Yucca Mountain viability for nuclear waste

[caldweab]

So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Not related to it's viability, but I just read this story on it

A federal appeals court said on Tuesday that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission can no longer delay a decision on whether to issue a permit for the long-stalled nuclear waste project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/us-usa-courts-yucca-idUSBRE97C0IM20130813

 

[Astronuc]

So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?

Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.

It's technical feasible, just not political palatable for some.

 

[russ_watters]

So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?

Viable, if we really want to dispose of our waste instead of recycling it. But then, we can store it in such a way as to make it recoverable.

 

[Thermalne]

Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.

It's technical feasible, just not political palatable for some.

I've heard some murmurs of recycling in USA isn't economically feasible either. Do you know anything related to this?

 

[turbo]

Technical feasibility aside, is long-term storage in a central facility a political problem? (It seems so, to me). IMO, the alternative is to continue to force power plants to store waste on-site, so that the waste is diffuse (spread all over the country) and far more difficult to monitor/defend. The status quo is not ideal (by a long shot) IMO. At some point, we should be able to cost-effectively reprocess stored fuel and re-use it. This certainly won't be a viable option if the waste fuel is scattered around cooling ponds all across the country.

 

[nikkkom]

I've heard some murmurs of recycling in USA isn't economically feasible either. Do you know anything related to this?

Reprocessing indeed is currently not cost-effective: fresh Uranium is cheaper than reprocessed one.

Two points:
(1) It's cheaper to throw garbage on the street instead of disposing properly. This doesn't mean we should do the cheaper thing!
(2) The important word is *currently*. There is not that much Uranium deposits. It *will* become more expensive. When it does so, burying unreprocessed fuel will be seen as idiotic.

 

[caldweab]

Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.

It's technical feasible, just not political palatable for some.

I'm about out done with our government. Why don't they leave issues like this to scientist and engineers to solve and not politicians? What have they been spending the money for the project on? We need a permanent waste facility and maybe a new fuel source as well since uranium deposits are small in nature. Maybe thorium is the answer

 

[Astronuc]

I've heard some murmurs of recycling in USA isn't economically feasible either. Do you know anything related to this?

It does cost more to reprocess spent/used nuclear fuel than to fabricate it from extracted and refined ore.

The reprocessing process must be handled remotely because of the radiation. The fission products must be separated from the fuel material (uranium and transuranic elements), and then the fission products must be immobilized. It is more economical to simply send a used fuel assembly to a repository and buy a fresh fuel assembly.

 

[russ_watters]

It is more economical to simply send a used fuel assembly to a repository and buy a fresh fuel assembly.

1. Including the cost of the repository?
2. I'm unclear on if the repository was intended to be a one-way street: Once in the repository, was it intended that we could go back and get it later if we decided later to reprocess?

 

[the_wolfman]

1. Including the cost of the repository?
2. I'm unclear on if the repository was intended to be a one-way street: Once in the repository, was it intended that we could go back and get it later if we decided later to reprocess?

1) Yes. Actually the nuclear power vendors have been paying a tax to fund the repository for decades.

2) Yucca mountain is officially intended to be a one-way street.

However, simple supply and demand economics tells us that in the not too distance future it will be more cost effective to reprocess. When that day nears you'll see the nuclear industry make a push to resolve the political, technological, and proliferation issues associated with reprocessing.

 

[gmax137]

... When that day nears you'll see the nuclear industry make a push to resolve the political, technological, and proliferation issues associated with reprocessing.

Who is that, exactly? Who do you think is "the nuclear industry?"

 

[Astronuc]

1. Including the cost of the repository?
2. I'm unclear on if the repository was intended to be a one-way street: Once in the repository, was it intended that we could go back and get it later if we decided later to reprocess?

A repository is needed whether spent/used fuel is directly disposed (within canisters) or if encapsulated fission products are diposed in the repository. The fission products would be about 5% of the fuel mass, so more fuel could be handled in the repository assuming the recovered fuel (U, Pu and TU) were stored until used.

Whether or not the fuel cycle is one way has yet to be determined.

With successive administrations and consequent changes at DOE/NRC, the ultimate decisions have not been resolved, but the can (or ball) gets kicked back and forth.

 

[the_wolfman]

Who is that, exactly? Who do you think is "the nuclear industry?"

Companies that are involved in building, operating, or designing nuclear power plants. Some example are Areva, Dominion, Westinghouse, and Duke Energy

 

[Astronuc]

Companies that are involved in building, operating, or designing nuclear power plants. Some example are Areva, Dominion, Westinghouse, and Duke Energy

Dominion and Duke Energy are utilities and operators of nuclear plants. AREVA and Westinghouse (Toshiba) are nuclear techology suppliers, and they do have the wherewithal to reprocess and recycle spent fuel, however, they need support from the government.

AREVA is building a MOX plant to use downblended WG-Pu as part of a DOE/NNSA program to utilize the Pu. However, it's not clear if any utility is willing to risk their reactor.

Ultimately, the US Government/DOE is responsible for the final disposition of spent/used fuel, and at the moment, utilities are stuck with having to use dry storage so that they can keep open spaces in their spent fuel pools.

 

[nikkkom]

Dominion and Duke Energy are utilities and operators of nuclear plants. AREVA and Westinghouse (Toshiba) are nuclear techology suppliers, and they do have the wherewithal to reprocess and recycle spent fuel, however, they need support from the government.

AREVA is building a MOX plant to use downblended WG-Pu as part of a DOE/NNSA program to utilize the Pu.

Sounds like insanity.
Spending billions in order to destroy material which took untold billions and decades to produce, and which will be needed in the future (e.g. for fast reactors).
Isn't it vastly cheaper to just securely store it?

 

[Aaronvan]

Why do we even need a national central waste repository? Stored the waste on site until we develop way to economically reprocess it.

 

[turbo]

Why do we even need a national central waste repository? Stored the waste on site until we develop way to economically reprocess it.

Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.

 

[EulersFormula]

Good idea or not: Yucca mountain will not happen until Harry Reid dies.

 

[David Christo]

Why not send the waste into space for disposal?

 

[Astronuc]

Why not send the waste into space for disposal?

At about $10K+ / kg, that would be a very expensive proposition, as compared to a $10s or $100s/kg. The DOE is supposed to take the spent fuel, and either reprocess it or deposit it in a repository indefinitely.

 

[middlephysics]

Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.

Have there been cases of theft or terrorism? I agree that one well guarded site would be best at this point.

 

[middlephysics]

Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.

Have there been cases of theft or terrorism? I agree that one well guarded site would be best at this point.

 

[David Christo]

It is really a shame we spend billions killing and defending yet, we endanger our very future, and the very resources we fight and kill one another for... cause it is cheaper to do so?

wow

 

[middlephysics]

Wait a second- it's safer to transport used nuclear fuel from all over the country (by trucks?) than to have each facility have their own storage site? Really?

This is a great thread sad to see it not continuing

 

[Gary7]

The problem with on-site storage is that it is not meant to be long-term, and if there is an accident at the plant the problems become compounded by the presence of so much spent fuel (which is what is happening at Fukushima unit 4, and the drama will be repeated for units 1-3, 5, and 6).

If there is any situation that causes the plant to lose power, or something causes the building's structural integrity to be compromised, or there is a leak at the plant and the pool becomes inaccessible, its a major problem.

Further complicating the problem is the fact that the spent fuel pools in existence are already running out of space. The NRC says that by 2015 there will be no more space left in the pools to accommodate any more fuel. Most of these spent fuel pools are located in places that aren't too far from residential areas, and none of them were meant to be nuclear waste storage sites.

So, to not dodge the question of what is safer, you have to calculate the risk of keeping a growing volume of nuclear waste in nuclear power plants, versus the risk of transporting and sequestering nuclear waste under hundreds of feet of rock out in the desert where it can be monitored and guarded by the military.

This is my view as a layman. Maybe one of the professionals here have some other information to add. By the way, transportation to Yucca is/was expected to be by truck and train.

 

[caldweab]

Wait a second- it's safer to transport used nuclear fuel from all over the country (by trucks?) than to have each facility have their own storage site? Really?

This is a great thread sad to see it not continuing

Yeah it's safer than just having it sitting there waiting for a disaster to occur and of course there is only a finite amount of space in spent fuel pools. They are more of an after thought to me, we should have had a permanent waste storage solution decades ago.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Yeah it's safer than just having it sitting there waiting for a disaster to occur and of course there is only a finite amount of space in spent fuel pools. They are more of an after thought to me, we should have had a permanent waste storage solution decades ago.

We weren't working towards a permanent storage solution, the US was working on reprocessing its civilian slightly used nuclear fuel. But thanks to the Indians, and the over reaction of Ford and then further over reaction of Carter reprocessing was effectively killed in the US.

By the time Regan removed the ban the US had lost all of its brain power and facilities in the reprocessing field. This with the low cost of virgin uranium, then the Clinton megatons to megawatts treaty, reprocessing is very cold in the grave in the US. So we need a more semi permanent dry storage till the US either buys reprocessing or starts working on it.

 

[middlephysics]

We weren't working towards a permanent storage solution, the US was working on reprocessing its civilian slightly used nuclear fuel. But thanks to the Indians, and the over reaction of Ford and then further over reaction of Carter reprocessing was effectively killed in the US.

By the time Regan removed the ban the US had lost all of its brain power and facilities in the reprocessing field. This with the low cost of virgin uranium, then the Clinton megatons to megawatts treaty, reprocessing is very cold in the grave in the US. So we need a more semi permanent dry storage till the US either buys reprocessing or starts working on it.

ah yes I just heard about the megatons to megawatts treaty on NPR recently, seems it just recently ended

 

[nikkkom]

reprocessing is very cold in the grave in the US.

Won't Hanford reprocessing plant be able to process civilian spent fuel after it's done with military waste?

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Won't Hanford reprocessing plant be able to process civilian spent fuel after it's done with military waste?

My understanding of the Hanford complex is that the reprocessors were shut down in the 70's and were never reopened. And they are now on the long list of D&D (decimation & destruction) at the sight.

 

[nikkkom]

My understanding of the Hanford complex is that the reprocessors were shut down in the 70's and were never reopened. And they are now on the long list of D&D (decimation & destruction) at the sight.

I'm talking about this:

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/wtp

When finished, it's supposed to be able to vitrify the nasty stuff.
I suppose the end result (steel containers with glass) will be stored in Hanford too.

Add a front-end PUREX stage to it and it's a complete reprocessing solution.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I'm talking about this:

http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/wtp

When finished, it's supposed to be able to vitrify the nasty stuff.
I suppose the end result (steel containers with glass) will be stored in Hanford too.

Add a front-end PUREX stage to it and it's a complete reprocessing solution.

Yes if a PUREX stage were added then it could be the restart of reprocessing in the US. However the project you have linked to is only a way to deal with the leftovers from the PUREX process, with no plans that I can find on turning or adding a plant to make it into reprocessing plant. So I'm still standing by my earlier analysis that reprocessing is dead and cold in the ground when it comes to the US.