Nuclear Recycling Unneeded Amid Plentiful Resources (Correct)
(Corrects licensing history in 11th paragraph.)
Recycling nuclear waste provides little short-term benefit because the process costs too much and uranium supplies remain plentiful, according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The study released today recommends U.S. financial incentives to build seven to 10 nuclear plants, create a quasi- government group to direct policy and consider leasing fuel to countries to reduce fears that dangerous components will end up with terrorists.
“To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation concerns while maintaining its currently excellent safety and reliability record,” according to the report.
The study, the third since 2003 on nuclear power by the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university, examines how the U.S. might best deal with an increase in radioactive waste if the industry’s awaited renaissance takes off.
Areva SA, the world’s biggest maker of reactors, has lobbied for reusing waste as a partial solution to long-term storage concerns. Meanwhile, a commission created by the Energy Department is studying how best to dispose of the waste after the Obama administration withdrew support for Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a dump site.
The study says nuclear proponents are assuming that limited supplies will force the U.S. to reuse some portion of the spent nuclear fuel.
“There is no shortage of uranium resources that might constrain future commitments to build new nuclear plants for at least much of this century, and scientifically sound methods exist to manage spent nuclear fuel,” according to the study.
Uranium Supplies
Critics of recycling say it creates stockpiles of dangerous materials. Arguments for recycling based on the need to preserve limited uranium isn’t an immediate concern, according to the study, which was headed by Ernest Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative, and Mujid Kazimi, director of the Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.
Technological advances may make recycling a better choice in the future, and the U.S. should preserve options that include an underground facility where waste would be removed and a portion reused as fuel, according to the study.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday announced that waste can safely be stored on site for 60 years after a reactor closes, twice as long as had been considered safe. David McIntyre, a spokesman, said the rule stems from greater confidence in the durability of dry casks encasing spent fuel.
Construction Permits
While the U.S. hasn’t issued a construction permit since the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, policy makers have encouraged new plants by offering incentives such as $18.4 billion in federal loan guarantees. Atlanta-based Southern Co. received backing for $8.3 billion.
The MIT report says financial risk remains a chief hurdle to new construction, and encourages the U.S. to accelerate financial support for seven to 10 new plants.
Nuclear plants account for about 70 percent of the emissions-free power production, according to the report. That makes the plants an attractive resource in combating climate change, which most scientists link to greenhouse-gas emissions.
The study encourages the U.S. to study the viability of keeping waste at an interim facility for a century.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jim Snyder in Washington at jsnyder24@bloomberg.net.
Rate this Page