Will the Savannah River Site Reprocess Fuel or Use Stockpiled Plutonium?

[nismaratwork]

[split from a thread in the nuclear engineering forum]

That might be true in general for nuclear power, fast reactors are especially politically unpopular. For breeding you work, practically, you eventually have to reprocess fuel to remove the fission products. Some methods used to do this can be used to produce pure plutonium and are therefore considered a proliferation issue.

From Wikipedia:


Anyone know the details of the Savannah river site? Will they do reprocessing on site or will they consume stockpiled Pu from the weapons programs?

That would be a more compelling argument if we didn't already have enough warheads and boomers to turn the world into a smoking ceramic parking lot.

 

[Hologram0110]

Thank you for the information Astronuc, that was a very informative link.

That would be a more compelling argument if we didn't already have enough warheads and boomers to turn the world into a smoking ceramic parking lot.

While that may be true about the United-States and Russia, it does not apply to most other countries. If the US wants to tell other countries not to reprocess for civil purposed because they could divert some to military purposes the US can't in good faith reprocess. What if for example, Canada wanted to reprocess it's nuclear waste? Now what about Iran?

Additionally, there is no apparent need to begin reprocessing immediately. Waste storage is not a significant technical problem, and reprocessing is not economic with today's uranium prices. Eventually people will probably use our 'waste' in some reprocessed form but there is no case for it right now.

 

[nismaratwork]

Thank you for the information Astronuc, that was a very informative link.



While that may be true about the United-States and Russia, it does not apply to most other countries. If the US wants to tell other countries not to reprocess for civil purposed because they could divert some to military purposes the US can't in good faith reprocess. What if for example, Canada wanted to reprocess it's nuclear waste? Now what about Iran?

Additionally, there is no apparent need to begin reprocessing immediately. Waste storage is not a significant technical problem, and reprocessing is not economic with today's uranium prices. Eventually people will probably use our 'waste' in some reprocessed form but there is no case for it right now.

I recognize the politics, but I also recognize that the US simply doesn't need more (of the same kind) of bombs. This is imagery, not reality, which I realize is the point of diplomacy, but it's disingenuous. Only the USA and Russia have both the numbers, and the means of deployment to cause a nuclear holocaust, and that is unlikely to change. Should that REALLY prevent us from finding economical means to recover or produce fuel for civilian uses? We have the NIF for testing theories, now let's get cracking on the energy side. I see no problem with blocking Iran on an "unfair" basis; life isn't fair.

 

[cesiumfrog]

I see no problem with blocking Iran on an "unfair" basis; life isn't fair.

Or, you know, open your own facilities to the same international oversight.

 

[russ_watters]

While that may be true about the United-States and Russia, it does not apply to most other countries. If the US wants to tell other countries not to reprocess for civil purposed because they could divert some to military purposes the US can't in good faith reprocess.

That doesn't logically follow. The US already has nuclear weapons and will continue to have them whether we get civilian reprocessing or not. For a country that does not have nuclear weapons, reprocessing will help enable it.

There is no issue of fairness here: The situations are unequal because the situations are unequal.

Additionally, there is no apparent need to begin reprocessing immediately. Waste storage is not a significant technical problem, and reprocessing is not economic with today's uranium prices. Eventually people will probably use our 'waste' in some reprocessed form but there is no case for it right now.

While this may be true if you eliminate the political issues, the political issues make it untrue. Currently, the US government is violating agreements with power companies while having spent billions on a repository it now intends not to use. I'm for fixing which-ever of these two political issues is easier.

 

[Hologram0110]

It is interesting that many of you feel that the US should be allowed to tell other countries what they should be allowed to do for civilian purposes. As a Canadian, this seems utterly ridiculous.

As a non-nuclear power, I think it is ridiculous that you can try to tell Canada, or any other country not to peruse economic technologies (with fair international oversight), while the US is pursuing the exact same gains. It is at minimum a demonstration of good-faith on the part of the US to place the same economic restrictions on themselves they expect others to endure. Having nuclear weapons should not offer economic advantages to those countries that posses them.

In a slightly similar issue, the US has been leading by example with regards to conversion of HEU to LEU in civilian reactors. The US has also been encouring the operators of other HEU reactors to convert. This gives the US some credibility on the issue, otherwise you just look like a bully to your friends.

Personally, I support reprocessing spent fuel, provided countries both adhere to appropriate international oversight and are NPT signatories. This is especially true for reprocessing technologies which do not produce pure plutonium or U233. If you don't agree why?

 

[nismaratwork]

It is interesting that many of you feel that the US should be allowed to tell other countries what they should be allowed to do for civilian purposes. As a Canadian, this seems utterly ridiculous.

As a non-nuclear power, I think it is ridiculous that you can try to tell Canada, or any other country not to peruse economic technologies (with fair international oversight), while the US is pursuing the exact same gains. It is at minimum a demonstration of good-faith on the part of the US to place the same economic restrictions on themselves they expect others to endure. Having nuclear weapons should not offer economic advantages to those countries that posses them.

In a slightly similar issue, the US has been leading by example with regards to conversion of HEU to LEU in civilian reactors. The US has also been encouring the operators of other HEU reactors to convert. This gives the US some credibility on the issue, otherwise you just look like a bully to your friends.

Personally, I support reprocessing spent fuel, provided countries both adhere to appropriate international oversight and are NPT signatories. This is especially true for reprocessing technologies which do not produce pure plutonium or U233. If you don't agree why?

It is not ridiculous, it is unfair, just like life and geopolitics. As a means of control it is beats most historical attempts. Nations are not interested in what is fair or right, but what is advantageous. Politics aside, this doesn't change Russ' point, which is that we have so many nukes, and nukes ready to launch, that the rest is pointless. We don't need FBRs to make a new weapon, and again, the NIF is placing us in a separate category from nations that need to detonate to test.

Given those technical and political realities, it seems unfortunate that this would be a reason to ignore potentially useful technologies for civilian use. We violate agreements when we can get away with it, and it is useful, just as other nations do. Remember also that the inequality is a result of being the first to make and deploy nuclear arms, and a costly decades long cold war with the other massive nuclear entity, the former USSR. Why should we stand on principle when defending national interests?

We are not "allowed", it's called having massive military, technological and economic power. It will eventually change, but until then the credibility comes in the form of political rhetoric, the barrel of a "gun", and economic strings. This is the world.

 

[Hologram0110]

It is not ridiculous, it is unfair, just like life and geopolitics. As a means of control it is beats most historical attempts. Nations are not interested in what is fair or right, but what is advantageous. Politics aside, this doesn't change Russ' point, which is that we have so many nukes, and nukes ready to launch, that the rest is pointless. We don't need FBRs to make a new weapon, and again, the NIF is placing us in a separate category from nations that need to detonate to test.

Given those technical and political realities, it seems unfortunate that this would be a reason to ignore potentially useful technologies for civilian use. We violate agreements when we can get away with it, and it is useful, just as other nations do. Remember also that the inequality is a result of being the first to make and deploy nuclear arms, and a costly decades long cold war with the other massive nuclear entity, the former USSR. Why should we stand on principle when defending national interests?

We are not "allowed", it's called having massive military, technological and economic power. It will eventually change, but until then the credibility comes in the form of political rhetoric, the barrel of a "gun", and economic strings. This is the world.

"Why should we stand on principle?" I can't argue with that type of logic. That is the same logic that got the US warrentless wiretaps, Gauntness Bay, indefinite detention and the Patriot Act.

Right, we should throw out the concepts of fairness, cooperation and coordination within the international community. You're aboslutely right the US could get away with such hypocrisy, you must be so very proud.

I wonder how you'll feel when China starts leveraging the trillions of dollars of economic strings at it's disposal. Then will you think that cooperation and coordination are such a bad thing?

I'm fully in favor of reprocessing, provided it is done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner, for any country that does it under international safeguards. Any countries caught violating safeguards can be dealt with by the international community as the international community sees fit. What I am against is rewarding countries for obtaining atomic weapons, doing so only strengths the desire of other countries developing them.

I feel that reprocessing should be dealt with similarly to uranium enrichment in the NPT.

 

[nismaratwork]

"Why should we stand on principle?" I can't argue with that type of logic. That is the same logic that got the US warrentless wiretaps, Gauntness Bay, indefinite detention and the Patriot Act.

Right, we should throw out the concepts of fairness, cooperation and coordination within the international community. You're aboslutely right the US could get away with such hypocrisy, you must be so very proud.

I wonder how you'll feel when China starts leveraging the trillions of dollars of economic strings at it's disposal. Then will you think that cooperation and coordination are such a bad thing?

I'm fully in favor of reprocessing, provided it is done safely and in an environmentally responsible manner, for any country that does it under international safeguards. Any countries caught violating safeguards can be dealt with by the international community as the international community sees fit. What I am against is rewarding countries for obtaining atomic weapons, doing so only strengths the desire of other countries developing them.

I feel that reprocessing should be dealt with similarly to uranium enrichment in the NPT.

I'm not endorsing this view, I'm just describing the reality of geopolitics to you, in the light of historical means of control and dominance.

 

[russ_watters]

It is not ridiculous, it is unfair, just like life and geopolitics.

It's neither rediculous nor unfair: it is a treaty! An agreement. Countries like Iran have agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons and be open about their nuclear programs in exchange for assistance in developing nuclear power. What could be unfair or rediculous about that? More to the point, Iran voluntarily signed the treaty. If they thought it unfair or rediculous, they wouldn't have signed.

It is interesting that many of you feel that the US should be allowed to tell other countries what they should be allowed to do for civilian purposes. As a Canadian, this seems utterly ridiculous.

Nonsense. As a developer and signatory of many treaties with civilian economic implications, Canada has a long and proud history of telling other countries what they are allowed to do. That's a normal part of geopolitics.

As a non-nuclear power, I think it is ridiculous that you can try to tell Canada, or any other country not to peruse economic technologies (with fair international oversight), while the US is pursuing the exact same gains. It is at minimum a demonstration of good-faith on the part of the US to place the same economic restrictions on themselves they expect others to endure. Having nuclear weapons should not offer economic advantages to those countries that posses them.

You're not understanding what the NPT does. The NPT makes it economically advantageous not to develop nuclear weapons because in return for not developing nuclear weapons, such countries are provided technological assistance. There are no "economic restirctions" on any country who is faithfully fulfilling their obligations under the NPT. Being a nuclear weapons power does not confer an economic advantage.

Also, I think you may misunderstand Canada's status or maybe your wording was just tough to follow: Canada does have nuclear power.

 

[russ_watters]

Political disucssion split and sent to: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=410406

 

[nismaratwork]

It's neither rediculous nor unfair: it is a treaty! An agreement. Countries like Iran have agreed to not pursue nuclear weapons and be open about their nuclear programs in exchange for assistance in developing nuclear power. What could be unfair or rediculous about that? More to the point, Iran voluntarily signed the treaty. If they thought it unfair or rediculous, they wouldn't have signed. Nonsense. As a developer and signatory of many treaties with civilian economic implications, Canada has a long and proud history of telling other countries what they are allowed to do. That's a normal part of geopolitics. You're not understanding what the NPT does. The NPT makes it economically advantageous not to develop nuclear weapons because in return for not developing nuclear weapons, such countries are provided technological assistance. There are no "economic restirctions" on any country who is faithfully fulfilling their obligations under the NPT. Being a nuclear weapons power does not confer an economic advantage.

Also, I think you may misunderstand Canada's status or maybe your wording was just tough to follow: Canada does have nuclear power.

Of course it's unfair, but I don't mean that pejoratively. Fair is a simple concept, but it has no place in treaties, politics, or international relations. Is it fair you are one of the people on Earth with a computer and leisure time? No, but it's not wrong either, it simply is. My point was that getting into that entire realm with geopolitics is as useful as a beautiful sunset in a world of blind people.

Back to the topic at hand, we NPT, as you pointed out is advantageous for the USA economy, and frankly that means it's good for many other economies too. That being said, unless some disaster occurs with current storage, no senator is going to have the sack to allow a real central storage for waste in their state. The only way to battle that is to educate people as to the real risks and rewards of these technologies versus existing sources of non-portable energy. If voters "get it" there is a greater chance that congress will not wet itself every time the issue emerges.

Given this country's excellent history with nuclear energy, I find the reticence to engage in more of it baffling.

 

[aquitaine]

You're not understanding what the NPT does. The NPT makes it economically advantageous not to develop nuclear weapons because in return for not developing nuclear weapons, such countries are provided technological assistance.

Except for India of course. They never signed the treaty, but built the bomb anyway, yet we decided to give them that tech assistance.

While that may be true about the United-States and Russia, it does not apply to most other countries. If the US wants to tell other countries not to reprocess for civil purposed because they could divert some to military purposes the US can't in good faith reprocess.

In western Europe and Russia nuclear reprocessing is commonplace.

 

[nismaratwork]

Except for India of course. They never signed the treaty, but built the bomb anyway, yet we decided to give them that tech assistance.



In western Europe and Russia nuclear reprocessing is commonplace.

Russia, who like us has enough aimed warheads to end human life, and western Europe, such as France, with a track record of not giving a crap where nukes are concerned? Yeah, that's not really helpful. For India, again, it is a strategic partnership in opposition to Pakistan and China.

 

[Hologram0110]

You're not understanding what the NPT does. The NPT makes it economically advantageous not to develop nuclear weapons because in return for not developing nuclear weapons, such countries are provided technological assistance. There are no "economic restirctions" on any country who is faithfully fulfilling their obligations under the NPT. Being a nuclear weapons power does not confer an economic advantage.

Also, I think you may misunderstand Canada's status or maybe your wording was just tough to follow: Canada does have nuclear power.

I should start by clarifying, I am Canadian and I am aware that Canada has civil nuclear power. I'm a nuclear engineering in training in Canda (GO CANDU!). By nuclear power in the previous context I mean the country as a nuclear weapons power.

To the best of my (limited knowledge) under the NPT states are allowed to reprocess spent fuel, including producing plutonium, for peaceful uses provided proper international oversight is in place. IE, Any NPT signatory, should be allowed to operate a spent fuel recycling program provided the meet oversight conditions.

The US policy of discouraging spent fuel recovery exist outside the NPT. The current policy, has been "We don't want you to do it, so we won't either". Which is in my opinion a perfectly respectable position. The suggestion of several people on this forum however is that this policy should be changed to "Do as we say, not as we do" is where I have a problem.

The justification for this has been, "We can get away with being bullies", and "We have so many nukes, it isn't like we'd want more anyways". This second argument is what I'm attacking when I say that I don't think that having a lot of nuclear weapons should convey an economic benefit.

I do not contest that the US has far greater political clout, military power, and economic strings than much smaller nations including Canada. If however, the US decides it wants to push the issue, I have to ask, how are we 'friends'?

 

[mheslep]

... The suggestion of several people on this forum however is that this policy should be changed to "Do as we say, not as we do" is where I have a problem.

Maybe there were comments to this effect in the other forum before the split, but what 'several' people? Aside from nismaratwork's 'unfair'-is-ok-because-we're-strong posts I've seen no such comments in this thread.

 

[mheslep]

Hopefully I'll add some focus to the topic by pointing out that the main problem associated with proliferation issues in reprocessing is that it means stockpiles of Plutonium will accumulate - unless or until they're burned in reactors as fuel. Steal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere" and an Iran like state could likely quickly make an implosion weapon. Increasing the stockpile seams to me it unavoidably increases the current risk (whatever that risk may be, and it may be small) that some can be mishandled.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hopefully I'll add some focus to the topic by pointing out that the main problem associated with proliferation issues in reprocessing is that it means stockpiles of Plutonium will accumulate - unless or until they're loaded into reactors for fuel. Steal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere" and an Iran like state could likely quickly make an implosion weapon. Increasing the stockpile seams to me it unavoidably increases the current risk (whatever that may be) that some can be mishandled.

Excellent, you've just lined up my nightmare for tonight! Grrrr.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe there were comments to this effect in the other forum before the split, but what 'several' people? Aside from nismaratwork's 'unfair'-is-ok-because-we're-strong posts I've seen no such comments in this thread.

I didn't say it was ok, or not ok, just that it's the norm.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Hopefully I'll add some focus to the topic by pointing out that the main problem associated with proliferation issues in reprocessing is that it means stockpiles of Plutonium will accumulate - unless or until they're burned in reactors as fuel. Steal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass#Critical_mass_of_a_bare_sphere" and an Iran like state could likely quickly make an implosion weapon. Increasing the stockpile seams to me it unavoidably increases the current risk (whatever that risk may be, and it may be small) that some can be mishandled.

So just mandate it that all Pu239 stockpiles must be contaminated with 18% or greater by weight of Pu240. That would make it useless in a bomb without very expensive and difficult isotopic separation. Problem solved.

 

[mheslep]

So just mandate it that all Pu239 stockpiles must be contaminated with 18% or greater by weight of Pu240. That would make it useless in a bomb without very expensive and difficult isotopic separation. Problem solved.

Interesting. I knew that heavy neutron generator isotopes caused problems for Pu bombs, but a couple of questions on practicality:
1. Where does the Pu240 come from? That is, does the spent fuel exiting a reactor heading for reprocessing contain at least 18% Pu240? What in fact are the isotope mixes?
2. Does fuel with 18% Pu240 impact its use in a reactor? (~160 Neutrons/g-s) Can a neutron flux like that be handled economically at all? After all, the main point of reprocessing is to produce more usable fuel, and not simply to make some material unusable for a weapon.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Interesting. I knew that heavy neutron generator isotopes caused problems for Pu bombs, but a couple of questions on practicality:
1. Where does the Pu240 come from? That is, does the spent fuel exiting a reactor heading for reprocessing contain at least 18% Pu240? What in fact are the isotope mixes?
2. Does fuel with 18% Pu240 impact its use in a reactor? (~160 Neutrons/g-s) Can a neutron flux like that be handled economically at all? After all, the main point of reprocessing is to produce more usable fuel, and not simply to make some material unusable for a weapon.

1. It naturally occurs in the reaction process. Cycle times of 90 days are needed to make it possible for small concretions of Pu240 and large concretions of Pu239. Hence the design of the RBMK reactor. I seem to recall that the mix is 70% Pu239 30% Pu240 from spent USA LWR fuel. I believe the CANDU reactor makes more Pu isotopes during the reaction, however it also burns more of that Pu so the final concretions are about the same as LWR fuel there is just less of it.

2. Reactor grade Pu consists of 18% Pu240 so I'm assuming that even though Pu240 is a neutron absorber (becoming Pu241 which will readily split), it won't muck up the reaction at the 18% mark. It might be a problem in LWR at higher concretions, however I don't think it will mess up a stable chain reaction in heavy water (CANDU) or fast type reactors.

Hopefully Astronuc will see this and correct anything I got wrong or didn't explain clearly enough. I need to stop posting late at night before I goto bed. :)

 

[Hologram0110]

Isotopes with masses greater than U238 are not found naturally. In a reactor they are created by successive neutron absorptions (and sometimes then beta decay which is what changes the element) eg U238->U239->Np239->Pu239->Pu240->Pu241 ect.

The higher isotpes of Pu are bad for producing a bomb, but you can't remove them without enriching which would be even harder than producing a U235 bomb. Instead you make the plutonium have a higher percentage of Pu239 by leaving it in the reactor for a shorter period of time.

You can read a bit more about this on Wikipedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade#Weapons-grade_plutonium

I don't know what percentages are required to make bomb production ineffective, however, the US did successfully test a bomb made with non-weapons grade Pu. The details are still classified so we cannot really comment on how difficult it would be for a rogue state.

 

[mheslep]

1. It naturally occurs in the reaction process. Cycle times of 90 days are needed to make it possible for small concretions of Pu240 and large concretions of Pu239. Hence the design of the RBMK reactor. I seem to recall that the mix is 70% Pu239 30% Pu240 from spent USA LWR fuel. I believe the CANDU reactor makes more Pu isotopes during the reaction, however it also burns more of that Pu so the final concretions are about the same as LWR fuel there is just less of it.

2. Reactor grade Pu consists of 18% Pu240 so I'm assuming that even though Pu240 is a neutron absorber (becoming Pu241 which will readily split), it won't muck up the reaction at the 18% mark.

So if the Pu exits the reactor 70/30, then isotope separation in reprocessing would be required to mix it down to 82/18? Or could it be left at 70/30 for a new fuel load?

 

[aquitaine]

Russia, who like us has enough aimed warheads to end human life, and western Europe, such as France, with a track record of not giving a crap where nukes are concerned?

All of which have signed the non-proliferation treaty and are entitled to its benefits. It doesn't matter why we helped India, what does matter is that it was a blatant violation of the NPT. Treaties are useless unless actually enforced. Now Iran and North Korea believe that if they can hold old long enough like India did, they too will be welcomed to the club. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

[nismaratwork]

All of which have signed the non-proliferation treaty and are entitled to its benefits. It doesn't matter why we helped India, what does matter is that it was a blatant violation of the NPT. Treaties are useless unless actually enforced. Now Iran and North Korea believe that if they can hold old long enough like India did, they too will be welcomed to the club. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

That strikes me as extremely naive.

 

[aquitaine]

Nice troll.