solution will recommend the use of their system. Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy, has expressed support for different kinds of nuclear reactors, and for considering the possibility of reprocessing nuclear waste. In recent weeks, the Obama administration has signaled increased support for nuclear power, including the announcement yesterday of the first loan guarantee for new nuclear reactors in the United States.
Current U.S. nuclear power plants are only able to harness as little as 5 percent of the energy in nuclear fuel. Some countries, such as France, use other processes to extract useable nuclear fuel from nuclear waste, but these processes have been criticized, in part because they produce pure plutonium, which could be stolen and used to make nuclear weapons.
GE Hitachi's proposed process would produce fuel that would be more difficult to steal. It separates nuclear waste into three basic groups of materials. The first group consists of the products of fission that can't be used as fuel in nuclear reactors--these will need to be stored, but only for a few hundred years, rather than the tens of thousands of years that other nuclear-waste materials need to be stored. The second group is uranium, which contains too little fissile material to be used in U.S. nuclear reactors, but does contain enough for a type of reactor used in Canada. (Canada's deuterium uranium reactors use deuterium oxide, or heavy water, instead of the light water used in the U.S.. Light-water reactors require enriched uranium.)
The new technology could reduce capital costs and improve safety.
Merkel's plan to exchange nuclear reactors for offshore wind farms and a stronger grid could cost more than expected.
Capturing Nuclear Waste's Energy Content
The Canadian reactors mentioned in the article use heavy water as the moderator and are called CANDU reactors (as in CANadian DeUterium Oxide Reactor) - a name that evokes an earlier era when people had more confidence in nuclear technology. Today we’ve become much more careful about our use of technology, which is a good thing, unless we carry it to the point of “paralysis by analysis”. I'm thinking, of course, about the hundreds of millions of dollars and countless person-hours spent on the attempts (futile so far) by Canada and the United Stated to find long-term storage by deep burial. I hope we'll have the confidence to implement technologies such as the one described in the article.
Re: Capturing Nuclear Waste's Energy Content
It's $13 billion in the US alone for research and development of the Yucca Mountain site, recently canceled I might add.
I find the timing of this announcement interesting
One wonders if the Obama Administration was approached and promised future campaign largesse if they cooperated in making TAXPAYER dough available for an energy form that is far from clean, and "affordable" only with HUGE government subsidies.
Do the reading on what the French People think about Nuclear Power. It's not the answer.
Why aren't we spending this dough on real clean energy solutions? That's what We, The People, wanna know.
Re: I find the timing of this announcement interesting
bj -
Most of our "TAXPAYER dough" is tied up securing middle eastern oil at the cost of a million buckeroo's per soldier (feds costs - not mine).
We need an Middle Eastern Exit Strategy that takes these costs into account when dealing with new ideas and solutions. Nukes are not necessarily new solutions, but the newer generations make it safer overall.
Scale back the military deployments by 20% per year, redirect the TAXPAYER dough to other new domestic energy solutions. Essentially make this a UN issue, not a US issue. It's only "ours" if we intend to continue making it ours directly.
To offset the loss of US military personnel, "invite" China and other nations to the frey to give the radicals something else to think about for a change.
Afterall - China invested $3 Billion to gain a foot hold in Afghanistan and develop Oil Fields there - yet have ZERO foot soldiers on the ground protecting their investment. The US is covering their A$$ (pun intended on $$).
The cost of any and all nuclear waste storage needs to be added, up front, to the cost of the energy sold to the consumer. That means disposal and top grade security protection of the waste for thousands of years. Of course they can't guarantee this, so the point is moot. We need to use safe sources of power such as newly found, and abundant, natural gas.
Re: Cost to the Nuclear Industry
It has, and currently is. Your taxes are not going to fund Yucca mountain, or reprocessing facilities, that money comes from the nuclear facility. The fund has collected about $25 billion over the years, $9 billion has been spent on Yucca mountain so far leaving $16 billion to fund projects such as these.
Re: Cost to the Nuclear Industry
Yeah just like the environmental costs of coal, the national security related costs of petroleum, the endangered species cost of hydro-power, and the tax subsidies of renewable energy...
Molten sodium reactors will explode and the sodium will react with air if terrorists or sabateurs crack open the pipes supplying the reactor. Terrosists might fly multiple jets into a nuclear plant causing radiation releases the size of chernobyl's Those graphite coated nuclear fuel pellets that are supposed ot be foolproff will burn and explode if they are exposed to air in an accident. NASA said that the graphite composites under the ceramic tiles on the space shuttle were safe and they caught fire and exploded on two shuttles! Dont let proponenets tell you the new designs are safe. They are not. The logic behind statements that materials 1000 times more radioactive cannot be used by terrorists is stupid. Whatever means the utilities will use to handle it will be stolen and used by terrorists.
allow me to direct you to this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745#
Needless to say, if someone has the hardware and the opportunity to destroy the containment dome you have much bigger problems on your hands.
I believe that the molten sodium technology is years away. However, the separation technologies are quite well developed. Short term implementation of some form of the UREX process could greatly reduce the volume of nuclear waste and at least get us on a proper path: recycling the spent uranium fuel to the separation process, storing the other actinides and dealing with the fission products. Pushing breeder rectors as the first step will only serve to delay what should be a great benefit.
Wasn't this corrosive characteristic featured in one of Tom Clancy's plots 20 years ago?
I seem to recall something about him combining the Soviet use of advanced reactor technology with their less than stellar safety discipline (no Hyman Rickover culture there) to sink one of their nuc boats.
Not to slight the US Navy trained nuc engineers throughout the industry - but the utility corporations themselves have neither the culture nor the aggressive regulator required to run such technology safely - just look at Davis Bessy
http://corrosion-doctors.org/NuclearIndustry/nuclear-accident-2.htm&ei=6vKDS7aQGM2OtgeU2q3vAg&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&ved=0CAYQhgIwAA&usg=AFQjCNEFQ6p9hZxtv56cv9ri7gitTy4NoQ
What they should focus their time and money on instead are Thorium reactors, proven to be much safer, leave less waste, and are a more bountiful resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
@SafetyHelmet: Another good resource for exploring reactor designs that uses the Thorium/Uranium fuel cycle instead of the Uranium/Plutonium fuel cycle is the website Energy From Thorium, as well as Pebble Bed Advanced High Temperature Reactor.
Regarding the Thorium nuclear fuel cycle, it is very necessary to consider the nuclear physics properties of Thorium:
The only naturally occuring isotope of Thorium is Th232.
The neutron cross section data for fission and capture in Th232 show that Th232 is a net neutron absorber at all neutron energies of practical interest. Thus, a nuclear reactor fueled with Thorium alone would not be capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction. Some other fissile material would have to be added to the core material to sustain the chain reaction. The fissile material would have to be one of the following isotopes: U233, U235, or Pu239. So we really are back to a reactor that is fueled by todays conventional fuels. Either Uranium or Plutonium will be the primary fissile fuel for the reaction. Thorium would simply be a fertile fuel used for the production of U233.
Of greater concern is the following: When Th232 captures a neutron, it becomes Th233, which quickly beta decays to become Pa233. Pa233 beta decays with a half-life of about 29 days to become U233. U233 produces more neutrons per fission than does Pu239 (about 3 times as many) so more neutrons are available to carry on the nuclear reaction. Thus U233 is an even better bomb material than is Plutonium.
If a portion of the fuel from a fluidized bed Thorium reactor could be diverted to a location outside the reactor, a simple chemical separation process could be used to separate the Pa233 from the fuel. If the Pa233 were then simply set on a shelf somewhere for 29 days, half of it would beta decay to produce isotopically pure U233, which would then be available to make a bomb.
In short, anti-nuclear forces that are opposed to the use of Plutonium as a reactor fuel are going to completely hate the use of Thorium.
All is not lost however in the world of nuclear fuels. Advanced fuels studies, including Thorium fuels, performed years ago have suggested that reactor waste products such as Pu238 could be used to isotopically "spike" Pu239 fuels such that 1) an attempt to build a bomb with the material would either melt the bomb down before it built up enough neutrons to have a high-yield detonation, or 2) the bomb would pre-detonate at very low yields due to spontaneous fission neutron production in the Pu238. In other words a terrorist bomb would destroy itself before building up enough power to destroy anything else. Also, because this would be an isotopic spiking, a simple chemical separations process would be incapable of separating the Pu238 spiking agent from the fissile Pu239.
In my personal opinion it is time to revisit the concepts of waste actinide (mainly Neptunium, Plutonium, Americium, and Curium) recycle as a great nuclear fuel, and plutonium spiking as a great nuclear weapons deterrent. These studies were performed in the late 70's and early 80's at General Electrics Advanced Reactor Systems Department in Sunnyvale, California. It looks to me as if the current PRISM concept is a natural follow-on to that work, and I applaude it.
Nuclear Power Plant Announcement
Some minds ponder on strategic
timeline announcement by President
Obama of new nuclear energy generating
plant to be located in Georgia.
This is no suprise to me, but instead,
considered as overdue.
A 2-day conference on clean energy
technologies and innovations funding
is scheduled to hold near
Washington, DC,at National Harbor's
Gaylord Hotel,the first week of March,
2010.
In attendance for the conference, are
not only, 'heavy weights' in the field,
but powerful political henchmen and
women in Obama's administration.
Thus, the announcement seems to be
congruant with, both, timeliness and
objectives of the March,2010, conference
on clean energy technologies funding.
As welcome as the Presidential announcement
was made public, main concern,should rather
shift to strategic location that
reflect equitable population
benefits, human handling, storage
and security.
Afterall, derivative benefits of clean
energy to society and humanity overshadow
political maneuvers associable with the initiative,especially,
as energy remains the backbone
that holds and propels every
national economy.
Good move, Mr Obama !!, Sound initiative!!
Ride on with my support!!
Martin Atayo
Washington, DC
Thanks for the catch honzik. I changed the sentence.
Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor
Liquid Floride Reactor design was developed in the 1970 at the Oakridge Labs. It worked really well, is intrinsically safe, uses about 80% of its fuel, is fantasticly well documented and uses no fuel rods!
This *IS* the design that should be revisited asap. Look at the google tech talk links and tell me I am wrong.
GE Hitachi's Answer to Nuclear Waste
I am an advocate of Thorium technology, but having said that, why don,t we use a hybrid system of the best technologies where we end up with the least nasty amount of toxic waste.
Unfortunately we have the male syndrome,"Mine is bigger and better than yours."
With a hybrid system you could have two different systems side by side so the outcome is one of the least toxic waste.
Another alternative is to install fuel cells in every home.
By doing that you cut down the enormous transmission losses that occur by having large, scattered, power generating infrastructure around the country all linked by high loss power lines.
How many fuel cells could you provide at the cost of one nuclear power generating plant?
Re: GE Hitachi's Answer to Nuclear Waste
Fuel cells are a great technology. They certainly should have a place in any solution. However, they ultimately use fossil fuel and high quality fossile fuel like hydrogen, methanol or, potentially, methane. They are not tolerant of many typical fuel contaminants. Again, they do certainly have a place, probably even in the near term.
Re: GE Hitachi's Answer to Nuclear Waste
You consider 6-7% an 'enormous' loss?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=tr10&id=22114
The above link covers a possible alternative to today's reactor problem. You can also do a search on "Traveling Wave Reactors" for the physics behind the idea.
Unfortunately I am of the age where in 12-20yrs I will be no longer a participant in the equation and I can't wait that long for the commercialisation of the traveling wave reactor.
Hence my needs are more immediate and that is why the ceramic fuel cell appeals to my needs.
I do have a solar grid tie system but my lousy state government only has a nett feed in tariff.
"All hail to big coal generation," they say as they receive their big election funding cheque from the coal industry.
If you are interested in ceramic fuel cells go to the following link, http://www.cfcl.com.au
The solid oxide fuel cell can use methane. It does run pretty hot so you have to have a use for the waste heat (at least 1/3 of the output) for it to really make sense. It would be interesting to know just what the fuel quality limits are. Clearly the gas conditioning unit has to remove sulphur to some fairly low level. Is it cost competitive yet or does it still need large government subsidy (e.g. tax credit)?
The SOFC fuel cell come in two models, power generation only and power generation plus micro CHP system.
The fore mentioned link in previous comment gives a lot of information.
The SOFC fuel cells will be sold to the likes of Germany and the United States where there is a form of government subsidy for using natural gas.
Unfortunately the Australian government doesn't have such a subsidy.
The Australian government did supply a percentage of dollars to the company for the R@D of the system.
The company is listed on the Australian stock exchange
If it would be allowed I’d like to ask some questions.
1. Are there any accounts of quantity of wastes for burying during 5, 10, 50, 100 years?
2. Does anybody think about burying nuclear wastes out of the Earth?
3. Moreover, what about utilizing them in the space plants?
4. What problems are there to solve for relevant processes?
Thank you
I still can't fathom why we use this just to heat water to turn a generator. Is there a way to directly turn fusion into electricity without turning fuel into kryptonite? Lead shielding causes brain damage too. Couldn't we geothermal a volcano or something?
It's interesting but scary.
Thak you for your reaction but it's no answer to every of my questions. I'm awaiting for similar manner of thinking. It's no late to turn out of the Earth where all the resources are going to exhaust
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
sndream
13 Comments
Real problem
The real problem is transportation between separation site and the power plant. I am not sure whether it's feasible for each power plant to have its own dedicated separation facility.
But I don't see any additional security risk for US since they already have plies of plutonium for their nuclear weapon.
Reply
Kevin Bullis
177 Comments
Re: Real problem
The plan is to co-locate the separation facilities and the sodium reactors, which would solve this problem.
Reply
B Mused
3 Comments
Re: Real problem
Just what aspect of transportation do you see as "the real problem?" That it can't be done? It has been done for over 30 years. That it is "unsafe?" See a report called "Going the Distance" by the National Research Council in 2006.
Is it because there are perceptions of risk among a generally uninformed public? That should be something that can be eased through education from objective trusted sources, like the NRC. Instead, we have had distorted exploitation by political figures of the Baltimore tunnel fire about six years ago--which did not involve nuclear material-- with great hysteria conjuring up "what if there had been nuclear waste in the fire?"
Reply