Although no nuclear reactors have been built since 1979, nuclear power is making a comeback in America. With concerns that our dependence on fossil fuels is contributing to climate change, funding dangerous regimes and depleting our natural resources, nuclear power is being touted as the clean, reliable and domestic solution to these problems without severe reductions in our energy consumption.
Advances in wind, biomass and solar power have increased their viability as clean, sustainable and domestic power sources, so why risk another Three Mile Island when we already have a variety of suitable alternatives? Even if we build no new nuclear reactors, we still have to deal with the estimated 40,000 tons of existing nuclear waste. New developments in nuclear technology, however, have shown promise in creating a compromise between nuclear energy and environmental concerns.
In the late 1980s, researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory tested a new type of nuclear reactor called a fast-neutron reactor. Unlike previous reactors, this design was more efficient and safe. To fully utilize the potential of this reactor, however, the spent fuel would have to be recycled multiple times. In the 1980s, the only viable method created large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, a nuclear proliferation risk. A new recycling method, called pyrometallurgical processing, may be the key to recycling the spent fuel without creating enriched plutonium.
The fast-neutron reactor also solves one of the major problems with existing reactors, which produce highly radioactive waste. Current reactors use about 5 percent of the energy in the enriched uranium fuel, requiring that it be replaced every three years. This is like having a meal where you throw away your food after one bite. The fast-neutron reactors, with proper recycling, can extract up to 99 percent of the energy in the fuel, substantially reducing the quantity of waste produced each year.
Producing large amounts of nuclear waste would not be a problem except that this waste includes significant amounts of radioactive material. Most of it will become harmless in a few hundred years. However, it is the transuranic elements – those heavier than uranium – that stay radioactive for thousands of years. This is what prompted a federal judge to rule that the proposed Yucca Mountain facility must be able to contain this radioactive waste for at least 10,000 years. The fast-neutron reactors consume these elements in addition to uranium, creating waste that will be safe in only a few hundred years.
The major obstacle is that this reactor and recycling technique have only been demonstrated in a laboratory setting. Unproven technology always has inherent risks with unforeseen consequences. Few companies would be willing to accept the liabilities associated with unproven, expensive nuclear technology. Therefore, the burden would be on the federal government to either insure or build these nuclear reactors.
I propose an environmental, nuclear compromise. We should allow the construction of new nuclear reactors, provide they are only fast-neutron reactors. We can then impose a ban on new uranium mining, forcing these reactors to use our existing nuclear waste. This would help decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce our radioactive waste. The reactors could be shut down after exhausting our nuclear waste supply. Although not a perfect solution, this one offers a glimmer of hope that we can solve our nuclear problems.
Mike Noon is a senior in chemical engineering. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
