Radioactive Waste

The increasing importance of high-level radioactive waste.

 

 

 

Abstract

 

The prospect of developing a way to use fusion for energy production has been given a

 

significant priority by policy makers near and far who have the influence to decide how

 

to spend large amounts of money.  I believe an important reason for this is what has been

 

called the Achilles heal of fission reactors, which is the problem of how to properly deal

 

with high level radioactive waste.

 

 

 

I  Fusion technology.

 

     1.  Function and history.

 

     2.  How it compares in radioactive waste.

 

     3.  How it compares in funding.

 

     4.  What is said against funding fusion research.

 

 

II  The problem of high level radioactive waste from fission.

 

1.      How much concern there may be about it.

 

2.      Technology to change it.

 

 

 

I   Fusion technology.

 

       1.  Function and history.

 

 

The main type of fusion being considered for funding  is hot fusion in a “plasma.”   The lowest energy fusion reaction is with deuterium and tritium, heavy forms of hydrogen.  This reaction takes place at about 100 million  °C.  At that temperature the D-T fuel is a gaseous “plasma” of nuclei and electrons.  The reaction results in an alpha particle (a helium nucleus) and a high energy neutron.  Magnetic fields suspend the plasma in the machine (POST, 2003).  The graph below shows the energy differences between fusion and fission.

.  The curve is steeper at the left, and the graph shows that fusion produces much more energy than fission.  The energy comes from the slight loss of mass of each proton and neutron involved (Adley, 1975).

 

The first fusion machines in the early 1960s held the plasma in a toroidial shape with a large hole in the center, similar to a car tire.  Machines such as JET (Joint European Torus) have “fatter” shaped plasmas (from about 1980).  In 1991 the START (Small Tight Aspect Ratio Tokamak) experiment at Culhan Science Center began, and was designed to take that trend in plasma shape to its limit.  START produced an even more compact plasma, “like a cored apple”.  Concerning the name START, the word tokamak is Russian, and means a power machine.  START is a “spherical tokamak” (UKAEA, st history, 2008).

 

Another spherical tokamak is the NSTX (National Spherical Torus Experiment) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.  NSTX began in 1999, and claims to have made rapid progress through 2006, when the information bulletin was first written (PPPL, 2006).

 

The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) program is the successor of JET and began in 1988.  All of the large toroidal experiments like JET and ITER are of the conventional tokamak type.  Thus, ITER is not a spherical tokamak, though it is the largest and most expensive fusion experiment. The spherical tokamak could be more promising, eventually.  It is more efficient in keeping the plasma stable.  Efficiency is measured in the amount of plasma pressure that can be sustained by the magnetic field of the tokamak.  The plasma pressure efficiency is what is expected to have the most influence on the cost of electricity made by fusion in a tokamak.  START has the world record for this kind of tokamak efficiency (UKAEA, st advantages, 2008).

 

There are other methods of trying to control fusion, such as fusion with lasers and particle beams, and tepid fusion, a process that is similar to “cold fusion”.  The new field, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (the name “cold fusion” is considered misleading), deals with nuclear effects in and/or on condensed matter (Takahashi, 2004).  “Cold fusion” is a real but yet incompletely explained energy-producing phenomenon that occurs when ordinary hydrogen (one proton in the nucleus and called protium) and the special form of hydrogen called deuterium (one proton and one neutron in the nucleus) are brought together with metals, such as palladium, titanium, and nickel.  Usually, some triggering mechanism, such as electricity or acoustic energy, is required to provoke the “cold fusion” effects.  The most important evidence for cold fusion is the excess heat energy that comes from special electrochemical cells-“much more” heat coming out than electrical energy being fed in.  Competent and careful researchers have now confirmed that under the proper conditions it is possible to obtain excess power output beyond input power anywhere from 10% beyond input to many thousands of times the input power.  The possible measurement error in many cold fusion experiments today are “much, much” smaller than the huge effects being measured.  Several hundred laboratories around the world have obtained positive cold fusion results.  The difficulties with reproducibility of cold fusion effects are decreasing as researchers discover the conditions required to provoke the phenomena, such as sufficient deuterium loading of metal lattices, specific metallurgical requirements, and peculiar triggering mechanisms.  Some experimenters now report very regular appearances of “cold fusion phenomena”, such as neutron bursts, tritium production, and excess power as exhibited by heating and even boiling (Mallove and Rothwell, 1995).  Concerning the credibility of “cold fusion”, in 2006, Mosier-Boss and Szpak, reseachers in the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego, reported “evidence of nuclear reactions” with a type of cold fusion which have been independently replicated (Daviss and Krivit, 2006).

 

I  Fusion technology.

      2.  How it compares in radioactive waste.

 

 If suitable materials were developed, fusion reactor radwaste would decay faster than waste from the present fission reactors.  However the volume of radwaste from fusion would be comparable to fission, and a fraction of it could require long term, or high-level radwaste management (POST, 2003).

In thermonuclear fusion, tritium is used (one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus).  It is moderately radioactive with about a 12 year half-life, and can easily replace the hydrogen in water.  It goes through a metal wall, and so could get out of the reactor and into water.  Future techniques might be able to control the tritium (van Dooren, year?).  Tritium can form tritium oxide, which is a health hazard if absorbed (POST,2003).

 

During the normal operation of a tokamak, some amount of tritium will be released continually.  That would not cause “acute” danger, however the cumulative effect from a fusion economy could be of concern.  It has been estimated to be a “fairly large” environmental release of radioactivity.  Total containment facilities for tritium have been investigated for ITER (Fusion power-Wikipedia).

 

An EU working group, Safety and Environmental Aspects of Fusion Power (SEAFP), in their study showed that during the normal running (of a single power plant, I presume), the amount of radioactive material (probably tritium) released into the environment would be less than 1/1000 of the normal background radiation (Cook et al).

 

There are two other types of fusion that use the D-T fuel (other than a tokamak), and so the problem of tritium is with them also. 

 

“The continuing wonder” of cold fusion is that-whatever it is-it is apparently a very clean reaction that gives very little of the radiation common to fission and fusion reactions (Mallove and Rothwell, 1995).  “Low levels” of radiation are found in some reactions, but are usually absorbed within the cell itself so the system is “categorically safe”.  The field of CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), formerly called “cold fusion”, “offers great hope for realizing clean portable energy sources” (Takahashi, 2004).

 

I  Fusion technology.

      3.  How it compares in funding.

 

ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) started 1988, and was “launched” by Ronald Reagan and Gorbatchov.  With construction costs of US $5.5 billion it will be “one of the most expensive” scientific facilities ever built on Earth (Brumfiel,2005).

 

The government (United States government, I presume) has spent $21 billion on nuclear fusion, with no commercial applications expected until the ITER experiment is shown to get enough controlled energy out of the plasma (Valone, 2008).

 

The EU alone invests about 200 million euros p.a. in fusion research and development, compared to about 250 million euros investment in non-nuclear energy R&D (EU Framework V, 2002).

 

The Ministry of Education, Government of Japan, spends $15 to $20 million per year on cold fusion.  Research is coordinated through Japan’s National Institute for Fusion Science, in Nagoya, and conducted in National University Laboratories.

 

In the Autumn of 1991, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry organized a research consortium of ten major Japanese corporations to advance research in cold fusion.  Prior to this, only the Ministry of Education was involved in this research.  This consortium is called “The New Hydrogen Energy Panel” (NHEP).  In the spring of 1992 Japanese newspapers reported that five other major Japanese corporations asked to be included.  In mid-1992, MITI announced a four-year, three billon yen ($24 million) program to advance cold fusion research.  The corporate members are expected to contribute at least $4 million more to the fund, for a total of $28 million.  The present annual expenditure in Japan on cold fusion is estimated to approach $100 million (Mallove and Rothwell, 1995).

 

I  Fusion technology.

      4.  What is said against funding fusion research.

 

A controversy over funding fusion research is the idea that the money would be better spent on other forms of energy research and development.  Those that want the money spent say the long term benefits of fusion power justify the investment (POST, 2003).

 

It is “far from clear” whether nuclear fusion will be economically competitive with other forms of power, and funding for research into fusion power is “well ahead” of that of any single rivaling technology (Fusion power-Wikipedia).

 

Walter Marschall, one of the most prominent scientists and managers in the fields of both fission and fusion said in an interview with the BBC on April 8, 1994,  that fusion would never be commercially feasible because it would “simply cost too much money”(Dooren, year?).

 

Critics of cold fusion research have regularly dismissed “positive results” because the effects have not always been repeatable (Mallove and Rothwell, 1995).

 

II  The problem of high level radioactive waste from fission.

1.      How much concern there may be about it.

 

“A key roadblock” to the development of additional nuclear capacity is the concern over management of the nuclear waste produced by the plants, which requires disposal.  Commercial spent nuclear fuel is the major contributor to high level radioactive waste generated in the country.  With “projected growth of nuclear energy”, some estimates suggest that by 2100 the USA will have accumulated more than 300 000 t of spent fuel.  However, the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, by statute, can receive only 70 000 t of waste.  Taking into account “worldwide projections” of nuclear power growth, it is presumed that eventually a new repository of a similar size will have to be built somewhere in the world every three to four years (IAEA, pg 11).  Radioactive waste management has been called the “Achilles heel” of nuclear energy because of the “perceived absence” of disposal facilities (OECD, Chapter 4, pg. 38).

 

In the Bangor Daily News of 2/27/2008, there was an article on the front page titled Mainers still paying for N-plant.  And it said that mainers are yet paying for storage of radioactive waste generated at the plant more than 10 years after Maine Yankee stopped generating power, and will probably continue to for years to come.  The reason why is that there is not yet a permanent disposal site to take it, and the Yucca Mountain facility is not expected to be completed until 2020 at the earliest.  And it is not expected that it would all be taken from Maine until 2037 at the earliest.  Members of the state’s congressional delegation say it is likely to cost taxpayers “billions of dollars” to pay for the temporary storage of radioactive waste because the federal government is not expected to speed up the process of taking over the waste.  Sen. Olympia Snowe said “Congress does not appropriate the payments the government makes to the utilities as a result of the court cases. Those payments have totaled about $342 million so far but are expected to reach $7 billion before Yucca Mountain is operational”.  A law passed during the Carter administration makes the payments an obligation of the federal government.  There may be a similar problem in other states (Leary, 2008).

 

II  The problem of high level radioactive waste from fission.

2.      Technology to change it.

 

Partitioning and transmutation:  Partitioning is the separation of undesirable long-lived radioactive elements such as minor actinides (e.g. americium-243) and fission products from spent fuel.  Transmutation is the transformation of these problem elements into short-lived or stable elements using nuclear reactions.  Together these processes would, at least partly, eliminate those parts of high-level waste that contribute most to its heat generation and long-lived radioactivity.  P&T therefore has the potential to reduce the time that waste needs to be kept isolated from several thousand to several hundreds of years.  Transmutation is a process being investigated at the present time.  Research and development on the treatment of waste promise to reduce the volume of waste requiring isolation and the time of isolation.  Yet the results of this research shall not be available for “several decades” (OECD, Chapter 9, pg. 77).

 

Transmutation works through neutron capture or fission, eliminating those parts of high-level radioactive waste that contribute most to its heat production and radioactivity. However sufficient conversion of the isotopes to be practical would require many stages of Partitioning and transmutation, and a fully developed reprocessing fuel cycle, causing that solution to the problem to “seem a long way off” (OECD, Chapter 10, pgs. 86 and 87).

 

Even research in the field of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science is indicating transmutation of radioactive elements.  When the principles of Clean Fusion, Cleaner Fission and Transmutation will be established, application to portable energy sources and “radioactive waste incineration” is hopeful.  Selective condensed matter transmutation of Cs 133 to Pr 141 has been reproduced at Osaka U., and many times at MHI (Takahashi, 2005).  It appears that if there is a solution to the health and social problem of high-level radioactive waste, it would probably be advances in the technology of transmutation.

 

 

III  Bibliography.

 

Akito Takahashi, Sept. 6, 2004, Message from Prof. Akito Takahashi Hon. President (of

The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science): http://www.iscmns.org/Newsletter/NL1/pres1.htm, (3/17/2008).

 

A. Takahashi, May 13-16, 2005, TSC – induced nuclear reactions and cold transmutations:  Proc. Int. Workshop on Anomalies in Deuterium/Hydrogen Loaded Metals, Siena, http://www.iscmns.org/ .

 

Cook et al, 2001, Safety and Environmental Impact of Fusion: European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA) Report, 2001.

 

Daviss and Krivit, Nov. 10, 2006, Extraordinary evidence: New Energy Times [1] and Steven Krivit, 2007-03-10, Extraordinary Courage: Report on some LENR Presentations at the 2007 American Physical Society Meeting.

 

Eugene F. Mallove and Jed Rothwell, 1995, Cold fusion and New Energy Technology Resource Guide: ISBN 3-906571-14-9, http://www.padrak.com/ine/MALLOVECF.html .

 

EU Framework V programme 1998-2002.

 

Fusion power, from Wikipedia encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power, (1/25/2008).

 

Geoff Brumfiel, 7/21/2005, Fusion energy: Just around the corner: Nature, 436, 318-320.

 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Sept. 2006, Global development of advanced nuclear power plants, and related IAEA activities: www.iaea.org/worldatom .

 

Mal Leary, 2/27/2008, Mainers still paying for N-plant: Bangor Daily News, pages A1 and A8.

 

Marko van Dooren, Nuclear Fusion: http://members.fortunecity.com/marko_van_dooren/nuclear/nuclear_fusion.html , (2/6/2008).

 

Neil Ardley, 1975, Atoms and energy: First published in Great Britain by Sampson Low, ISBN 0-531-02442-3.

 

Nuclear Energy Agency, (OECD) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003, Nuclear Energy Today: OECD No. 53079 2003, ISBN 92-64-10328-7, www.nea.fr .

 

Parliamentry Office of Science and Technology (POST), January 2003, Nuclear Fusion: postnote Number 192, http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn192.pdf , (4/23/2008).

 

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), 2006, The National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX): http://www.pppl.gov/publications/pics/info_bull_nstx_0606.pdf , (4/23/2008).

 

Thomas Valone, Ph.D., March/April 2008, Energy in Your Future: Infinite Energy, Volume 13, Issue 78, page 38.

 

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), March 1, 2008, st advantages: http://www.fusion.org.uk/st/advantages.html ,(4/7/2008).

 

United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), March 1, 2008, st history: http://www.fusion.org.uk/st/history.html , (4/7/2008).