Recycling Nuclear Waste:
Potentials and Global
Perspectives
Mikael Nilsson
Department of Chemical Engineering
and Materials Science
University of California, Irvine
TeraWatts, TeraGrams, TeraLiters
UC Santa Barbara, Monday Feb 2, 2015
Current Nuclear Fuel Cycle
• The current US approach is a once-through
fuel cycle
– There is currently ~70,000 MT of used fuel in
the US which should be disposed in a geologic
repository.
• The composition of the used fuel is ~96%
uranium, ~1% TRU (mostly Pu) and ~3%
fission products.
• The used nuclear fuel must be managed,
monitored, and isolated.
2
Hazard Index of Material Compared to Nat. U
10
10
3
90
Sr
137
Cs
241
Am
Total
2
239
10
Pu
1
240
Pu
Am
243
10
0
229
Th
237
Np
238
Pu
244
10
Cm
-1
226
Ra
241
10
Pu
-2
231
Pa
210
Pb
129
10
I
-3
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
Years after discharge from PWR reactor
6
10
7
3
What are the consequences?
Are there better options?
4
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/newsroom/photos
Identifying alternative options
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation and Screening Final Report, US-DOE
• In 2011, US-DOE initiated a study for Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Evaluation and Screening.
• Different suggestions for nuclear fuel cycles
suggestions were collected.
• Over 4000 different options for fuel cycles were found and
compounded into 40 different groups.
• EG01-EG40 where EG01 is reference, current, nuclear
fuel cycle.)
• 9 different evaluation criteria were developed
– 6 related to benefits (resources, safety, waste etc), 3 related to
challenges (financial, development, etc)
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt/community/nuclear_science_and_technology
5
/337/online_nuclear_fuel_cycle_options_catalog
Study Summarized
6
Conclusions
• The fuel cycles providing the highest benefit are :
– Continuous recycle of U/Pu with new natural-U (Nat. U) fuel in
fast critical reactors
– Continuous recycle of U/TRU with new Nat. U fuel in fast critical
reactors
– Continuous recycle of U/TRU with Nat. U fuel in both fast and
thermal critical reactors
– Continuous recycle of U/Pu with new Nat. U fuel in both fast &
thermal critical reactors
• Costs for development of these fuel cycles would range from
$2B-$10B (for U/Pu) and $10B-$25B (for U/TRU) for
development to engineering scale followed by $10B-$25B
(for U/Pu) and $25B-$50B (for U/TRU) for development to
commercial facility. Implementation of the industrial fleet is
comparable to maintaining current reactor fleet.
7
Levelized Cost at Equilibrium
8
With already existing technology
we can:
•
•
•
•
Reuse up to 97% of the material
Reduce the volume of waste considerably
Reduce the need for mining and enrichment
Increase the utilization of uranium by a
factor of ~100.
We still face the challenge of handling a
long lived waste product.
9
Sellafield, UK
6 square km
10,000 employees
50+ years of
reprocessing
50,000 tons of used
fuel have been
recycled to date
Hazard Index of Material Compared to Nat. U
10
10
3
90
Sr
137
Cs
2
Total
U Removed
Pu Removed
241
Am
10
1
243
Am
10
0
237
Np
10
229
Th
-1
244
Cm
10
-2
210
Pb
129
10
I
-3
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
Years after discharge from PWR reactor
6
10
7
11
International collaboration may
be required
• Countries that have nuclear power reactors
might not have the option to invest in recycling
facilities.
• Countries that have already existing
capabilities can receive the used fuel from
other countries, remove the reusable material
and prepare the waste form.
• Requires transportation of used nuclear fuel
across the world.
12
MOX plant construction
(Aqueous-polishing)
http://www.moxproject.com/construction/
13
Can we transport waste safely?
To Dream the Impossible Dream
• What could we do to avoid:
– Storing radioactive material for an eternity?
– Using less than 1% of the useful resources?
• Used Nuclear fuel contains potentially
valuable material, Rh, rare earths, Pd.
– Can we recover and reuse some of these
elements?
15
Hazard Index of Material Compared to Nat. U
10
10
3
90
2
Sr
137
Cs
Total
U Removed
Pu Removed
Np Removed
241
Am
10
1
243
Am
10
10
0
244
-1
Cm
237
Np
229
Th
10
-2
210
Pb
129
10
I
-3
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
Years after discharge from PWR reactor
6
10
7
16
Hazard Index of Material Compared to Nat. U
10
3
Total
90
Sr
10
2
10
1
10
0
U Removed
Pu Removed
Np Removed
Am Removed
Cm Removed
137
Cs
10
-1
10
-2
129
10
I
-3
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
10
5
10
Years after discharge from PWR reactor
6
10
7
17
Grand Challenges
• Advanced separation processes.
• Advanced materials
• Nonproliferation and perceived safety.
• Political decisions, or lack thereof.
• Long term investments and security.
18
H2 can be manufactured cleanly by
using nuclear energy for water-splitting
Electricity
Nuclear
Reactor
Low Temp.
Electrolysis
High Temp.
Electrolysis
Heat
Courtesy of Ken Schultz
Thermochemical
H2
Scheme for Nuclear assisted CO2
capture from Coal combustion
20
The CO2 credit is a key parameter
Synfuel cost, $/gal
3.5
3
2.5
2
Coal
CO2 + LWR H2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
CO2 Credit, $/ton
30
Coal gasification synfuel
cost estimated from
Rentech study
(http://www.rentechinc.c
om/process-technicalpublications.htm)
A modest CO2 credit allows synfuel via nuclear H2
21
production to compete with coal synfuel
Burning synfuel made from captured
CO2 results in ZERO CO2 net release
Annual production of CO2 from manufacturing and
combustion of synfuel from various sources
4000
CO2 MMton -
3000
2000
1000
0
Century Gothic 24 bold
Century Gothic 24 bold
Century Gothic 24 bold
-1000
-2000
Crude
CO2 produced
during fuel
manufacturing
Synfuel
from Coal
Synfuel from
Coal & H2
CO2 released
upon fuel
combustion
Synfuel from
CO2 & H2
Net CO2
released
Thank You
23