Britain Could Get 60% of its Electricity until 2060 from... Nuclear Waste
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 12.23.07
Image courtesy of markwgallagher
"We can bury our reactor waste or we can treat it and then use it as free fuel for life. It's a no-brainer." - Sir David King, Chief Science Adviser
As you may well imagine, King's statement in support of a plan backed by Britain's nuclear industry to build a fuel processing plant at Sellafield has sparked a fair bit of controversy - no doubt that last throwaway sentence didn't exactly help matters either. The plant would convert the country's 60,000 tons of nuclear waste into reactor fuel, which could then be used to supply the U.K.'s electricity needs - close to 60% until 2060.
Already several environmental groups, including Friends of the Earth, have vigorously protested the proposed scheme, alleging it would create a "plutonium economy" that would see the transport of large amounts of nuclear fuel around the country. Moreover, they argue that it would cost a pretty penny - several billion pounds - and serve as nothing more than a glorified subsidy to the nuclear industry; better to fund renewable energy research, they claim. Even the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which backs the plan, admits it could impose several "downside" economic costs.
Despite these challenges, King has vowed to move ahead full steam, having already persuaded the Brown government to support a new nuclear reactor building program that will be put into law next year. Dismissing the concerns of several experts, who expressed doubts about the U.K.'s long-term supply of uranium (a critical component for reactors to produce fuel), King said there would be more than enough to supply the plant until 2060.
To produce fuel, Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing plant will extract plutonium and uranium from the nuclear waste and convert it into an intermediate form, known as "mox," or mixed oxide fuel. The mox would then be processed in a separate plant to yield the necessary fuel rods and pellets; these would then be burned in what are known as fast breeder reactors to produce usable energy.
Whether or not this plan does move forward in the new year as indicated by King, this likely won't be the last we'll hear of it - or similar schemes.
Via ::Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear waste could power Britain (news website)
See also: ::Green Nuclear Waste?, ::A Nuclear Hot Tub in Your Backyard
We recycle pop cans, why not nuke waste?
Why bury it, when there is clean energy left in it. Well, clean besides the radioactive stuff.
The price of fresh fuel is going to keep rising, and concerns over long term waste storage will grow, unless the fuel is recycled.
This technology isn't going to go away anytime soon. Make the best of it.
I agree with this plan.
Nuclear energy is a big part of the answer for climate change. 4th generation reactors and fuel recycling make nuclear energy much more appealing.
Having said that, it is also very important to support renewables.
I believe we could have both of them.
I agree with Joseph. If nuclear waste can be reused, then why not? It's better than burying it and in the end, it's better for the environment by encouraging less mining and refining of pure putonimum.
I believe nuclear energy will need to be used to abate global warming. However, I only believe it will be necessary to use nuclear energy in relatively poor economies whose energy needs are growing at high single or double digit rates. And I only support nuclear energy in these instances as a temporary stopgag measure until renewable energy can take over.
I do not believe and do not support further deployment of more nuclear energy plants in the West. Western countries have the technological abilities, the money, the renewable energy resources and relatively low rates of growth in energy demand that would enable a relatively quick transition to renewable energy alternatives without need for construction of additional nuke plants. In the process of switching over to renewables, the UK will need to continue relying on preexisting energy plants. Of those preexisting plants, many are coal-based (or other fossil-fuel) and a number are nuclear plants. We need to try to phase out the coal plants as quickly as possible. The active nuclear plants should continue to operate until the end of their operational lives, which is still a good while. It would be best if these plants used reprocessed fuel rather than have more uranium mines be dug to meet their fuel needs. So I believe it is usually better to reprocess than to extract virgin fuel.
What puzzles me though about this article is that Sellafield ALREADY has a huge nuclear waste reprocessing center - the Sellafield THORP. It is the SECOND largest reprocessing site in the world. And it has been operational LESS than ten years. This preexisting reprocessing plant is more than capable of handling the UKs current nuclear waste reprocessing needs. THORP not long ago suffered a serious failure which has caused operations to stop until it is fixed. Maybe this article is referring to paying for the fixes of this preexisting reprocessing plant? If not, if what is being discussed is the building of a completely new reprocessing plant, than we are not talking about reprocessing UK nuclear waste. We would then be talking about this new reprocessing plant handling the waste of OTHER countries. This new plant would then not be about disposing of the UKs waste problem. It would be about making money by reprocessing other countries waste - just like France's main reprocessing plant (the largest in the world) currently does. I would be opposed to this. The UK does not need to reprocess the waste of third countries. It is best that reprocessing be done as close as possible to the source of the nuclear waste rather than be going back and forth on the high seas. And it would be ridiculous that the UK govt. spend a ton of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear waste reprocessing of third countries for nothing more noble than profit-making at the expense of the well-being of the local society.
But wait, aren't they going to get all their energy from wind power by 2012?
We've got 60,000 tons of this stuff knocking around?!? Bloody hell!
We need to get serious about CO2 emissions. Nuclear isn't the nicest stuff in the world, but it is CO2 free. We need to use it.
Re-using this waste is a great idea and one that more countries should employ.
This is the solution I've been waiting for - if it works, I'll be behind nuclear energy with the caveat that we also need to develop redundant renewable resources and work it out on a staggered system.
On the other hand we could just dig up and refine more plutonium and create more waste in order to make some environmentalists happy. Common sense would be to recycle the waste so more isn't produced but some environmentalists in the UK apparently haven't much common sense.
Offshore wind farms, recycling nuclear waste, UK can go carbon free quite quickly.
The Nuclear Genie is a stubborn little bugger, isn't he!?!
Where there is Nuclear Power there are terrorists watching.
Fools.
It is a weakness in a Western World that pretends to be so tough.
*Wake up!*
"Where there is Nuclear Power there are terrorists watching."
Are you nuts? The uranium used in power plants aren't even close to weapons grade. Its not right to breed false fear in people about something that is "practically" renewable, and with zero carbon emissions.
One things that bugs me is the fact that people can cry about how nuclear waste is being transported through cities. Yeah, in the most secure and safe containers you will ever see. But when a semi filled with highly explosive gas rolls past your house you think nothing of it.
So causing fear over something that is good for the environment and the economy is completely stupid.
Used in conjunction with truely renewable energies, they could solve the energy crisis.
Thank-you, UK, for giving me some hope!
If the Brown Govt. can listen to reason, then maybe there's hope for my own govt in Canada too.
I needed some good news like this!