Category Archives: National Laboratories

A tour of EBR-I: Birthplace of nuclear energy

Posted on March 7, 2013 by pbowersox| 3 Comments

Don Miley, tour guide at Idaho National Laboratory, takes viewers of this video on a trip to the Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I). In 1951, the first electricity from nuclear power was generated at EBR-I—using a reactor that actually bred more fuel than it consumed, using an all-plutonium core.

EBR-I paved the path for nuclear energy worldwide.

Looking for a unique and educational summer travel destination? The EBR-I National Historic Landmark is open to the public in the summer and to scheduled groups year-round

EBR-I Atomic Museum brochure

Thanks to Idaho National Laboratory

→ 3 Comments

Posted in National Laboratories, Nuclear History, Nuclear pioneers

Tagged , , ,

Virginia ANS section discovers hidden asset – Clay Condit

Posted on February 5, 2013 by radams| Comments Off

By Rod Adams

On January 31, 2013, about 30 lucky members of the Virginia section of the American Nuclear Society heard a series of informative tales from one of the many innovative pioneers of the First Atomic Age. Clay Condit, a man overflowing with personal memories of important nuclear energy milestones—like the initial start-up of the Submarine Thermal Reactor and the post accident analysis of the SL-1 tragedy—entertained the assembled members for a little more than an hour.

Clay retired from Westinghouse in 1992 after a 40-year long career in nuclear reactor physics and reactor operations. He spent most of that time at the 900-square-mile piece of the Idaho desert currently known as the Idaho National Laboratory. That site has been the home of 52 nuclear reactors.

Some of those reactors were carefully designed and maintained facilities used to develop new fuel materials, test new operational concepts, and/or train sailors for the US Navy. The Materials Test Rector (MTR), the Submarine Thermal Reactor (STR), the A1W prototypes for the USS Enterprise, and the Advanced Test Reactor fell into that category. Those facilities have provided decades of useful service, provided important practical training for more than 40,000 sailors, and have enabled such technological improvements as submarine reactor fuel designs that now last for the 33-year-long life of the ship instead of the two-year life achieved by the first core of the USS Nautilus.

Some of the other reactors built at INL—like the Integral Fast Reactor that evolved from the Experimental Breeder Reactor II—were also well-designed and maintained facilities that point the way to a reliable source of inexhaustible clean energy.

However, some of reactors built at the National Reactor Testing Station (one of INL’s former names) were rapid prototypes that were built quickly to test innovative concepts, some of which did not work out as well as the designers had hoped. As Clay explained, in the early days of the facility, there were two primary rules. First of all, any new project needed to pick a location that was at least five miles from any existing facility; secondly, the operators of any test reactor were required to notify the local sheriff to divert traffic on the through roads whenever they were conducting testing that might result in the release of any radioactive material.

From Clay’s point of view, the ability to move quickly and develop conceptual designs into operating machinery with few restrictions within the facility played an important role in the rapid improvement in nuclear energy technology. He stated that we need to find a way to reinvigorate nuclear technology development by reusing some of our existing assets of open spaces and readily available human resources.

After his retirement, Clay started devoting a major portion of his time to capturing and sharing knowledge about Idaho’s importance in the development of nuclear energy. He was instrumental in convincing the US Navy to donate the sail of the USS Hawkbill (SSN 666) to the town of Arco (the first community in the world ever to be lit by electricity generated by nuclear power), Idaho,  so that it could serve as the cornerstone of the Idaho Science Center. Clay is the founder, president, and primary tour guide of that facility, and he has been working for about a decade with other Arco boosters and INL veterans to create a destination where artifacts and stories about nuclear energy development at INL can be preserved and shared.

Talks like the one that Clay gave might be common for chapters that are near the national labs, but it was a unique experience for many of the Virginia section attendees, especially those who have never had the chance to attend ANS national meetings. Fortunately for us, Clay winters in Richmond; I hope we can convince him to be a more regular attendee at our meetings.

For show and tell, Clay brought a collection of artifacts and handouts, including a copy of a book titled Proving the Principle – A History of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 1949-1999. I highly recommend reading the online version of that book; it provides a fascinating look at the history of a dynamic facility peopled by thinkers whose achievements were often shrouded in secrecy.

I’ve read Proving the Principle, but Clay’s talk added depth and personalized some of the events. One of the real benefits of participating in local ANS sections is the opportunity to hear interesting stories from people with real world experiences that may never again be repeated.

Of course, speakers are not the only reason to attend ANS local section meetings; it is also good to swap stories with other people who share some of the joys and challenges of working in our profession.

There was a little bit of depressing news broken at the meeting. On January 31, the day that we met, local news sources reported that Virginia state Senator John Watkins withdrew his bill to end the existing moratorium on uranium mining. The diverse coalition that has formed to halt the development of one of the largest known deposits in the United States has—so far—successfully convinced political decision makers that uranium mining entails too much risk and too little reward. There has been a well-orchestrated campaign of misinformation that has not been effectively addressed by people who understand the minuscule level of public risk associated with properly regulated, modern uranium mines and the substantial rewards that can come from developing valuable fuel sources.

There is a glimmer of hope that Virginia’s governor will use his authority to allow state regulators to begin drafting rules so that legislators will be able to make more informed decisions about the protections those regulations will provide to local populations. I hope that the governor pays attention to the careful work that has already been done to address the scientific questions. He should recognize that a deposit of material that could provide 20 percent of the United States with emission-free electricity for more than 2 years is worth developing. Perhaps it will help if more people who understand the technology find their voices and begin more forcefully communicating accurate information.

Governor McDonnell believes that Virginia should become the “Energy Capital of the East Coast”. That is a worthy goal that will be easier to reach by expanding our already substantial nuclear energy competence to include mining the required fuel material.

____________________________________

Adams

Rod Adams is a nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

Comments Off

Posted in knowledge transfer, Local Sections, National Laboratories, Nuclear History, Nuclear pioneers

Nuclear Film Extravaganza

Posted on January 18, 2013 by Will Davis| 1 Comment

by Will Davis

Friday’s “Nuclear Matinée” feature here at ANS Nuclear Cafe is a four-film cavalcade of documentaries about nuclear energy. One of these films premiered on January 18, while another has just been released. The other two have been around a while but are well worth viewing and make a good supplement to the two new films. Here is a rundown on each of the four films:

PANDORA’S PROMISE, director Robert Stone’s documentary about the realities of nuclear energy and climate change, opened on Friday, January 18, for the first time at the Sundance Film Festival. Stone is well known in the field of documentaries concerning things nuclear; his award-winning “Radio Bikini,” a film that this writer saw when it was still fairly new, covered effects of nuclear weapons testing and was decidedly from Stone’s anti-nuclear period. As Stone continued to pursue his environmental interests he came to realize that the anti-nuclear movement was incalculably disavowing the single energy source that could provide power around the clock with no GHG emissions. From his own site, we find his revelatory moment to be that when he realized just how little waste is generated from nuclear energy—even high-level waste.

You can view a teaser for Pandora’s Promise by clicking here.

I will add that the timing of the first showing of this movie comes at what increasingly appears to be a significant moment both for the pro-nuclear advocacy world and the environmentalist world, as an article by Keith Kloor has taken the social media world by storm and continues to get coverage and has even been mirrored on Mother Jones. As to Robert Stone in an interesting parallel, his story seems in some ways to recall the journey of Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, who became pro-nuclear after being anti-nuclear.

ONCE UPON A NUCLEAR SHIP—The N.S. Savannah Documentary. Thomas Michael Conner/TCS Communications 2012. One hour 5 minutes.

Thomas Michael Conner’s new documentary, available for purchase as a DVD or as a web download, covers the history of the only nuclear-powered commercial ship ever built in the United States, from the laying of the keel of the ship through 2006 when the ship was moved out of the James River Reserve Fleet for preservation. The real value of this documentary lies in the fact that it is entirely first-hand; Conner, himself a health physicist on the Savannah for several years, has rounded up a number of veterans of the ship’s crew and allowed them lots of time to tell the ship’s history and a number of what sailors and we Navy veterans call “sea stories.” Unlike Pandora’s Promise, which has only been seen in a snippet or two in advance of its first play today, I’ve seen this movie in its entirety and enjoyed every minute of it. This is a good film for anyone interested in the N.S. Savannah—but more than that, for those who have studied the ship, its design and its history (and thus are those people who “have everything” on the ship) this film is significant. The film runs just over one hour—and that hour goes by pretty quickly. You can find the website for this film by clicking here—and there is a trailer for the movie that auto-plays.

I have recently watched two other presentations that aren’t exactly brand new, but that I highly recommend in this week of new documentaries as excellent additions if you haven’t already seen them.

POWERING AMERICA—A Film About Nuclear Energy. The Heritage Foundation/Coldwater Media 2012. 40 minutes. This film is a brief but information-packed presentation on nuclear energy and our energy needs. The producers of this film directly address pressing questions—and investigate nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl frankly and clearly. The film addresses competing forms of energy and shows that nuclear is the “round the clock” answer that renewables aren’t. The presentation is professional, well narrated, and well paced. After watching the film, I was left very impressed by its polish and was surprised to find it had only been about three quarters of an hour; the amount and quality of information presented was so rich that I thought surely more time had passed. We meet a number of nuclear professionals and plant operators as well as those who live and work near nuclear plants, enter nuclear power plant sites and control room simulators, and even a uranium mine in operation—right down to the deepest depths. This is a great background film to support the present wave of pro-nuclear environmentalism—and I give it five stars for its frankness. Click here to see the site for this film.

People, Passion & Purpose—A Laboratory Overview. Idaho National Laboratory. Nine minutes 10 seconds. This brief but excellent film covers some of the unseen operations of what formerly was thought of primarily as a research and testing facility for nuclear reactors—the Idaho National Laboratory. In light of the recent pro-nuclear environmentalist movement, and coupled with the film above from Heritage on nuclear energy, this overview gives the viewer a fascinating glimpse behind the scenes at real, front line research at one of America’s most important installations. It’s said that the science fiction of yesterday becomes the science of today and the technology of tomorrow, and lots of that has actually happened at INL over the decades. The film is available for viewing free at the INL film site which is found here—although I received a mini disc copy (as well as Powering America on DVD) at the ANS Nuclear Technology Expo held concurrent with the 2012 ANS Annual Meeting in Chicago.

That’s it! Four films well worth watching, in my opinion—and only one of which we need wait to see.

(NS Savannah illustration from Will Davis collection.)

_______________________________

Will Davis is a consultant to, and writer for, the American Nuclear Society. In addition to this, Davis is on the Board of Directors of PopAtomic Studios, is a contributing author for Fuel Cycle Week, and also writes his own blog Atomic Power Review. Davis is a former US Navy Reactor Operator, qualified on S8G and S5W plants.

 

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, National Laboratories, Nuclear Matinee

Tagged , , , ,

Nuclear Cafe Matinee: Nuclear Recycling in 4 Minutes

Posted on December 14, 2012 by pbowersox| 8 Comments

The 800 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity produced by the 104 nuclear reactors in the United States each year – all while emitting no greenhouse gases — is by far America’s biggest source of green energy.  And this abundant energy source can become even greener by recycling used nuclear fuel.

Currently, only about five percent of the uranium in a nuclear fuel rod gets fissioned for energy; after that, the rods are taken out of the reactor and put into storage. There is a way, however, to use almost all of the uranium in a fuel rod. Recycling the uranium in used nuclear fuel could power the United States for a thousand years, just by using the uranium we’ve already mined, and all of this energy carbon-free.

This excellent short video from Argonne National Laboratory explains how.

And now… you too can regale your friends and others at holiday parties with pontifications about pyroprocessing!

Thanks to Argonne National Laboratory, and for more information visit Argonne Nuclear Energy.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing

Tagged , ,

ANS Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS 2013) Topical Meeting

Posted on December 5, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

The 2013 ANS Topical Meeting on Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space (NETS 2013) will be held February 25–28, 2013, at the Albuquerque Marriott in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

NETS serves as a major communications network and forum for professionals and students working in the area of space nuclear technology. The NETS meeting facilitates the exchange of information among research and management personnel from international government, industry, academia, and the national laboratory systems.

NETS 2013 will address topics ranging from overviews of current space programs to methods of meeting the challenges of future space endeavors, with a focus on nuclear technologies and applications.  See the NETS program page for meeting tracks and topics.

NETS 2013 is hosted by the Aerospace Nuclear Science and Technology Division (ANSTD) of the American Nuclear Society with co-sponsors Aerojet and the ANS Trinity Local Section.

Register Now

Hotel Reservations

See the Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space meeting page for much more information. We hope to see you in Albuquerque.

___________________________

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Meetings, NASA, National Laboratories, Space Applications

Tagged ,

A Weekend of Nuclear History

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Will Davis| 3 Comments

By Will Davis

The weekend of December 1–2, 2012, sees three events of note relative to the history of nuclear energy.

 

Saturday, December 1, saw the Inactivation Ceremony for USS Enterprise, CVN-65, which was the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ever built and by far the oldest nuclear-powered ship in service. (USS Nautilus, a nuclear-powered attack submarine, and the Russian nuclear-powered icebreaker Lenin preceded Enterprise into service, as did the cruiser USS Long Beach.) The USS Enterprise was launched on September 24, 1960 (view of launching seen above, at Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock), and commissioned into service November 25, 1961. The ship was deactivated just past her 51st birthday. Much more information about the ship, which will be defueled and eventually dismantled, can be found at the official USS Enterprise website.

During the ceremony, the Secretary of the Navy revealed that the name Enterprise will live on in Navy history; the third Gerald R. Ford class nuclear-powered carrier will be CVN-80, USS Enterprise. Instead of eight A2W reactors as installed in CVN-65, CVN-80 will have two A1B reactors with a total power higher than that of the two A4W reactors installed in the Nimitz (CVN-68) class nuclear-powered carriers that followed the first nuclear USS Enterprise.

Sunday, December 2, marks the 70th anniversary of the first criticality of the first nuclear reactor ever built: Enrico Fermi’s “Atomic Pile,” known as CP-1 or “Chicago Pile 1,” achieved criticality  at 3:53 PM, December 2, 1942. The pile, according to “The Atomic Energy Deskbook,” Hogerton, 1963, contained 385 tons of graphite to act as the moderator. Hogerton relates the fact that when the pile was constructed, “only 6 tons of uranium metal were available and it was necessary to complete the assembly with 34 tons of uranium oxide.” The pile was built in layers of blocks of graphite and fuel, eventually 57 layers deep. According to Hogerton, “Critical conditions were achieved somewhat sooner than anticipated, so that the reactor assembly, which had been expected to be spherical, took the shape of an obloid spheroid somewhat flattened at the top.”

Argonne National Laboratory, under whose auspices the original CP-1 was built, has excellent resources on this famous anniversary. The Argonne page on the 70th anniversary gives background and perspective, while “The Dawn of the Nuclear Age” includes a video featuring two early nuclear pioneers, Dr. Harold Agnew and Dr. Len Koch. Agnew was one of the 49 persons present when the CP-1 achieved criticality in 1942.

December also marks a third anniversary: the Shippingport Atomic Power Station achieved its first criticality, and also later achieved full rated power, in December 1957. Shippingport was the first commercial nuclear generating station ordered in the United States, and it was the nation’s first large-scale nuclear power plant to generate electricity for civilian purposes.

___________________________

Will Davis is a former US Navy Reactor Operator, qualified on S8G and S5W reactor plants.  Davis performs Social Media services for ANS under contract, writes for ANS Nuclear Cafe as well as for Fuel Cycle Week, and also writes his own Atomic Power Review blog.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in National Laboratories, News, Nuclear events, Nuclear pioneers

Tagged , , ,

ANS Nuclear Cafe Matinee: DUFF Space Nuclear Reactor Prototype

Posted on November 30, 2012 by pbowersox| 6 Comments

A joint Department of Energy and NASA team has demonstrated a simple, robust fission reactor prototype [note: see Comments for more accurate and complete description] intended for development for future space exploration missions. The DUFF (Demonstration Using Flattop Fissions) experiment represents the first demonstration in the United State—since 1965—of a space nuclear reactor system to produce electricity.

The uranium–powered reactor is the first use of a “heat pipe” to cool a small  nuclear reactor (measuring one foot!) and power a Stirling engine. The following short video from Los Alamos National Laboratory explains the hows and whys:

See this article from Los Alamos on the details of the DUFF experiment recently successfully conducted.  Also, see this CNN article for an excellent description.

Many future space missions will only be feasible with the use of reliable and safe nuclear energy, and this proof-of-concept is a steppingstone toward that future.

 

→ 6 Comments

Posted in Department of Energy, NASA, National Laboratories, Nuclear Matinee, reactor designs, Space Applications

Tagged , , , ,

The MTR—Gone now, but not forgotten

Posted on October 25, 2012 by Will Davis| 1 Comment

by Will Davis

Recently, Dr. Nicole Stricker of the Idaho National Laboratory sent a link for the following video to members of the ANS Social Media list.

INL Waste Video

The entire video is quite interesting, but my interest was tweaked during the time frame 3:23 to 3:28 in the video by what looked like a reactor vessel being tipped over during decommissioning of a nuclear facility; the voice-over at the time is talking about just that. A request for information revealed that the reactor shown at that moment in the video was the Materials Testing Reactor, or MTR.

I had known that the MTR had been long shut down, but was really unaware of its present status. The MTR has a place in nuclear history in the United States as the first widely available test reactor; according to The Atomic Energy Deskbook, the MTR was designed jointly by Oak Ridge and Argonne National Laboratories.  Blaw-Knox acted as architect-engineer, and the plant was built by the Fluor Corporation.

Let’s let the words of Phillips Petroleum Company, which operated the MTR for the Atomic Energy Commission, describe the facility; they’re found in the booklet (in my collection) whose cover is reproduced below.

“The Materials Testing Reactor is a unique and versatile research tool. It was designed and constructed as a pioneering step in the development of high neutron intensity reactors with the primary purpose of providing facilities to test the effects of neutron bombardment on materials of interest in future reactor construction. It has neutron fluxes 10 to 100 times greater than those in other reactors. As a result, it can provide radiation at a very high dose rate and produce isotopes with higher specific activity than those now available from other sources.

The MTR is a thermal (slow) neutron reactor using uranium enriched in isotope U235 as fuel, ordinary water as both moderator and coolant, and beryllium as the reflector. It is designed to generate the heat equivalent of 30,000 kilowatts.  Because of its high specific power, average neutron fluxes of 2 X 10^14 thermal neutrons per square centimeter per second and 5 X 10^13 fast neutrons per square centimeter per second are available. Peak thermal neutron fluxes of 5 X 10^14 neutrons per square centimeter per second exist in certain positions in the reactor.

The enriched uranium fuel is contained in an active core which is inside a lattice region 40 by 70 centimeters in area and 60 centimeters high (16 x 28 x 24 inches). It is surrounded by a 40 inch high reflector of beryllium pieces. Both lattice and reflector are enclosed in a 55 inch diameter aluminum tank which is extended by stainless steel sections above and below to form a 30 foot deep well which is closed top and bottom with heavy lead filled steel plugs.  ….The reactor lattice and beryllium reflector are cooled by water flowing at a rate of 20,000 gallons per minute. This water enters near the top of the well at 100F and leaves near the bottom at 111F. The water is fed by gravity from a 170 foot high tank through the reactor tank to a vacuum spray evaporator system for cooling and degassing, then is pumped back to the tank.”

According to contemporary documents from Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation in my collection, fuel elements for the MTR were “93% enriched uranium alloyed with aluminum, clad in aluminum, and formed into curved plates approximately 24″ long, 3″ wide and 1/16″ thick. The fuel element consists of nineteen such plates brazed into aluminum side plates to form a boxlike assembly approximately 3″ x 3″ in cross-section. Aluminum adaptors are welded to the ends of the fuel element. Each element contains 200 grams of U235 and normally 25 such elements fuel the reactor.”

In addition to offering irradiation services directly using the reactor, the MTR also offered gamma irradiation using spent fuel as described below by Phillips Petroleum:

“The gamma field is provided by used MTR fuel elements, which are stored under water until they have cooled sufficiently to be transferred to the chemical processing plant for recovery of U235.” At left, the original MTR canal where gamma irradiation was performed, which offered, according to Phillips, gamma fields up to 10^7 roentgens per hour.

The MTR first began operating in 1952—although, according to the excellent “Proving the Principle” (Susan M. Stacy/Idaho Operations Office of the Department of Energy, 2000), the plans were started for what became the MTR as early as 1944. The MTR, when placed in operation, quickly found itself with a list of experiments to perform and samples to irradiate. According to documentation provided by Erik Simpson, CWI media spokesman, the MTR performed over 15,000 irradiation experiments during its operational lifetime.

The MTR operated successfully as one of the most highly in – demand test reactors for many years. Time caught up to the MTR in 1970; according to “Proving the Principle,” the final experimental plutonium core (nicknamed “Phoenix”) was operated in the reactor through April 23, 1970, when the reactor was shut down. One final experiment in August 1970 saw the MTR go critical again for 48 hours when Aerojet, by then the MTR contractor, started it up for paid research into mercury contamination of wildlife. But that was it. The reactor never operated again.

The reactor was defueled, and parts of the facility were used for other purposes (some functions even going on next to the shutdown reactor itself without involving it) for some years until the DOE made the decision in 2005 to dispose of the facility. Erik Simpson has provided us with a copy of the 2007 Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for the Materials Test Reactor End-State and Vessel Disposal; of the various site solutions described in this document, the one chosen and carried out is the one that called for removal of the above grade structure, the reactor vessel, and below-grade structure with the vessel being stabilized and stored onsite at a dedicated facility.

Erik provides us with two fascinating links that show much more than we saw in the opening video of the decommissioning of the MTR facility. In the first video link, we see a number of activities of the Idaho Cleanup Project; the MTR facility is seen in this video at the time frame 1:15 – 2:30. The second video link gives us a mostly time-lapse view of the demolition of the MTR reactor building (with the large internal shielding and beam tube/sample tube complex, as well as reactor vessel and tank extensions already gone), but slows to real-time to display the explosive demolition of the roof structure.

It goes without saying that in terms of the overall site, many reactor facilities have been remediated, or placed in some level of storage, or will be remediated. Dr. Stricker points out that the former NRTS site, now called the Idaho National Laboratory site, has housed 52 different reactors.

As related in “Proving the Principle,” there were serious last-minute attempts to revitalize the MTR with new projects and new money, but this wasn’t enough to prevent its  shutdown; designation of the MTR as a “historical Signature Property as designated by DOE Headquarters Advisory Council on Historic Preservation” (as related in the disposal analysis) wasn’t enough even to keep the building. We’ve at least put a marker for the MTR and all those who worked on, or at, the facility on the ANS Nuclear Cafe blog with this post, and noted its passing.

(Photo at top courtesy Idaho National Laboratory, via Dr. Nicole Stricker. Video links courtesy Erik Simpson.  MTR brochure photos, Will Davis collection.)

Additional resources

For more information, please visit Argonne National Laboratory’s Basic and Applied Science Research Reactors website—click HERE to open the the page dedicated to the MTR.

_______________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in engineering, environmental remediation, Irradiation, National Laboratories, Nuclear pioneers, nuclear technology

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Friday Matinee: Idaho National Laboratory’s CAVE

Posted on August 17, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Idaho National Laboratory‘s Computer Assisted Virtual Environment (CAVE) at the Center for Advanced Energy Studies allows scientists and engineers to literally walk into their data and examine it.

Users can tour a building still under design, plot a new transmission route over terrain, open a valve, or… delve into the core of a nuclear reactor.

_____________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in National Laboratories

ANS Technology of Fusion Energy Conference (TOFE-2012) – August 27-31

Posted on August 1, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

Realizing New Technologies for the Age of Fusion Energy

The 20th ANS Topical Meeting on the Technology of Fusion Energy, TOFE-2012, will be held August 27–31, 2012, at the 4-star Hutton Hotel in Nashville, Tenn. The TOFE meeting provides a forum for sharing the exciting progress made in fusion research, as well as presenting future plans for national and worldwide fusion programs.

The meeting’s early registration deadline is August 3, as is the deeply discounted hotel reservation deadline.

See the TOFE-2012 website for more information, including:

  • Preliminary Technical Program
  • Schedule of Events (including the “Grand Ole Opry,” and Oak Ridge National Laboratory technical tour)
  • Sponsors
  • Exhibitors Information
  • Papers and Posters Information
  • Registration

And more…  We hope to see you in Nashville!

_________________________

 

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Meetings, National Laboratories, Professional Divisions

ANS Friday Nuclear Matinee: The First Nuclear Chain Reaction

Posted on July 13, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Very highly recommended. On December 2, 1942, 49 scientists, led by Enrico Fermi, made history when Chicago Pile 1 (CP-1) went “critical” and produced the world’s first self-sustaining, controlled nuclear chain reaction.

Seventy years later, two of the last surviving CP-1 pioneers, Harold Agnew and Warren Nyer, recall and explain the events of that historic day.

Of course, nuclear chain reactions power the Sun and stars, and Earth had its own nuclear chain reactions long before humans achieved the controlled version – so some license is taken with the title of this post.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in National Laboratories, Nuclear pioneers

ANS’s Mark Peters testifies to Congress on recycling used nuclear fuel

Posted on June 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 4 Comments

On  Wednesday, June 6, Dr. Mark T. Peters appeared on behalf  of the American Nuclear Society before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.  Peters is the Deputy Laboratory Director for Programs at Argonne National Laboratory and testified at the invitation of the subcommittee.

The  hearing is titled “What’s Next for the U.S. – Korea Alliance.” Additional information, including all prepared testimony,  is available via the Committee website. Peters’ prepared testimony is below and can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking HERE.

 Recycling Used Nuclear Fuel: Balancing Energy and Waste Management Policies

Testimony to U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

Mark T. Peters, American Nuclear Society
June 6, 2012

My name is Mark Peters, and I am the Deputy Laboratory Director for Programs at Argonne National Laboratory. However, today I am speaking on behalf of the American Nuclear Society; my remarks should not be considered as an official statement from Argonne or the Department of Energy.

Peters

I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) on used nuclear fuel recycling as a means to achieve an integrated solution to energy and waste management policy. The ANS is a not-for-profit, international, scientific, and educational organization with nearly 12,000 members worldwide. The core purpose of ANS is to promote awareness and understanding of the application of nuclear science and technology. The ANS also wishes to acknowledge its longstanding professional collaboration with the Korean Nuclear Society (KNS). For more than 40 years, our two organizations have worked together to promote the safe and secure use of nuclear technology and materials.

For decades, the United States has grappled with the multiple challenges of crafting a long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel. These persistent challenges have taken on new urgency in the wake of the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, which has focused international attention on used nuclear fuel storage. Although the challenges of waste management require close scrutiny, these issues are most effectively considered within the context of an integrated policy for nuclear energy and nuclear waste management. Unfortunately, the United States is unique in its lack of such an integrated policy. Most other nations that rely on nuclear energy, including France, Russia, China, Japan, and Republic of Korea, have policies in place that promote development of used fuel recycling and advanced fast reactors, in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of their nuclear investments. We must consider our nuclear energy technology collaborations and partnerships within this global context.

At present, the United States’ strategic investments in advanced nuclear energy technologies are lagging; as a result, we rely increasingly on collaborative arrangements with foreign research institutions to conduct research in these areas. These collaborations provide advantages to both parties, and the United States has benefited from them. However, close alignment between government and nuclear industries in these nations speeds the international deployment of these cooperatively developed technologies, such as used fuel recycling and fast reactor technologies, while the United States has moved much more slowly in its adoption of them.

The Republic of Korea has publicly expressed its interest in incorporating electro-metallurgical reprocessing technology, commonly known as “pyroprocessing,” into its long-term nuclear fuel cycle plans. Pyroprocessing offers several potential benefits over current aqueous recycling techniques, such as the PUREX process being used in France and Japan today. These include the ability to recover minor actinides, which otherwise contribute significantly to the long-term radiotoxicity of used nuclear fuel; fewer releases of fission gases and tritium; and, the lack of production of pure plutonium, which helps to address proliferation concerns. Clearly, there will be engineering challenges inherent in the development of pyroprocessing technology, as there are with any other advanced manufacturing processes. However, these challenges can be addressed through joint research and development activities, and solving these challenges will have important implications for the United States as well as the Republic of Korea.

The American Nuclear Society believes that nuclear fuel recycling has the potential to reclaim much of the residual energy in used fuel currently in storage as well as used fuel that will be produced in the future, and that recycling offers a proven alternative to direct disposal of used fuel in a geological repository. In other nations, recycling of nuclear fuel with proper safeguards and material controls, under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has demonstrated that high-level waste volumes can be reduced safely and securely while improving the sustainability of energy resources.

It is the opinion of the ANS that the United States should begin planning a thoughtful and orderly transition to nuclear fuel recycling in parallel with the development of a geologic repository. Recycling would enhance the repository’s efficiency, eliminating the need for most complex and expensive engineered barriers and reducing the timeframe of concern from more than 100,000 years to a few hundred years.

The ANS also believes that the United States should accelerate development of fast spectrum reactors, which are uniquely capable of generating energy while consuming long-lived waste. Six decades ago, on December 20, 1951, scientists and engineers from Argonne National Laboratory started a small electrical power generator attached to an experimental fast reactor, creating enough energy to power four 200-watt electrical bulbs. That historic achievement demonstrated the peaceful use of nuclear energy and launched today’s global commercial nuclear energy industry. But it should not be overlooked that the first electricity generated through nuclear energy was produced using a fast reactor.

In closing, let me reiterate that the ANS believes that nuclear energy has a significant role to play in meeting the global energy demands of the 21st century, and that a global expansion of nuclear energy can be achieved safely and securely. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

BACKGROUND

Current Recycling Technologies

PUREX: Current commercial used nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies are based on the PUREX process, a solvent extraction process that separates uranium and plutonium and directs the remaining minor actinides (neptunium, americium, and curium) along with all of the fission products to vitrified waste. The PUREX process has more than 50 years of operational experience. For example, the La Hague reprocessing facility in France treats used fuel from domestic and foreign power reactors. The plutonium recovered is recycled as a mixed-oxide fuel to generate additional electricity. This technology also is used for commercial applications in the United Kingdom and Japan.

There are a number of drawbacks to the PUREX process. PUREX does not recover the minor actinides (neptunium, americium, curium, and heavier actinide elements), which compose a significant fraction of the long-term radiotoxicity of used fuel. Advanced fast reactors can transmute and consume minor actinides if they are separated from other fission product elements, but incorporation of minor actinide separations into existing PUREX facilities adds complexity and is outside commercial operating experience. Moreover, existing international facilities do not capture fission gases and tritium; these are discharged to the environment within regulatory limits. Although plutonium is recycled as mixed oxide fuel, this practice actually increases the net discharge of minor actinides. Finally, the production of pure plutonium through PUREX raises concerns about materials security and proliferation of nuclear weapons-usable materials.

Pyroprocessing: Pyroprocessing is currently being used at the Idaho National Laboratory to treat and stabilize used fuel from the decommissioned EBR-II reactor. The key separation step, electrorefining, recovers uranium (the bulk of the used fuel) in a single compact process operation. Ceramic and metallic waste forms, for active metal and noble metal fission products respectively, are being produced and qualified for disposal in a geologic repository. However, the demonstration equipment used for this treatment campaign has limited scalability. Argonne National Laboratory has developed conceptual designs of scalable, high-throughput equipment as well as an integrated facility for commercial used fuel treatment, but to date only a prototype advanced scalable electrorefiner has been fabricated and successfully tested. Additionally, work is underway at Argonne to refine the fundamental understanding of pyrochemical processes to achieve greater control of the composition of the recovered materials, which will facilitate developing safeguards consistent with U.S. non-proliferation goals.

Fuel Cycle Research in the United States

In the United States, the primary organization with responsibility for the research and development of used fuel recycling technologies is the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), through its Fuel Cycle Research and Development program. This program supports research to develop and evaluate separations and treatment processes for used nuclear fuel that will enable the transition from the current open fuel cycle practiced in the United States to a sustainable, environmentally acceptable, and economic closed fuel cycle. Ongoing projects related to reprocessing and waste management include:

• Using advanced modeling and simulation coupled with experiments to optimize the design and operation of separations equipment.
• Exploring an innovative one-step extraction process for americium and curium, radionuclides that are major contributors to nuclear waste toxicity, to reduce the cost of aqueous-based used-fuel treatment.
• Further developing pyrochemical processes for used fuel treatment. These processes enable the use of compact equipment and facilities, treatment of used fuel shortly after discharge from a reactor, and reduction of secondary waste generation.
• Developing highly durable and leach-resistant waste forms of metal, glass, and ceramic composition for safe, long-term disposal.

However, it must be noted that the United States increasingly relies on collaborative arrangements with foreign research institutions and universities to conduct research in these areas. For example, Argonne, Idaho, and other U.S. national laboratories are working with the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, in a series of joint studies sponsored by the United States and Republic of Korea, to study disposition options for used nuclear fuel, including pyroprocessing, in order to develop economic, sustainable long-term solutions, consistent with non-proliferation objectives, for nuclear energy production and waste management. The state of U.S nuclear research facilities is declining compared to steady investments being made in countries such as France, Russia, Japan, and Republic of Korea. More importantly, those governments, as part of their national energy policies, have committed to the development and deployment of advanced fast reactor technologies, which are an important element of an integrated energy and waste management policy.

Advanced Fast Reactor Technology

The American Nuclear Society believes that the development and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors based on fast-neutron fission technology is important to the sustainability, reliability, and security of the world’s long-term energy supply. Nearly all current nuclear reactors are of the “thermal neutron” design, and their capability to extract the energy potential in the uranium fuel is limited to less than 1% of that available. The remainder of the energy potential is left unused in the discharged fuel and in the uranium, depleted in U-235, that remains from the process of enriching the natural uranium in the isotope U-235 for use in thermal reactors. With known fast reactor technology, this unutilized energy can be harvested, thereby extending by a hundred-fold the amount of energy extracted from the same amount of mined uranium.

It is the opinion of the ANS that fast reactors in conjunction with nuclear fuel recycling can diminish the cost and duration of storing and disposing of waste. These cost savings may offset cost increases in the fuel cycle due to reprocessing and fuel re-fabrication. Virtually all long-lived heavy elements are eliminated during fast reactor operation, leaving a small amount of fission product waste that requires assured isolation from the environment for only hundreds of years. The design and construction of a geologic repository would be substantially less complex and costly. Just as importantly, a repository of this type could be located in a very broad range of areas, increasing the likelihood of multiple host locations.

Summary

The American Nuclear Society endorses development of used nuclear fuel recycling in fast neutron spectrum reactors in parallel with a geologic repository to secure an integrated, sustainable nuclear energy system for the United States. This initiative should balance the needs of the nuclear energy production sector with those of the waste management sector to achieve an integrated system that increases resource utilization for energy production, disposes waste in an environmentally acceptable manner, and is economic. The global nature of nuclear energy production and waste management encourages the continuation of U.S.-foreign collaborations to develop and demonstrate recycling and fast reactor technologies. In this regard, the relationship between the United States and Republic of Korea is of mutual benefit and of strategic importance to our nuclear energy and waste management policies.

_______________________

→ 4 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, MOX Fuel, National Laboratories, Nonproliferation, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, plutonium, South Korea, spent fuel, Spent nuclear fuel reprocessing

Founding chair of ANS Young Members Group wins Landis Award

Posted on April 23, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

By Jennifer Varnedoe

David Pointer, principal nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory and the founding chair of the American Nuclear Society’s Young Members Group (YMG), was honored with the 2012 ANS Landis Young Member Engineering Achievement Award. The award recognizes an individual who has made significant technical contributions in any one of the many engineering disciplines served by ANS. The contributions can be in the form of a new principle, concept, design, method of analysis, product emanating from research or development, or from effective application of engineering knowledge to yield a commercial service or product needed in the nuclear energy enterprise.

Pointer

Pointer received the award in recognition of his outstanding young career, exceptional technical achievements, and excellence in leadership to support the development of next-generation simulation tools on high-performance computing platforms. He is currently the technical lead in the development of the SHARP toolset, an integrated code able to address reactor multi-physics problems (thermal-hydraulics, neutronics, structural mechanics) in a fully coupled manner.  Among his numerous achievements are notably the development of innovative aerodynamic solutions for trailer-trucks, the development of multi-phase computational fluid dynamics models, and ground-breaking simulations of large-scale sodium fast reactor assemblies.

Pointer also received the YMG Excellence Award in 2007. A long-time member of YMG, and now a supporter of its mission, he exemplifies how YMG can be instrumental in promoting and fostering a young professional’s career through ANS. He had this to say about his vision of the role of YMG and how it helped him:

“The ANS Young Members Group was established to enable the next generation of nuclear professionals to reap the full benefits of active involvement in the Society much earlier in their careers.  My involvement in YMG has enabled me to take a much more active role in the development of my career, and I credit much of my success to the strong relationships I’ve forged through YMG.”

The Landis Award will be presented to Pointer at the ANS Annual Meeting in Chicago, in June.  Join us there to toast Dave Pointer for this prestigious achievement!

__________________

Varnedoe

Jennifer Varnedoe is chair of the ANS Young Members Group. She is a project engineer with Advanced Programs at GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy. She has been an ANS member since 2007 and is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

 

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Honors & Awards, National Laboratories, News, Professional Divisions

ANS’s Loewen visits local sections

Posted on February 20, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

Eric Loewen, president of the American Nuclear Society, kept up his rapid pace last week as he visited the ANS local section in Aiken, S.C., on February 15, and the one in Charlotte, N.C., on February 16. Loewen, as the featured speaker at the meetings of the two sections, presented his personal talk titled “Plutonium: Promise or Peril”.

During the morning on the 15th, Loewen toured the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility on the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. The facility,which is being built by the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, will convert surplus nuclear weapon-grade plutonium into reactor fuel for use in commercial nuclear power plants starting in 2016. Under a 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia will dispose of 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium, enough material for many thousands of nuclear weapons (see Shaw Areva MOX Services for more info).

Later on the 15th, Loewen was hosted by Stephen Sheetz of the Savannah River National Laboratory for a tour of the lab and other facilities on the Savannah River Site.

At the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility: Zachary Kosslow (ANS), Amanda Bryson (Shaw Areva MOX Services), Eric Loewen (ANS-president), and Kevin Hall (NNSA).

 

NNSA-MOX Federal Project Director Clay Ramsey illustrates with ANS's Loewen how a fuel pellet boat will be used in the MOX fuel fabrication process.

The dinner meeting that featured Loewen on the 15th was attended by about 160 people. The dinner was hosted by Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, in cooperation with ANS. “Dr. Loewen’s presentation was very well received by all in attendance,” said Amanda Bryson, chair of the Savannah River ANS local section. “The event brought together professionals at all stages of their careers from all over the Central Savannah River Area, representing many facets of the nuclear industry in the area. This was one of the best-attended events for ANS–Savannah River in the past year, and provided the opportunity for lively and thought-provoking interaction among our membership and the membership of Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness. It was a pleasure and a privilege to have Dr. Loewen visit.”

The next day, in Charlotte,  Loewen was interviewed on WFAE NPR Radio Charlotte. Click the “Listen” button at the WFAE webpage to tune in to the interview via the Comments page, or tune in to the interview directly.

Dr. Clint Wolfe (Exec. Dir. CNTA), Dr. Loewen, Karen Bonavita (CNTA)

“Dr. Loewen had over 100 attentive local section members as an audience,” said Thomas Doering, chair of the Piedmont-Carolinas ANS local section, regarding Loewen’s talk in Charlotte on the 16th. “The Peidmont-Carolinas section historically has drawn nearly 100 local members for over two years; the greater Charlotte area is considered the energy capital of the nation. Dr. Loewen’s talk focused on the misconceptions of plutonium and how other energy sources suffered from a similar beginning.”

When asked about his trip, Loewen said, “I’m just so impressed with the vibrancy and vitality of these sections. They really are greater than the sum of their parts, and their parts are pretty great.”

Carolinas Section Officers James Bakke, Thomas Doering - chair, ANS President Loewen, Myron Koblansky, Andrew Sowder.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Local Sections, Meetings, MOX Fuel, NASA, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, plutonium, spent fuel

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.

_____________________

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain