MIT Report: Storage for spent nuclear fuel more crucial than ever - may raise cost of new plants

[jpak]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/nuclear-report-0426.html

The United States and other countries around the world looking to nuclear power for their energy needs must consider how spent fuel will be handled as they construct new plants and examine existing ones, especially in light of the recent crisis in Japan, according to a comprehensive study from MIT.

The ongoing problems at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi powerplant — caused by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami — have been significantly exacerbated by the presence of used fuel housed in the reactor buildings, and demonstrate the urgency needed in dealing with such waste, the report’s authors say. It specifically underscores the importance of finding a way to deal with the growing amount of spent nuclear fuel housed at existing U.S. nuclear plants.

The report, a summary of which was released last September, strongly recommends that an interim solution be developed to remove spent fuel from storage facilities at reactor sites, and move it to regional, medium-term repositories where the fuel can be monitored and protected as it decays over time. Spent fuel loses much of its radioactivity with every passing decade, as the most dangerous radioactive isotopes decay and lose much of their potency during the first 50 years, thus diminishing the problem of long-term storage.

Planning for the ultimate handling of spent nuclear fuel “has frankly been an afterthought in U.S. fuel-cycle policy,” said Ernest J. Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and co-chairman of the new report, at a press conference today to introduce the report. “It can’t be that,” he said. Instead, “it should be integrated” into the overall planning for the nation’s energy policies and “the U.S. should move toward centralized spent nuclear fuel storage.”

<more>

[Eric J in MN]

1. Keeping the rods near the reactor causes problems when...

...there is an emergency at the reactor.

But moving them to Yucca has its own problems.

Will drivers be exposed to radiation when a truck carrying the rods is nearby?

[kristopher]

2. No, they will not.

When properly contained the materials are safe to transport.

For more information you might want to read the article at the first link in this OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x290797

[Eric J in MN]

4. What stops the drivers near the trucks carrying rods...

...from being exposed to radiation?

[FBaggins]

7. Low level of activity combined with a high level of shielding. n/t

[lyonn]

3. Before picking a spot for spent fuel rods

one must check the common direction the wind blows. When they were blowing up nukes in the atmosphere in New Mexico and Nev. in the 40's and 50's guess which direction the wind was blowing? Basicly East. How about burying it in the Appalachians or Georgia, Alabama, you get the idea, those States that seem to like nuke fuel and repubs rule of law. I've lived in Okla for way too long and know many friends that have died from unusual cancers, like no family history, etc.. While my friends and family from Cali seem to have fewer problems. Something to think about. That shit is dangerous......

[DCKit]

5. Oh Yeah? Guess the solar industry is going to have to deal with THEIR waste too, then.

It's only fair.

Same goes for hydro, wave, tidal, wind, geothermal and biomass. They've been getting a free ride for too long.

[enough]

6. Big problem. Where is the money going to come from for either temporary or permanent storage?

This will require massive expenditure with no profit to the utility. Which is why the problem has been ignored in the first place. Do we actually think Congress is going to appropriate money for this? Where is it going to come from?

Those of us who fought the building of plants in our neighborhoods decades ago were talking about this at the time. I still don't see the answer to the question. I see this can getting kicked down the road indefinitely.

[FBaggins]

8. From the fund that was set up to pay for it.

This will require massive expenditure with no profit to the utility.

The utility is nevertheless required to pay as a condition of getting approval to have a reactor in the first place.

[Kolesar]

9. Is that money held in escrow?

Or does the public have to wait to collect from the utilities (who may go out of business)?

[FBaggins]

12. Not "escrow" so much as "governmental black hole"

The utilities have paid the money... but that doesn't mean it's sitting in an account somewhere.

[Nihil]

17. Isn't that the truth though ...?

Perhaps this is why Obama is apparently so supportive of new nuclear plants?
(i.e., he doesn't want to admit that the money already put down by the
utilities has been spent elsewhere by his and Bush's administrations ...
mainly on their wars for fossil fuel.)

The last thing that they want to admit while the current "storage of used
fuel rods" crisis is ongoing is that the US "strategy" for handling the same
problem has not only failed to build even a dodgy rooftop pool of their own
but has managed to spend all of the money extracted from the utilities
in the meantime ...

Oops.

[enough]

11. Look into those funds and you will find they are going to be woefully inadequate. (nt)

[FBaggins]

13. Not by the latest estimates

I think the last Yucca mountain estimate was about $100 Billion over 150 years. The utilities had already paid in $30Billion IIRC... and may be owed billions more for onsite expenses that wouldn't have been paid if the government had held up their end of the bargain.

[enough]

15. "Owed" by whom? This is exactly my point. Guess who will end up paying. (nt)

[FBaggins]

16. Owed by a government that (IIRC) was contractually obligated to take the fuel

But never did.

[flamingdem]

10. yes, and Wall Street isn't into nukes, if we're lucky they'll start to go away soon nt

[enough]

14. They will go away, but their legacy of spent fuel will not. (nt)