Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: The Viability of Germany’s Energiewende: Mark Jacobson Answers 3 Questions [View all]kristopher states
They do NOT recommend moving to a closed fuel cycle (the use of breeder reactors).
A closed fuel cycle and using a breeder are two DIFFERENT things. See the above MIT study in Chapter 4 at page 33.
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower
Quoting:
It is important to note that this balanced closed fuel cycl is entirely different from breeder fast reactor fuel cycles where net plutonium is produced in fast reactors is made into MOX fuel to be burned in thermal reactors. In the closed fuel cycle we considered, the fast reactor burns plutonium and actinides created in thermal reactors.
That's why it's good to have a degree in physics or nuclear engineering, so one can understand these concepts without getting confused and posting erroneous information.
The MIT study made clear that the choice of once through fuel cycle over a closed cycle was due to some assumptions. Please see page 4 of the MIT study for the following. One assumption was the future supply of uranium:
We believe that world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet.
Many here have made claims in the past that are at variance with the above.
At the bottom of page 4 continuing to page 5 they say:
The result of our detailed analysis of the relative merits of these representative fuel cycles with respect to key evaluation criteria can be summarized as follows: The once through cycle has advantages in cost, proliferation and fuel cycle safety, and is disadvantageous only in respect to long-term waste disposal; the two closed cycles have clear advantages only in long-term aspects of waste disposal, and disadvantages in cost short-term waste issues, proliferation risk, and fuel cycle safety. Cost and waste criteria are likely to be the most crucial for determining nuclear power's future.
So which fuel cycle "wins" is really determined by what you value.
The MIT study chose the open cycle because of cost, and they didn't really care about the fact that the open fuel cycle leaves you with long term wastes that are imposed on future generations.
I think that if one substituted the values that are more characteristic of DU members; then we would get the opposite answer. DU members, I believe, are less likely to impose long term waste disposal issues on future generations in return for less cost and bigger profits for the utilities.
Given the choice; I would say, the average DU forum member would put a lesser value on the cost and more value on not leaving waste problems to future generations. Hence, when you apply your values in making the decision to the options outlined in the study, the average DU member has different values from the MIT professors, and would opt to have the nuclear industry spend the money to clean up after itself and not leave a long term waste issue for future generations. That would argue for the use of a closed cycle with fast reactors to burn the long-lived waste.
The MIT study stated that the open cycle had the advantage in terms of proliferation. That really isn't the case. If you bury the plutonium, then it isn't immediately available for making weapons. However, what you create for the future is a "plutonium mine". When the radioactivity of the fission products decays in a relatively short time; then there's nothing to stop one from digging up that plutonium and using it for nuclear weapons.
With the closed fuel cycle, the plutonium is burned to make energy, and there's no plutonium in the waste stream to make into weapons. Additionally, as Dr. Till states, and was confirmed by the study from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; the plutonium that is recycled in the closed IFR fuel cycle can NOT be made into nuclear weapons. Quoting Dr. Till again:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.
The IFR fuel cycle provides the proliferation resistance that I believe DU members would prize as I do. Additionally, I care more about not imposing long term nuclear waste disposal issues on future generations, and I care less about utility profits. In this way, I'm different in values from the MIT professors that drew conclusions based on their values. I believe my values are more in keeping with what the average DU member values.
Or are you saying that the choice by the MIT professors of valuing utility profit over long term waste disposal issues is the correct value system?
PamW