Home > Nuclear Energy > All About Recycling Nuclear Waste

All About Recycling Nuclear Waste

By: Maggie Wakefield - Updated: 24 Aug 2012 | comments*Discuss
 
All About Recycling Nuclear Waste

Nuclear power stations represent an efficient means of producing electricity, and they produce no greenhouse gases. But toxic radioactive waste is left over from the process of nuclear fission, and this presents a problem. In the fifty years or so since we started using nuclear fission reactors, a lot of dangerous waste material has built up.

Why is There So Much Nuclear Waste?

Not all radioactive waste comes from nuclear reactors. Some is produced by hospitals, where various procedures involving radiation are carried out; and in some countries, there is a legacy of waste from nuclear weapons programmes. But most of the waste is the result of nuclear power generation. In fact, nuclear power stations do not produce a tremendous amount of waste material in comparison to fossil fuel power stations; but because of the difficulties inherent in disposing of this material, it has accumulated.

Nuclear reactors are powered by bundles of fuel rods containing pellets of uranium. Not all the uranium will take part in the reaction. Only the isotope uranium-235 is fissile, or burnable, and this isotope accounts for a small proportion of the uranium in the fuel rods; most of it is uranium-238. The fusion reaction will only continue for as long as the fuel contains a certain minimum level of uranium-235. Over time, the level drops.

When the fuel is ‘spent’, the fuel rods are taken out and replaced. But although these spent fuel rods no longer contain enough uranium-235 to fuel fission, most of the uranium-238 and a small proportion of the uranium-235 still remain, and the spent fuel is highly radioactive.

It is estimated that in the US, somewhere in the region of 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel has been produced over the years.

Disposal of Nuclear Waste

This material will remain radioactive for literally thousands of years.

Quite apart from the dangers of contamination, another issue is that nuclear waste could be used to produce nuclear weapons. There are therefore very real security risks involved.

One approach to disposing of nuclear waste is to bury it permanently. This is sometimes called ‘geological disposal’. It has to be buried in a purpose-built repository at a depth of between two hundred and a thousand metres, somewhere where there is no danger of it being disturbed by human or natural intervention – either by terrorists looking for weapon material, or by earthquakes or flooding. Finding a suitable site to bury nuclear waste is not easy.

Reprocessing and Recycling of Nuclear Waste

It is possible, however, to reprocess nuclear waste and separate out uranium and plutonium, which can be recycled.

France is generally regarded as the leader in nuclear waste reprocessing. It is the only country that has an established, large-scale, successful nuclear waste reprocessing facility, although other countries do reprocess to some extent. The process used at La Hague, in Normandy, is an advanced version of the Purex (‘plutonium-uranium extraction’) process developed in the 1950s. The waste is broken down, and ends up as a supply of two separate re-usable elements, plus sealed canisters of toxic material.

The temperature of the spent fuel bundles arriving at the reprocessing plant is around 300 degrees Celsius, and they are left to cool for up to five years before being chemically processed. Processing extracts uranium, which is stored because at present it is not considered economic to re-use it. A small quantity of plutonium is also extracted; this is sold, for re-use in blending nuclear fuel.

The chemicals and solutions used in the Purex process also have to be disposed of, and these are very dangerous as they consist mainly of acids and extremely radioactive spent fuel residues. This mixture is vitrified – which means that it is encapsulated inside borosilic glass, a strong and non-fragile substance (like Pyrex) – and sealed in a metal canister. In this way the toxic material is effectively isolated from the environment and relatively safe to handle. Each canister is less than one-and-a-half metres high, with a diameter of less than half a metre, and a large reactor would produce around 20 of these canisters a year.

The arguments in favour of reprocessing nuclear waste are that the quantity of toxic, unusable material is greatly reduced; it is released in a manageable package that is convenient to transport; and the intrinsic value of those elements of spent fuel that can be re-cycled is recognised. On the other hand, reprocessing poses certain dangers in that it involves more transportation and handling of the waste material, and there are concerns that plutonium, once separated out, could be hijacked for terrorist activities. So opinions are divided; but it is clear that we need a strategy for dealing with nuclear waste, especially if more nuclear power stations are to be built in the future.

You might also like...
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice..
It is not true that "Nuclear power stations ... produce no greenhouse gases." The truth is just opposite: most of the greenhouse effect and the primary danger originates from nuclear "hold up" in the stratosphere and not from the "fall out". There is no question but what the stratosphere is accumulating radioactive death rays for destruction of Earth?s oxygen at an increasing rate. The freely expressed belief that “the pull of gravity” will bring the fall-out to earth is costly to human survival. A small percentage of the higher potential goes toward Earth, but the LARGER PERCENTAGE IS OF A POTENTIAL WHICH IS LIGHTER THAN THE EARTH PRESSURES. These seek the upper levels and the stratospheres so that both the Earth's fever and oxygen depletion are caused by radioactive radiation from the stratosphere onto Earth. That is bad news. The good news is that THERE IS PERMANENT AND SAFE SOLUTION FOR NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT which integrates ALL nuclear waste into natural life cycle not only helping to finally get rid of the nuclear waste forever but also to harness it to serve the human progress creating great benefits in form of rebalancing of the unbalanced Earth’s climate and creating new huge food sources and billions of new workplaces worldwide. This solution will remain unknown to the science as long as the existing wrong concept of the atom is replaced with the true one and on that basis the true nature of radioactivity would be understood. Who doubts could check it. Laki
Laki - 3-Aug-12 @ 9:55 AM
We do need to reprocess more nuclear waste. France has shown that it can be achieved, but it's still not widely done - instead we find places to bury the waste and quite probably poison the earth as we can't offer a perfect guarantee that the storage containers for the waste won't leak in 1000 or 2000 years, and this waste will be radioactive for much longer than that. We're taking a gamble that some future generation will be able to solve this problem, and that's a dangerous situation.
Walter - 4-Jul-12 @ 6:20 AM
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice...
Title:
(never shown)
Firstname:
(never shown)
Surname:
(never shown)
Email:
(never shown)
Nickname:
(shown)
Comment:
Validate:
Enter word:
Topics
Further Reading...
Our Most Popular...
Add to my Yahoo!
Add to Google
Stumble this
Add to Twitter
Add To Facebook
RSS feed
You should seek independent professional advice before acting upon any information on the TypesOfEnergy website. Please read our Disclaimer.