MIT researchers rethink the nuclear fuel cycles, Yucca Mountain (blogs.nature.com)
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is issuing a new analysis of nuclear energy issues today, this time focusing on fuel cycles and what to do about that pesky issue of radioactive waste. The United States would do well to take a step back, reorganize and then proceed with a more open-ended technology-neutral nuclear energy policy, the report suggests, knowing that spent reactor fuel can be safely stored until a viable long-term solution is identified. Building on an earlier analysis, released in 2003 and updated last year, the report starts out with a simple assessment: uranium supplies are sufficient to power the industry for much of the century without recycling or reprocessing. This holds true even with a potential expansion of nuclear power, which would be based on the same once-through fuel cycle deployed in current reactors.
Creating a series of interim storage sites would allow the Department of Energy safely consolidate spent nuclear fuel and meet its legal obligations to industry (shipments to Yucca Mountain were supposed to begin more than a decade ago). In the meantime, the United States can take a more comprehensive look at longer-term storage solutions, looking to countries such as Finland, Sweden and France that have had more luck in building public support for their repositories.
---
One key lesson is that the nation should plan to actively manage its nuclear waste for roughly a century. This serves multiple purposes. Allowing the waste to cool down (literally) makes permanent storage easier, and just knowing that a change of course is possible if problems arise should alleviate public concerns about something going awry. Moreover, such an approach would allow the nation to benefit from any future technologies that might come from a solid research and development programme.
"We don’t know whether spent fuel is a waste or a resource," Charles Forsberg, executive director of the MIT study, said in an interview prior to today's release of the report in Washington. "If it’s the resource, it may be the most valuable resource we own."
In 2006, former President George W. Bush tried to revive nuclear reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. That program hit a wall in Congress, however, due to concerns about expense and nuclear proliferation.
The MIT study highlights multiple options for meeting this goal in the decades to come and says it's too early to commit to any one of them. But substantially shifting the current nuclear technology paradigm would take several decades or more, Forsberg says, so it's important to get started now. The study recommends a $1-billion nuclear R&D programme that invests in the full suite of technological options while revamping nuclear infrastructure in the DOE complex.
These recommendations come as the administration of Barack Obama seeks to define a viable path forward on nuclear waste, having abandoned the permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Energy Future is looking at the same issues and is expected produce a draft of its recommendations next year.
One key lesson is that the nation should plan to actively manage its nuclear waste for roughly a century. This serves multiple purposes. Allowing the waste to cool down (literally) makes permanent storage easier, and just knowing that a change of course is possible if problems arise should alleviate public concerns about something going awry. Moreover, such an approach would allow the nation to benefit from any future technologies that might come from a solid research and development programme.
"We don’t know whether spent fuel is a waste or a resource," Charles Forsberg, executive director of the MIT study, said in an interview prior to today's release of the report in Washington. "If it’s the resource, it may be the most valuable resource we own."
In 2006, former President George W. Bush tried to revive nuclear reprocessing through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. That program hit a wall in Congress, however, due to concerns about expense and nuclear proliferation.
The MIT study highlights multiple options for meeting this goal in the decades to come and says it's too early to commit to any one of them. But substantially shifting the current nuclear technology paradigm would take several decades or more, Forsberg says, so it's important to get started now. The study recommends a $1-billion nuclear R&D programme that invests in the full suite of technological options while revamping nuclear infrastructure in the DOE complex.
These recommendations come as the administration of Barack Obama seeks to define a viable path forward on nuclear waste, having abandoned the permanent geologic repository at Yucca Mountain. Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Energy Future is looking at the same issues and is expected produce a draft of its recommendations next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment