• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives
  • Links

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Atomic Insights April 1995

In the news: April 1995

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

TVA gives up on Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 and Watts Bar Unit 2

The Tennessee Valley Authority has suspended construction activities at three sites after spending over $5 billion dollars. Bellafonte 1 is 88% complete, Bellafonte 2 is 57% complete, and Watts Bar 2 is 61% complete. TVA estimated that it would have cost $8.8 billion to finish the three plants.

Indonesia Calls Nuclear Power Unavoidable

(Dec 28, 1994) Research and Technology Minister B. J. Habibie told reporters “Demand for electricity will continue to rise, and we have no other alternative, so we will use nuclear.” Indonesia is a member of OPEC and currently sells its oil on the world market.

China Continues Major Nuclear Program

(Jan 11, 1995) China is making plans for 10,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by the year 2000. The country’s leaders hope that nuclear power will allow them to meet a rapidly growing electricity demand while cutting consumption of the high sulfur coal which now supplies 75% of their power.

Sen. Johnson Proposes Spent Fuel Legislation

(Jan 30, 1995) Senator Bennet Johnson (D-La) introduced legislation on Jan. 5 to create a single temporary storage site for spent nuclear fuel. The proposed site is near the Yucca Mountain site that has been selected for eventual use as a permanent storage location. At least 26 of the 109 reactor sites will have filled their on site storage capacity by 1998 when the DOE was originally scheduled to remove the waste. Joe Colvin of the Nuclear Energy Institute said, “We think this legislation has an excellent chance of passing. With 26 utilities exhausting their storage capacity, the issue is no longer abstract. Many state governors want this problem solved.”

Apache Tribe Rejects Temporary Waste Site

(Feb 2, 1995) The Mescalero Apache tribe of New Mexico has rejected its leadership’s plan to allow construction of a temporary spent fuel storage facility on their reservation. The facility would have produced revenue of $250 million over the projected 40 year life of the project. Silas Cochise, the tribe’s manager for the project was surprised by the 490-362 vote. Scott Peters of the Nuclear Energy Institute expressed little surprise. He said “We knew it was going to be a tough sell.”

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995

Common Myths: Is Nuclear Waste a Huge Problem?

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

One of the main reasons for publishing this letter is to add a healthy dose of reality to the mythology that has surrounded the atomic energy field. There are so many of these myths that this column will be a regular feature of the Atomic Energy Insights.

One of the most prevalent myths is that nuclear fission produces large quantities of waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years. This is simply not true.

  • The longest lived fission products will become stable elements within just a few hundred years.
  • The longest lived fission product has a half life of about 30 years.
  • The total amount of waste material is extremely small.
  • All of the high level waste produced in the United States in the last 30 years could fit onto a single footbal field in a single layer of licensed storage containers.

Where, then, did the prevailing myth originate? Most myths have some basis in the real world of facts and observations.

The Longevity Issue

First, let’s address the longevity issue. While all isotopes that are produced when uranium splits are relatively short lived, some of the uranium atoms do not fission with the first neutron impact. Instead, they absorb the neutron and become a more massive isotope.

Some of the heavier isotopes will fission when hit by the next neutron, others will absorb the next neutron and become even heavier. The process does not go on forever. Eventually, if enough neutrons hit the heavy nucleus that was originally uranium the nucleus will split. These heavy isotopes are known as transuranics or actinides.

Transuranics vs. Fission Products

Some transuranics, notably plutonium-239, have long half lives. Although these materials form a small portion of spent nuclear fuel, they are what most of the fuss is about. Although some transuranics are produced in fission reactors, they are not fission products. Making the distinction between transuranics and fission products is not hair splitting or semantics.

Fission products are no longer useable for fuel (though they may have other uses). Transuranics, on the other hand, can be recycled into new reactor fuels rather easily. At the now cancelled Integral Fast Reactor, all actinides would have been reformed into new fuel elements. Because of the large difference in density between transuranics and fission products, they can be readily separated.

Recycle, Reuse

It is the stated policy of the U.S. government to discourage the recycle of actinides into new fuel elements. The ostensible reason for this policy is to make it harder for someone to turn the transuranics into bomb material. Most other countries with a sizable nuclear power industry disagree with our wasteful position and currently recycle at least some of their spent fuel.

The only known way to permanently destroy transuranics is to expose them to enough neutrons to split their nuclei. The cheapest source of neutrons that we have ever devised is a fission reactor. When actinides are destroyed in a fission power plant, they produce a large amount of useful energy.

Controlled Storage

Now let’s address the issue of just how much material needs controlled storage. Most nuclear power plants were not built with sufficient facilities to store all of the waste that they would generate over their whole operating lives.

Providing the required engineered storage space at the beginning of the plant life would have been wasteful. It would have been analogous to a city deciding to build a school big enough for thirty years worth of growth. In the early years, most of the classrooms would be empty but the bills for building them would still be due.

It is a good thing that facilities were not built large enough to handle the spent fuel projected to be discharged over the life of the plant at the time the plants were built. There has been a significant reduction in the volume of waste produced through the use of advanced fuel cycles. Using the school analogy again, some of the expensive classrooms would never have been filled.

When the plants were built, the owners were told that the federal government would take the waste from them. In fact, they were told that they did not own the waste and could not turn it over to anyone other than the federal government. That is still the case today.

Waste: Who’s Responsible?

The federal government has not met its contractual obligations to permanently take possession of the waste.

Some of the older nuclear power stations are slowly starting to run out of space, even though they have reorganized their facilities to provide as much space as possible.

The process is a slow one because most plants only discharge about fifty fuel assemblies every 18 to 24 months. For comparison, a 1000 MW coal fired power plant must find a storage location for about 1500 tons of coal ash (enough to fill 33 train cars) every single day.

All nuclear utilities have contributed to a fund established in the early 1980s for waste storage facilities. The fund”s assets are now over $8 billion even though not a single fuel assembly has been accepted for storage.

Nuclear sites are allowed by law to build independent spent fuel storage facilities with sufficient space for a lifetime of spent fuel, but few utilities have chosen this route.

The facilities cost about $12 – $15 million each, and there is often legal opposition to construction, despite the general license that the NRC has already granted. (As a reminder of the scale of electric utility numbers, $15 million would buy less that a three week supply of fossil fuel to replace the electricity generated by a 1000 MW nuclear station.)

The Bottom Line

The utilities and their trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, have chosen to attempt to force the government to live up to its commitment to take the fuel. This choice, while a prudent short term business decision, has helped to fuel the myth that there is a huge amount of material for which no feasible storage solution exists.

The bottom line when it comes to “spent” nuclear fuel: All the long lived material can be recycled. Even without recycling, the volume of material needed to be stored is rather small and easy to handle.

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995, Graphite Moderated Reactors, Nuclear Waste

Really Cool Stuff: Batteries That Last for Decades

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

Atomic energy provides an amazing source of concentrated power. The potential applications that have been proposed are widely varied. There is room for unlimited innovation and creativity. Imagine what it would be like to have a battery that could provide power for several decades without recharging. Sounds almost like science fiction. Fact, in this case, […]

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995, Nuclear Batteries

In the beginning: A 1942 Experiment Shows the World It Can Be Done

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

On December 2, 1942, Enrico Fermi and a small band of scientists and engineers demonstrated that a simple construction of graphite bricks and uranium lumps could produce controlled heat. Let’s look back to see how simple that first reactor was. Behind the Scenes The space chosen for the reactor was a squash court under the […]

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995, Graphite Moderated Reactors, Technical History Stories

Letter from the Editor: Other Countries Progress While the U.S. Lags Behind

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams

My name is Rod Adams. I am a Nuke. I am proud to claim that title and proud of what I have done to earn it. I have been fascinated by nuclear energy for as long as I can remember. My father was an engineer with Florida Power and Light, a utility that built four […]

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995

Welcome to: Atomic Energy Insights

April 1, 1995 By Rod Adams Leave a Comment

The Simple Facts One pound of uranium contains as much energy as 2 million pounds of oil. Releasing that energy from the uranium results in less than one pound of waste material that can be stored in a simple container for decades with no effect on the environment. Burning 2 million pounds of oil will […]

Filed Under: Atomic Insights April 1995, Fuel Comparisons

Primary Sidebar

Search Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Follow Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #288 – Per Peterson, CNO, Kairos Power

Kenneth Pitzer blamed AEC advisors for slow power reactor development

Why did the US Atomic Energy Commission kill Daniels Pile in 1947?

How did an oil shale investor hamstring his atomic energy competition? (Ancient but impactful smoking gun)

Improved atomic energy offers a pathway that Princeton’s Net Zero America failed to acknowledge

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2021 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy