Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry.

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Critique of MIT future of nuclear fuel cycle study Barry Brook


Critique of MIT future of nuclear fuel cycle study

Barry Brook
| 31 May 2011 | URL: http://wp.me/piCIJ-1dg

MIT (energy initiative) recently released a controversial and well-publicized report on the future of the nuclear fuel cycle
. In it, they argue that there is sufficient uranium to allow ongoing deployment of water-cooled reactors for many decades; they recommend that no far-reaching decision be made yet on the ultimate disposal of the 'spent' nuclear fuel so produced and suggest that research on technical solutions can be ongoing over this period, with no particular urgency. Below, on behalf of the members of the Science Council for Global Initiatives
, we present a critique of this report which focuses on its core arguments -- and their inherent weaknesses.
A printable 6-page PDF version of the critique can be downloaded here
. ------------------------

Critique of “The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study (2011)”

Developed by the Science Council for Global Initiatives
(Contact: tomsciencecouncil@gmail.com)


1. The Study recommendations on actions to deal with spent nuclear fuel and waste do not recognize the importance of the technological options to reduce the radiological toxicity, which could have great impact on waste management.
One of the main Study recommendations is:
Planning for long term interim storage of spent fuel – on the scale of a century – should be an integral part of nuclear fuel cycle design.
This recommendation is based on an implicit assumption that spent nuclear fuel is a de-facto waste form destined for ultimate disposal, and that it would take a long time to develop repositories. The Study ponders whether the spent nuclear fuel is a resource or a waste. Since the Study speculates on a large supply of low-price uranium that will continue to meet rising demand for many decades, the value of spent fuel as a resource is diminished. However, there is another dimension to this equation. The actinides contained in the spent fuel are potentially a valuable resource. They are also a long-term radiological risk, and thus must be managed accordingly. The radiological toxicity of the LWR spent fuel constituents is presented in Figure 1 below.


Figure 1. Radiological toxicity of LWR spent fuel constituents as a function of time
Radiological toxicity here is a relative measure of the cancer risk if ingested or inhaled, which we have normalized to that of the original natural uranium ore. As mined, the ore contains uranium along with decay products that have accumulated by its (very slow) decay over millennia. Normalization to the natural uranium ore from which the spent fuel originated is a useful but somewhat arbitrary relative standard. If the radiological toxicity drops below the natural uranium ore level we would be disposing of nuclear wastes that had no greater hazard than the uranium found naturally. The point at which the radiological toxicity curve crosses the natural uranium line then can be defined (at least loosely) as an effective lifetime of the waste components.
Read more of this post

No comments:

Post a Comment