I'll start with a thank you and a congratulations to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, David Blee, Caleb Ward and all supporting staff for assembling a great … [Read More...] about Optimism, pessimism, realism and everything in between before the official start of the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit V
By Peter Lyons
Somewhere in Russia, 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough material to make about 10,000 weapons—are awaiting disposal. Moscow was supposed to start destroying this stockpile, but has yet to start, leaving a huge threat lurking in an unknown location. If even a tiny fraction of this material fell into terrorists’ hands, they could threaten nuclear terrorism around the world.
Yet, the plutonium’s continued existence isn’t Russia’s fault. It’s ours.
In 1998, Russia and the United States agreed to each dispose of 34 tons of surplus plutonium, a major step towards nuclear nonproliferation. But in the years since, due to mistaken policy decisions, the U.S. hasn’t begun destroying its own stockpile—and that process isn’t going to start anytime soon. In turn, Russia hasn’t complied either while they wait for us, leading to the current stalemate.
The good news is that Russia still intends to uphold the deal—but only if the U.S. finds a credible way to dispose of its plutonium. On the current path, that may never happen. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have adopted a technique to dispose of our plutonium stockpile that Russia has already rejected, deeming it not credible.
Luckily, there is a third path, one that would provide significant economic benefits to the U.S. economy and one that Russia has already approved, ensuring that Moscow would finally dispose of its 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium. It’s time for the Trump administration to abandon the failed Obama-era approach and chart a new course, one that can comply with the deal signed 20 years ago.
I have decades of experience with this issue: I was science adviser to the late Sen. Pete Domenici, who authored the original legislation codifying the 1998 U.S.-Russia agreement, and then served as a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Under Barack Obama, I served as the Energy Department’s top nuclear energy official.
Under the original agreement, the United States agreed to dispose of its plutonium by building a facility to make mixed plutonium-uranium reactor fuel—known as MOX fuel—to use in our commercial reactors. At the time, this path made sense since we anticipated a “nuclear energy renaissance,” which promised a growing need for reactor fuel.
But in the past two decades, the MOX proposal has become much less likely to work. First, that “nuclear energy renaissance” never happened. In fact, reactors are closing in many countries and there is so much cheap uranium that some of the world’s most productive mines have closed. Second, the facility to convert the plutonium into MOX fuel—originally scheduled to start operating in 2016—is years behind schedule and well over-budget; its current completion date is at least a decade away. And even if the fuel facility is completed, domestic utilities are not interested in burning MOX fuel in their reactors because uranium is so cheap—unless the government pays them. In other words, for the MOX proposal to work, the government would have to pay to build and maintain the facility—and then pay utilities to actually burn the MOX fuel. Not a great business model!
Hoping to break this political and financial logjam, the Obama administration devised a new approach to get rid of its plutonium called “dilute and dispose.” Under this approach, the plutonium is blended with other waste and sent to a radioactive waste disposal facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico. “Dilute and dispose” renders a valuable resource totally worthless, but the Obama administration supported this option because it was cheaper than the MOX approach.
However, like the MOX proposal, this approach is unlikely to work. The biggest problem is that the WIPP doesn’t even have the capacity to complete its present mission and also dispose of the 34 tons of plutonium. Any new use of WIPP could crowd out other uses, potentially delaying the disposal of waste generated in the clean-up of former defense facilities. In addition, even if there was enough room, WIPP is not currently licensed to accept this additional material. Even worse, Russia already rejected this idea, both in the original negotiations and again last year, because it does not destroy the plutonium. In other words, even if the Trump administration successfully implemented the “dilute and dispose” option, Moscow likely wouldn’t dispose of its own 34 tons of plutonium.
Luckily, there’s another option. During the Obama administration, I argued vehemently that the “dilute and dispose” proposal was a poor choice and instead recommended to dispose of the plutonium as fuel in fast reactors, which effectively destroy the plutonium. I was overruled, but this idea remains the best chance to eliminate Russia’s dangerous stockpile of plutonium and realize other important national benefits.
Fast reactors are not new in the United States. Back in the 1950s, we built several fast reactors and demonstrated their impressive safety attributes, including proving that they could not melt down even with a complete loss of coolant. But through a combination of early safety issues and political decisions, the last fast reactor in the country shut down in 1993.
However, several U.S. companies—including Terrapower, which is funded by Bill Gates, General Atomics and General Electric—are exploring fast reactors because of their versatility and melt-down proof operation; among other abilities, they can destroy nuclear waste, burn plutonium, and generate electricity with higher efficiency than existing reactors. But the exploration process can take years, especially since any testing requires the use of existing Russian fast reactors. But if Washington financed a fast reactor to dispose of its plutonium stockpile, it would jumpstart the development process by providing a fast reactor testing platform in this country, a real benefit to many U.S. companies. Congress has recognized this opportunity as well, earmarking money in fiscal 2016 to develop a plan for an advanced reactor, such as a fast reactor.
Such a plan would also prevent the U.S. from falling behind on modern technologies as other nations, including France, Japan, China, and India consider building their own fast reactors. At the very least, this proposal would ensure that the U.S. has enough operational experience with fast reactors to participate in global discussions on their safety and nonproliferation characteristics.
This plan has one downside: It would be more expensive than the “dilute and dispose” option since we’d have to build a new reactor. But unlike Obama’s plan, the fast reactor proposal would ensure that Russia disposes of its plutonium stockpile. In fact, Moscow intends to use its own fast reactors to destroy its plutonium. If we adopt a similar proposal, we would satisfy the original agreement, taking an important step towards nuclear nonproliferation and a safer world.
Peter Lyons worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory from 1969 until he became science advisor to Sen. Pete Domenici from 1997 to 2005. He was a Commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009 and Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy from 2011 to 2015. He now consults on nuclear energy and safety issues.
The above fist appeared on Politico on February 7, 2018. It is republished here with permission.
I’ll start with a thank you and a congratulations to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, David Blee, Caleb Ward and all supporting staff for assembling a great cast of attendees and speakers at the fifth annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The event was a high quality, well run and skillfully moderated affair that provided valuable learning experiences and excellent networking opportunities.
David’s personalized introductions and pot stirring questions helped turn what are often dry parts of any conference into worthwhile and/or humorous interludes. Even though the event’s five year track record indicates that the weather will likely be challenging again next year, I have already made a note on my calendar to look for the invitation and plan to attend.
I’m going to break up my coverage of the event into a couple of posts instead of producing one that is too long to read in one sitting. Analytical tools tell me that people rarely return to a post for a second try. I apologize for the lack of photos, but my phone’s Li-ion battery abruptly hit its end of life soon after I arrived in College Station.
Millennial Nuclear Caucus
The two-day summit was preceded by a Millennial Nuclear Caucus moderated by Suzanne Jaworowski, Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Her panel included four professionals representing a broad spectrum of millennials working in nuclear. One was a man with a PhD and a middle management government job. One was woman with an MS in Nuclear Engineering and an MBA with experience at DOE and the IAEA now serving as the Director of Strategy and External Affairs at a leading small modular reactor company. Another was a woman who had earned her BS about three years ago and had immediately accepted a job as a system engineer at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Generating Station. The final member of the panel had also completed his undergraduate program a few years ago and was now working in sales at a leading radiation instrument device company.
The panel members provided a brief overview of their experiences, describing their educational paths and motivation to join the nuclear industry. They shared a bit about what it was like to work in their segment of the industry. Later, in response to questions from Ms. Jaworowki, they described their view of the current state of the industry, their excitement about technological improvements, their recognition that superior technology without better communications isn’t going to lead to success, and their cautious optimism that we will figure out a better way to move forward.
Daniel Vega, the Doctor from DOE, advised the students and young people in the audience to make sure they developed enjoyable hobbies that could help alleviate some of the frustrations that they might encounter in the working world. He told us that his personal distraction hobby was “making crappy furniture.”
All of the speakers agreed on the need for aspiring professionals to work on developing more than one skill and a variety of interests in the field so that they would be at a lower risk of finding themselves left out if there was a significant shift in the market, the political winds or the fortunes of their particular employer.
They also expressed satisfaction with their decision to enter into the nuclear industry, even though some of the questions from the audience indicated that others in the field were not so sure. One somewhat jaded questioner stated that he had been attending similar events for a decade or more and asked when the promised Renaissance was going to begin kicking in. No one had any firm answers to that one.
Career Fair and Welcome Reception
After the Millennia Nuclear Caucus, most attendees headed over to a career fair held in the Legacy Club at the recently renovated Kyle Field, home of the 12th man and the Aggie football program.
During the fair, I eavesdropped on several intense conversations and watched a number of resumes being handed over upon request.
it seems to me that the career fair associated with this particular conference is a great place for interaction for motivated job seekers. It avoids the potential for a shotgunned resume to fall to the bottom of a deep pile. Unlike many large career fairs, this one wasn’t staffed by HR specialists.
Instead the tables were manned by company presidents, chief technical officers, vice presidents and even founding CEOs. If I was looking for a job at the cutting edge of nuclear technology development, I’d have appreciated the target-rich environment. As it was, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing the discussions. Some of the student attendees asked deeply probing questions that showed deep understanding of the importance of finding the right fit between employer and employee.
Following the job fair, we were treated to some excellent Texas treats including a variety of wings, tacos and BBQ.
While munching on my wings, I had a somewhat distressing conversation with an old friend who told me that he sees little reason to hope for any near term improvement in nuclear. He’s a business development guy in the front end side of the business, so he has a broad perspective on a particularly stressed segment that has seen the loss of numerous paying customers, severe pricing pressures and little in the way of new customers who are ready to buy anytime soon.
I heard that some of my former colleagues from BWXT were planning to attend the career fair and reception, but they’d been delayed by the notoriously fickle transportation capabilities of Lynchburg, VA. My report of what I learned about BWXT’s current involvement in small and advanced reactors will have to wait for the next installment.
Now for a brief word about finances. If you like hearing about what happens during conferences like this one, both items from the official program and insights from casual conversations, please help with a payment to Atomic Insights. Though the button takes you to PayPal, it’s possible to use any major credit card. Thank you in advance.
For now, I’m going to leave all names out of this piece of hearsay. Please believe me when I say that my sources are good and varied. Throughout his campaign, President Trump ran on the slogan “Make America Great Again.” That inspired many to attend his rallies and probably convinced many to vote for him. […]
It’s time – or way past time – to think and talk about nuclear energy in new ways, recognizing the importance of the topic for the future health and prosperity of humanity. This show includes 5 forward leaning thought leaders in atomic energy. All of them are optimistic about nuclear’s future, often driven by their […]
During a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing titled DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure there was an important exchange between Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) and Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. So you don’t have to scroll through 4 hours of video, I […]
Note: The below is an updated version of a post first published in March 2017. Since DOE is preparing for its revised FY2019 budget submission and Congress is already holding hearings about DOE priorities, the subject of a fast neutron facility has reentered the advanced nuclear energy conversation. There is a known gap in fast […]
Atomic fission is an abundant, natural source of heat from materials that have few competing uses. The heat released by completely fissioning actinide source materials like uranium, thorium or plutonium is 1-10 million times as much as burning the same mass of typical combustible materials. That energy dense fuel reduces the complexity and operational importance […]
The Independent System Operator for the New England power grid (ISO-NE) has produced a summary brief describing the challenges associated with Arctic Outbreak 2017-2018, a period of substantially below normal temperatures that lasted from Dec.25, 2017 until Jan. 8, 2018. After describing the intensity of the cold wave with a number of graphs, charts, images […]
NuScale, a leader in the increasingly competitive field of advanced nuclear reactor design, has announced that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviewers issued a document that formally agrees that their design does not require any electrical power to achieve safe shutdown. It’s difficult to explain the importance of that regulatory position. People with experience […]
Urenco, Bruce Power and AMEC NSS Limited recently announced that they had signed an MOU to cooperate in the design, licensing and development of Urenco’s U-Battery micro nuclear system for the Canadian electricity and heat market. The U-Battery contains a 10 MWth nuclear heat source that can be configured to produce either 4 MWe plus […]
Since 2014, investor-focused publications have used terms like ‘awash in oil’, ‘oil glut’ and even ‘world is “drowning” in oil’ to describe the world’s stockpile of already extracted and stored inventory of crude oil. Similar phrases have also been occasionally used to describe inventories of various refined products like gasoline, distillate fuel oil, and kerosene. […]
I apologize for the virtual silence here over the past couple of weeks. I’ve been keeping up a fairly active presence on Twitter, posting short updates and getting involved in a few serious conversations as time allows. Even if you do not have a Twitter account, you can read my feed at https://twitter.com/Atomicrod?s=17 One topic […]