1

Nuclear Reprocessing: Technological, Economic, and Social Problems

     

Final paper for BPRO 29000: Energy and Energy Policy Professors R. Stephen Berry and George S. Tolley

                             

Team 25 Amy Park Jonathan Ling Michelle Jiang Parina Lalchandani

2

Table of Contents Abstract 3

I. Introduction 4-6

II. Technology 7-21

III. Economic Analysis 22-35

IV. Social Costs of Nuclear Waste Disposal 36-43

V. Conclusion and Possible Solutions 44-47

VI. References 48-52

3

Abstract Due to its large energy density, lack of common pollutants, and independence from environmental factors, nuclear energy has recently become an attractive alternative to conventional sources of energy. However, countries which lack well-developed reprocessing infrastructures often rely on direct disposal to handle the accruement of radioactive waste. As a result, these countries are hesitant to transition to nuclear energy. In this paper, we will explore the viability of reprocessing in nuclear energy. In Section II, we explore the histories of nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal, before turning to an analysis of various nuclear reprocessing technologies. Although we do explain the most conventionally used method, PUREX, we focus on newer technologies such as COEX, DIAMEX-SANEX, and pyroprocessing. We then continue in Section III with an economic analysis of the viability of reprocessing, breaking our analysis into three sections: short-term, long-term, and externalities. Compiling multiple models, and using a simple model, we find that the market price of uranium would need to be at least $360 for reprocessing to be viable with current technology – this price will not be reached for over a century, if even then. However, we also find that due to large environmental and health externalities from conventional sources of energy, it would be optimal to transition to nuclear power, but difficult given the lack of geographical space for direct disposal and storage of nuclear waste. As a result, we propose a new idea: countries without reprocessing infrastructure should outsource their nuclear reprocessing to countries such as France, who have a comparative advantage in cost-effective reprocessing technology that they already implement for themselves. Finally, in section IV, we explore the social problems with nuclear reprocessing. Lack of geographical space for building repositories, fear of nuclear accidents or theft during the transportation of hazardous nuclear material, and the political will of the people, who often do not want nuclear operations close by, prevent nuclear programs from being implemented. While these are valid concerns, international cooperation would let countries work through these issues.

4

I. Introduction In recent years, nuclear energy has become more and more viable as an alternative

energy source. Unlike wind and solar power, nuclear energy can run ceaselessly

without dependence on environmental phenomena. Furthermore, nuclear energy has a

large energy density compared to other sources. Nuclear energy is competitive even

when compared with conventional sources of energy such as oil or natural gas, and

even more, does not release common pollutants such as carbon dioxide.

Nevertheless, countries are still very hesitant to transition to nuclear energy. This

hesitation is due to an inability to handle nuclear waste, which most countries directly

dispose of in either dangerous above-ground pools, or costly below-ground

repositories. In this paper, we will explore the viability of nuclear reprocessing to

handle nuclear waste disposal. Because nuclear reprocessing recycles nuclear material

for future use, it not only makes nuclear energy more cost-effective, but also solves

the waste storage problem. However, nuclear processing faces a plethora of

technological, economic, and social problems that it must overcome in order to

become a viable alternative to direct disposal of nuclear waste.

In section II, we discuss the history of nuclear power and nuclear waste disposal,

beginning with WWII. Afterwards, we discuss various nuclear reprocessing

technologies, from the most conventionally used PUREX, to newer technologies such

as COEX and pyroprocessing. These newer technologies could make nuclear

reprocessing much more viable in the future. For example, while PUREX completely

separates plutonium from the spent nuclear fuel, leading to a nuclear proliferation risk

(due to the ability to easily create nuclear bombs from plutonium), the newer

processes of COEX and UREX+ don’t separate plutonium from the fuel at all,

eliminating this risk.

5

In Section III, we continue with an analysis of the economic viability of

reprocessing. We break our analysis into three parts. In our short-term analysis, we

find that reprocessing is less cost effective than direct disposal. In our long-term

analysis, we analyze the price of uranium into the future. Our research shows that the

market price of uranium must be at least $360 for recycling to be viable with current

technology, and our model incorporates this assumption to show that it will take at

least a century before reprocessing is economically viable for the US. However, in our

externality analysis, we show it would still be optimal to transition to nuclear power.

The externality prices of nuclear power are always built into the initial cost, as we

must build waste processing facilities before we can use nuclear power. However, the

externality prices of sources such as oil are not built into the initial cost, as they take a

toll on the environment and on health in ways that governmental officials are not

directly held accountable for. As a result, when we analyze the externality prices, we

find that due to large environmental and thus health externalities from conventional

source of energy, nuclear energy is more viable than continuing with coal plants.

However, the lack of geographical space for direct disposal means that we still must

continue with efforts to reprocess. As a result, we consider a solution where countries

without reprocessing infrastructure outsource their nuclear waste to countries such as

France, who reprocess for them and send the material back. France’s experience with

nuclear reprocessing and well-developed infrastructure means it has a comparative

advantage in reprocessing, and could thus offer reprocessing services for other

countries.

Finally, in section IV, we explore the social problems of nuclear reprocessing.

First, we discuss geographical space constraints; building repositories for nuclear

energy and nuclear waste take a lot of physical space, which countries such as Japan

6

strongly lack. Next, we discuss the transportation of hazardous nuclear material,

which could result in either nuclear accidents or theft by terrorists. Third, the political

will of the people very much does not embrace nuclear technology. Due to fear of

nuclear accidents and radiation, many citizens do not want nuclear operations close

by, and thus prevent nuclear programs from being implemented. Fourth, accidents

such as Chernobyl make countries very wary about implementing nuclear technology.

We conclude that while these are valid concerns with nuclear reprocessing, we

end with a proposal of international cooperation. International cooperation would let

countries work together to solve these issues. As we work towards better technology,

more cost-effective infrastructure, and methods to solve social problems, we make

nuclear energy a more and more viable solution to future provisions of energy.

7

II. History and Technology

Nuclear power is an extremely effective and efficient form of energy. A large

amount of an atom’s mass is turned into pure energy by splitting the nucleus of the

large atom. This technology of developing nuclear energy, which was pioneered by

the great minds behind the Manhattan Project,1 has been used for various purposes in

addition to the original military one. Nuclear energy was used as a propulsion system

for navy vessels shortly after WWII, and it quickly entered the public sector to

become one of the sources of electricity in modern day society.2 Such a diverse range

of capabilities and its efficiency make nuclear power a generally well-received,

attractive source of energy that may be considered as an alternate to fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy also provides numerous benefits that other sources of energy

lack. For instance, it is very reliable due to the reactors’ capability to produce base-

load electricity 24/7. This constant production of nuclear energy is also completed

without emitting pollutants such as carbon dioxide (CO2), and thus leads to a decrease

in greenhouse gas emission, which has been a major environmental concern for

decades.3 In addition, the statistics that show that nuclear power has caused fewer

deaths than coal, natural gas, or hydroelectric power suggest that nuclear power safer

than many other major power sources.4 Moreover, the energy density, which is

defined as the amount of energy per one unit of mass, is much greater for nuclear

power than for other major fuels including alternative energy sources such as wind

                                                                                                               1 Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster, 2012. 896. 2 Weinberg, Alvin M., and Harold W. Lewis. "The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technological Fixer." Phys. Today Physics Today, 1994, 63. 3 Pacala, S. "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies." Science 305, no. 13 (2004): 968-72. Accessed December 3, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.1100103. 4 Berry, R.S. "Nuclear Power: History, Positives and Negatives, Comments, Observations." Lecture, BPRO 29000, Energy & Energy Policy, Chicago, October 21, 2015.

8

and solar power. Such data once again confirm that nuclear energy is more efficient

than most other forms of energy that are currently being used or developed.5

The large energy density that contributes to efficiency of nuclear power comes

from the chemical attributes of the main element of a nuclear reaction, uranium.

Among all the chemical elements, heavy and stable ones tend to store more energy

than others. Of many chemical elements that meet these two qualifications, uranium

was chosen particularly due to its relative abundancy compared to other stable heavy

elements.6 Uranium is found in two different isotopes, U-238 and U-235, and natural

uranium is made up of 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. Even though U-238 is much

more common than U-235, U-235 is the Uranium isotope that is used for nuclear

reaction. This is due to the fact that U-235 readily splits or fissions when a neutron is

introduced, unlike U-238, which is not very reactive. Scientists have developed a

process called enrichment, in which the percent composition of U-235 increases

through isotope separation, in order to overcome the scarcity problem with U-235. A

typical nuclear reactor requires around 3.5% U-235 so natural uranium is enriched

until it reaches the desired percent composition for nuclear reaction.7

Enriched uranium has enough fission material for there to be chain nuclear

reactions inside of the reactor, resulting in the conversion of mass of the atom into

energy in the form of heat, radiation, and more neutrons. This energy is harnessed

when the coolant, which is often water, within the reactor removes the heat energy

from nuclear reactor core and transfers it to electrical generators to produce energy in

                                                                                                               5 Koch, Frans H. "Hydropower–internalised costs and externalised benefits." Externalities and Energy Policy: The Life Cycle Analysis Approach 15 (2001): 131. 6 Touran, Nick. "WHAT•IS•NUCLEAR?" What Is Nuclear? / Where Did the Energy in Nuclei Come From? 2007. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/orig_of_energy.html. 7 Schnitzer, Daniel A.K. "A Link Without A Chain: Assessing the Proposed Return to Reprocessing in the United States Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." Thesis. The University of Chicago, 2007.

9

the form of electricity.8 After a series of chain nuclear reactions using U-235, the

percent composition of U-235 decreases to or below the minimum level of U-235

needed for efficient fission reactions. Thus, it no longer is economical to continue to

use the fuel for further nuclear power generation, and the nuclear fuel is now

considered spent fuel or waste. The chemical composition of spent fuels is 95%

unused U-238, 1% U-235, 1% plutonium created from a nuclear reaction known as

beta decay, 3% fission products, and 0.1% dangerously radioactive actinides. As we

can see form the composition, the spent fuel still contains a significant amount of

uranium, and thus there are considerable amount of reusable elements that can be

extracted and reprocessed to be used as a fuel for nuclear reaction.9 In the following

sections, we will examine different nuclear waste disposal methods that have been

used, as well as various reprocessing methods for nuclear waste.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Methods throughout History

One of the first methods of handling nuclear waste was to crudely dispose of it

in large bodies of water. This procedure, aptly known as ocean disposal, entailed

dumping waste into parts in the ocean selected for their ideal depth, stability, and

favorable direction of current. On the other hand, for almost as long as ocean disposal

has existed, nuclear waste has also been stored onsite in above-ground facilities. This

remains common today; instead of immediately being ferried to permanent facilities,

waste continues to spend the first part of its lifecycle in exposed spent fuel pools. The

waste is then supposed to be moved to a more permanent location away from the

power plant to limit potential damage.

                                                                                                               8 "What Is Nuclear? / Nuclear Reactors." What Is Nuclear? / Nuclear Reactors. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucreactor.html#components. 9 Silverio, Leticia Borges, and Wendell De Queiroz Lamas. "An Analysis of Development and Research on Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing." Energy Policy 39 (2010): 281-89.

10

In theory, most of the waste ends up in permanent repositories, which are one

of the most effective methods of permanently securing high-level nuclear waste. More

precisely, the high-level waste is kept indefinitely in specialized receptacles placed

deep below the surface of the Earth, hundreds to thousands of meters below ground

level.10 These underground containers are formally known as deep geological

repositories, and the first one went into operation in the early 1980s. Since then, about

20 others have been launched and are now operational, or are in the process of being

built. Unfortunately, however, the steady expansion of deep geological repositories

does not represent a global trend toward more conscious management of radioactive

waste. These sites are concentrated in Europe, Finland and Germany in particular, and

the still-prevalent norm of keeping waste in temporary facilities on the surface runs

counter to the idea of storing waste underground. Additionally, these sites have often

been launched through considerable difficulty, and are hindered by their steep price

tag and by negative public sentiment. The scarcity of permanent disposal sites also

means that plant operators have had little choice but to keep waste in spent fuel pools

for much longer than ideal. The U.S., for instance, has close to 50,000 tons of spent

fuel stored in pools,11 and in the wake of the Yucca Mountain stalemate, it has been

forced to keep all of this waste in its current pools, with no long-term timeline for

removal.12

One innovation introduced in the 1990s that could potentially bridge the gap

between fuel pools and geological repositories is dry cask storage.13 In this system,

                                                                                                               10 “Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs,” United States Department of Energy, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/ deep-borehole-disposal-research-demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals. 11 Robert Alvarez, “Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.,” Institute for Policy Studies, May 24, 2011, http://www.ips-dc.org/ spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reducing_the_deadly_risks_of_storage/. 12 Wald, “Reactor Fuel Risk.” 13 Ibid.

11

waste is still first transported to a spent fuel pool to rest and cool down. Then, once it

is safe to move, it is relocated to a steel and concrete cylinder called a cask. These

cylinders surround the waste with air to further cool it down while also physically

separating the waste from the outside environment. While dry casks are sealed and

thus are not as effective in dissipating the heat absorbed from the waste, which is why

the cool-down phase in pools is still crucial, they do make it easier to transport the

waste elsewhere, either for permanent storage or security reasons.

Nuclear Reprocessing and Recycling of Nuclear Waste

The direct disposal of nuclear waste that we examined in the previous section,

the process where the spent fuel is stored in repositories until it is no longer harmfully

radioactive, is also known as “once through” or open cycle (Figure 1). The open cycle

is cheaper than other technologically complex waste disposal solutions, but is

inefficient14; the storage period takes hundreds and thousands of years, and a typical

reactor only extracts a small percentage of energy stored in the fuel. In addition, if we

continue to simply dispose spent fuel, uranium supply will be exhausted at a fast rate,

which may cause fuel shortage issue in the future.

As an alternative to the direct disposal methods, technological advance has

allowed scientists to develop recycling processes to manage nuclear waste more

efficiently and maximize the utility of the energy stored in uranium. If all of the spent

fuel that is currently stored in the U.S. is reprocessed and used again in the reactors, it

can provide enough energy to power the entire U.S. energy grid for 100 years.15

Furthermore the wastes from the reprocessed fuel, if left to decay, will only take a few                                                                                                                14 Ahearne, John F. "Special Issue: Radioactive Waste." Phys. Today Physics Today 50 (1997): 22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.881792.  15 "4 The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Programs." National Research Council. Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008. doi:10.17226/11998

12

hundred years before they return to safe levels, which is much shorter than the

required decay period of directly-disposed nuclear wastes from the open cycle.

 

Figure 1: Open Cycle (Source: https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html)

Recycling spent fuel involves a new process known as the closed cycle

(Figure 2) where the waste is extracted and reprocessed. The reaction within the

nuclear energy production process that produces plutonium, called beta decay, is a

key part of the reprocessing cycle.16 Beta decay introduces a neutron into the U-238

and creates another isotope U-239, which decays quickly and turns into Np-239,

which then decays again to become Pu-239. Pu-239 is a fissile isotope, which means

that its nucleus can be split easily. This reaction allows utilization of the excess U-238

that is unused during the initial nuclear power production process. Since Pu-239 is

very similar to U-235 in its chemical traits, converting U-238 to Pu-239 in the

reactors as a byproduct of reactions and extracting that Pu-239 from the waste

provides new fuel to be used.17

                                                                                                               16 Ibid. 17Touran, Nick. "Recycling Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors." What Is Nuclear Recycling? March 1, 2009. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html.

13

 

Figure  2:  Closed  Cycle  (Source:  https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html)

Reactors that can create more fissile materials from the waste to be used as

fuel again than the amount of fissile elements used in initial reaction are called

breeder reactors. Breeder reactors often have extra neutrons floating around to convert

the U-238 to Pu-239, in addition to the neutrons that are used for the conventional

fission process of U-235. These breeder reactors are also called fast reactors since the

neutrons are flying around faster than normal so that it can produce more fissile

materials as waste. 18 The extra fissile materials from the nuclear waste are extracted

from the reactor to enter the recycling plants so that it can be reused as a new source

of fuel. At these plants, the process of sorting out reusable fuel form the deadly

radioactive waste takes place, and there are many types of processes that are used to

extract the reusable fuel. The most prevalent method used currently is the PUREX

process.

                                                                                                               18 Ibid.

14

PUREX (Plutonium Uranium Redox Extration)

The most commonly used reprocessing method is PUREX. PUREX creates

three separate streams: plutonium, uranium, and the remaining fission products and

minor actinides. The process was invented in 1947 by scientists at the University of

Chicago. The PUREX process is a hydrometallurgical process that utilizes oxidation-

redux reactions, metal-dissolving aqueous solutions, and electrolytic cells.19

First, irradiated fuel is dissolved in hot aqueous nitric acid. The dissolved

materials are then mixed with a solvent composed of 30% tributyl phosphate (TBP)

dissolved with kerosene or dodecane. 20 Through a solvent extraction process in a

pulsed column, uranium and plutonium are separated out while fission products and

other minor actinides stay with the aqueous raffinate.21 This separation is due to the

plutonium and uranium’s different affinities with aqueous nitric acid and TBP. In a

second pulsed column, excess U4+ is added to the uranium and plutonium stream,

causing plutonium to enter the aqueous phase while uranium stays in the organic

phase. The separated plutonium and uranium are then transformed so that they can be

easily stored or transported. The plutonium is concentrated through evaporation,

oxalate precipitation, and calcination to produce powdered PuO2, while evaporation,

oxalate precipitation, and reduction with hydrogen transforms the uranium into

powder form. Finally, the waste solution of remaining fission products is evaporated

to separate out the nitric acid for purposes of reuse in future reprocessing, while the

transuranic waste is solidified and disposed of.

                                                                                                               19 "World Nuclear Association." Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel. November 1, 2015. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel/. 20 "Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Flowsheet." Nuclear Science, 2012. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/docs/2012/nsc-wpfc-doc2012-15.pdf. 21 World Nuclear Association, “Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel”

15

 

Figure  3:  Standard  PUREX  Process  (Source:  "Spent  Nuclear  Fuel  Reprocessing  Flowsheet."  Nuclear  Science,  2012.  Accessed  December  3,  2015.  https://www.oecd-­‐nea.org/science/docs/2012/nsc-­‐wpfc-­‐

doc2012-­‐15.pdf.)    

Alternatives to PUREX:

1. COEX (Co-extraction of actinides)

Based on extensive experience working and experimenting with PUREX, the

French multinational corporation Areva and the CEA (Atomic Energy Commission)

of France worked together to create COEX, a modified version of PUREX22. In

COEX, uranium and plutonium are co-extracted and co-precipitated, leaving a

leftover stream of pure uranium and a high-level waste product composed of minor

actinides and remaining fission products23. Notably, plutonium is never separated out

on its own24. The co-extracted uranium and plutonium is then created into MOX fuel,

or mixed oxide fuel25. MOX is composed of UO2 + PuO2, or 7-10% plutonium mixed

                                                                                                               22 World Nuclear Association. "Processing of used nuclear fuel." Last modified November 2015. http://www. world-nuclear. org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/ 23 National Academy of Sciences (US). US Committee on the Internationalization of the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Goals, Strategies, and Challenges. National Academies Press, 2009, 63. 24 World Nuclear Association, "Processing of used nuclear fuel.” 25 Ibid.  

16

with depleted uranium26. It is equivalent to uranium fuel enriched with about 4.5% U-

235I27 (for comparison, most uranium fuel in a reactor core is enriched to about 3%

U-235)28, 29. As a result, a single recycle of MOX fuel increases the original uranium

fuel’s energy content by about 22%, making it an incredibly attractive prospect for

nuclear fuel30.

Figure 4. COEX Process. (Source: https://www.masterresource.org/site/uploads/2010/06/clip_image002.gif)

As uranium prices rise, the use of MOX fuel has become increasingly cost-

effective. Because the fissile concentration of the fuel can be easily increased by

adding more recycled plutonium, it is a more cost-effective way of creating nuclear

                                                                                                               26 World Nuclear Association. “Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel”. Last modified December 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Mixed-Oxide-Fuel-MOX/ 27 Ibid 28 Ristinen, Robert A., and Jack J. Kraushaar. "Chapter 6: The Promise and Problems of Nuclear Energy,” in Energy and the Environment, by Robert A. Ristinen, Jack J. Kraushaar, (Wiley-VCH, October 1998), 171-209. 29 Hegedus, L. Louis, and Dorota S. Temple, eds.Viewing America's Energy Future in Three Dimensions. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press, 2011. 30 World Nuclear Association. “Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel”.    

17

fuel than enriching mined uranium to U-23531. Although it is only currently about 5%

of the total nuclear fuel used in the world today, countries such as France and Japan

have certain reactors that run with 33% - 50% of MOX fuel as their core32. Even

further, many more countries are embracing the use of MOX, leading to more energy

efficient outcomes in the future33.

Given France’s extensive knowledge of COEX, France has also began leasing fuel

recycling services to other countries34. In particular, France has taken used fuel and

reprocessed it into MOX for Belgium, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and

Switzerland35. The back-end fuel services that France offers could thus be a solution

to the lack of reprocessing infrastructure for many countries.

2. UREX and UREX+ (Uranium extraction)

In UREX, uranium is first extracted from spent nuclear fuel and purified for reuse

of low-level waste disposal36. The rest of the spent nuclear fuel (including the

plutonium) is maintained as a group for use as fast-reactor fuel37. Specifically, the

plutonium is kept with neptunium from the spent nuclear fuel, which differentiates

UREX from COEX, which keeps plutonium with uranium38. Remaining fission

products are also separated out as waste, but in UREX+, the fission products are

separated further for efficiency purposes39. For example, separating cesium and

strontium out of the fission waste to store for separate decay reduces the heat load,

                                                                                                               31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Rosner, Robert, Lenka Kollar, and James P. Malone. The Back-End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Establishing a Viable Roadmap for a Multilateral Interim Storage Facility. (Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2015). 35 Ibid. 36 National Academy of Sciences, Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 37 Ibid. 38 Nash, Kenneth L., and Gregg J. Lumetta. Advanced separation techniques for nuclear fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste treatment. Elsevier, 2011. 39 National Academy of Sciences, Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle  

18

while separating out lanthanide fission products with the transuranic elements helps

create a radiation barrier for those unstable and radioactive elements40.

UREX and UREX+ are considered good processes for countries concerned about

safety from nuclear proliferation. Because the plutonium is never separated out from

the rest of the stream, the plutonium can never be used to create nuclear weapons.

Figure 5. UREX+ and TRUEX processes (Source: http://nsspi.tamu.edu/media/18061/p16_img1.jpg)

3. TRUEX (TransUranic Extraction)

Argonne National Laboratories developed TRUEX for the purposes of extracting

transuranic material from spent nuclear fuel41. Using a solution of 1.5g TBP (tributyl

phosphate) and 0.2 n-octyl(pheny1)-N,Ndiisobutyl CMPO

(carbamoylmethylphosphine oxide) diluted with nDD (n-dodecane), TRUEX

dissolves spent nuclear fuel into five solutions: 1) nonTRU raffinite, which is

neutralized with NaOH, 2) an americium product stream, which was concentrated by

                                                                                                               40 Ibid. 41 Chamberlain, David B., Cliff Conner, Joseph C. Hutter, Ralph A. Leonard, David G. Wygmans, and George F. Vandegrift. "TRUEX processing of plutonium analytical solutions at Argonne National Laboratory." Separation science and technology 32, no. 1-4 (1997): 303-326.  

19

evaporation and then stored for future use, 3) a plutonium product stream processed

through evaporation into PuO2 for future use, 4) the sodium carbonate solutions,

which were acidified and recycled for the next use of TRUEX, and 5) the transuranic

content42.

Since TRUEX removes the transuranic component of nuclear waste, it is thought

to be helpful for disposal purposes since the most radioactive component of spent

nuclear fuel is now isolated and can be dealt with separately.

4. DIAMEX-SANEX (Diamide extraction, Selective actinide extraction)

Developed by the French CEA, DIAMEX-SANEX is a process typically

implemented after COEX or PUREX for purposes of decreasing the radiotoxicity of

the remaining fission products43. After the plutonium, uranium, and neptunium have

been separated out for re-use as fuel, a remaining fission product is left as waste. To

make this waste more efficiently disposal, scientists can use DIAMEX-SANEX.

Using a liquid-liquid extraction process through a malonamide supplemented with an

acidic extractant, DIAMEX-SANEX separates long-lived radionuclides such as

americium from short-lived fission products44. This selective separation of actinides

allows the waste to be neutralized separately, leading to less radioactive and more

efficient results45.

                                                                                                               42 Ibid. 43 Hérès, Xavier, P. Baron, C. Hill, E. Ameil, I. Martinez, and P. Rivalier. "The separation of extractants implemented in the DIAMEX-SANEX process."ATALANTE (Nuclear Fuel Cycles for a Sustainable Future) (2008). 44 Ibid. 45 National Academy of Sciences, Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle  

20

Figure 6. DIAMEX-SANEX process. (Source: Hérès et al. "The separation of extractants implemented in the DIAMEX-SANEX process”)

5. GANEX (Grouped extraction of actinides)

Similar to COEX, GANEX co-precipitates uranium with plutonium, but also

separates out minor actinides and lanthanides from the short-lived fission products46.

It then combines uranium, plutonium, and the minor actinides as fuel for Generation

IV fast neutron reactors, and disposes of the lanthanides and remaining fission

products as waste47. It was developed as a joint project between France, Japan, and

the United States48.

6. Electrometallurgical Processing (“Pyroprocessing”)

Electrometallurgical processing, known as “pyroprocessing”, is a non-aqueous

reprocessing method that separates actinides from the fission products49. There are

several stages:

1. Oxide fuels are reduced to metal using an electro-reduction process with LiCl-

Li2O.

2. As an anode, the oxide metal is then electro-refined into molten salt.                                                                                                                46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 World Nuclear Association, “Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel.”    

21

3. The molten salt is deposited onto a liquid cadmium cathode, which attracts

plutonium and actinides. This is then heated to 1200 degrees Celsius in order

to remove salt and cadmium from the recycled fuel. The uranium can be

deposited on a solid cathode.

4. Through ion exchange, other fission products are separated from the mixture

and removed as waste.50

Russia and the US, who are the main developers of this approach, have slightly

different approaches to pyroprocessing. While the US uses the above process, the

Russian process dissolves spent fuel in both molten salts and crystal plutonium

dioxides or electrolytic plutonium, allowing uranium dioxides to be recovered, thus

leaving uranium and plutonium together51.

 Figure  7.  Pyroprocessing.  (Source:  Figure  2.  UREX+  and  TRUEX  processes  (Source:  

http://www.slideshare.net/nv4cfe/nuclear-­‐waste-­‐reprocessing)  

                                                                                                               50 Ibid. 51 National Academy of Sciences, Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle  

22

III. Economic Analysis

When assessing the economic viability of nuclear reprocessing, we must

conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine if reprocessing can be an economically

better alternative than direct disposal. As outlined above, reprocessing adds several

steps to the nuclear fuel life cycle. These steps result in numerous fixed costs, such as

the upfront costs of research and the construction of new reprocessing facilities, as

well as variable costs, which include the operational costs necessary to keep the

facilities running. While these costs may be high, use of nuclear power is increasingly

more viable. Despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced

(Three Mile, Fukushima, and Chernobyl), nuclear power has “prevented an average of

over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009” – fossil fuels are

associated with a much higher air pollution-related mortality rate and greenhouse gas

emissions per unit energy produced52. It is estimated that in the future, the levelized

cost of electricity, i.e. the price of electricity required to cover both operating and

capital costs for the lifetime of a power plant, for coal will be $91/MWh, while for

gas it will be $68/MWh. In contrast, for nuclear power, it is estimated at $44/MWh,

after both policy and learning rate adjustments53.

The price for nuclear power is additionally unique in that regulations require

plant operators to make provisions for disposing of potentially harmful waste. Hence,

these costs are ‘internalized’, akin to a Pigouvian tax, which perfectly internalizes the

                                                                                                               52  Kharecha, Pusher, and James Hansen. "Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power." Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. April 23, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/. 53  Tolley, George. "The Economic Future of Nuclear Power." Anl.gov. August 1, 2004. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~anitescu/EXTRAS/READING/NuclIndustryStudy-Summary.pdf.

23

externalities of the actor’s actions54. Electricity generation from fossil fuels is not

regulated in the same fashion, therefore, the operators do not ‘internalize’ the costs of

greenhouse gas emissions. This regulatory structure causes electricity generated by

coal and gas to appear much “cheaper” compared to that generated by nuclear. A

major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles released in mid-

2001 illustrates that in cash terms, nuclear energy incurs “about one tenth of the net

costs of coal”55. If these external costs were included, the EU price of electricity

generated from coal would double, and that from gas would increase by 30% - these

increased prices do not even attempt to factor in the external costs of global

warming56.

Furthermore, when comparing direct disposal and nuclear reprocessing

economically, we must consider the future costs of both uranium usage and storage.

Through reprocessing, nuclear power plants use less raw uranium, as uranium is

extracted from the spent fuel, and sent back to the cell. As a consequence, given an

efficient process, less storage is needed, and less raw uranium needs to be mined57.

Numerous other costs need to be addressed, however. These include the potential

proliferation of nuclear weapons, and environmental and health concerns of direct

disposal in its current form. An examination of the numerous costs and benefits

associated with the situation render it difficult to arrive at an objective estimate for the

                                                                                                               54  "The Economics of Nuclear Power." World Nuclear Association. September 5, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power/. 55  Ibid.  56  Ibid. 57  Schnitzer, Daniel. "A Link without a Chain: Assessing the Proposed Return to Reprocessing in the United States Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." 2007. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2933089-dt-content-rid-6038641_1/courses/2015.04.0612900001/Course Documents/D.Schnitzer,Link w o Chain (thesis)/DanSchnitzer BA Final May18 copy.pdf.  

24

costs of direct disposal vs. nuclear reprocessing due to the highly variable and

dynamic features of the problem at hand.

In this section, we attempt to outline the economics of direct disposal vs.

reprocessing given assumptions of static prices (and minimally-changing demand),

and then move to modeling a long-term “break-even” price of uranium for which

nuclear reprocessing is viable. We additionally attempt to quantify the externalities

associated with coal and gas usage for energy generation. Nuclear reprocessing

appears especially economically impractical in the short-term, given the market’s

current regulatory structure dictating energy prices.

Short-Term Analysis

Most studies, considering existing regulatory structure and current uranium

prices, conclude that spent fuel reprocessing is more expensive than the once-through

fuel cycle process, which involves enriching uranium. There is some anticipated

variability in uranium prices, however. Currently, uranium prices are fluctuating

around USD $40/lb; this price is volatile, and suspected to be heavily tied to how fast

reactors are built, when Japanese reactors will restart, and how many will do so58. The

World Nuclear Association expects demand for uranium to “considerably increase up

to 2030” – this is driven by increased capacity of existing plants, and the construction

of new plants, predominantly in China, India, and Russia, amidst other countries59 60.

                                                                                                               58  Bryne, Peter. "Uranium Has a Bright Future." Uranium Has a Bright Future. April 13, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2015/04/13/uranium-has-bright-future. 59  "Uranium Supply and Demand in Balance for Now." World Nuclear News. September 12, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Uranium_supply_and_demand_in_balance_for_now-1209137s.html. 60  Emsley, Ian. "WNA 2013 Fuel Market Report." IAEA.org. June 30, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/cn216pn/Monday/Session1/191-Emsley.pdf.

25

This may lead to increased uranium prices due to supply shortages61. Hanly estimates

“planned mine capacity to run out in 2028,” while new development will require both

investment and technical expertise62. On the other hand, researchers anticipate

technological advancements in plant efficiency to mitigate an increased aggregate

demand for uranium63. Potential regulatory and policy changes, along with these

contending worldwide effects on the market price for uranium, render it difficult to

determine if or when reprocessing is cheaper than enriching new uranium. Hence, we

now focus our efforts on the costs and benefits associated with reprocessing as

opposed to direct disposal. We will leave a long-term analysis incorporating the

volatility of uranium’s prices to later.

The price and availability of storage in the short-run is an important factor to

be considered. Disposing of nuclear waste includes consideration of both storage and

disposal facilities. Spent fuel rods are placed in storage facilities upon use in reactors.

They are typically placed in “spent fuel pools” to “shield the radiation and cool the

rods” 64. As pools near capacity, older spent fuel (5-10 years old) may be sent into

“dry cask storage”65. However, due to space shortage in these facilities, pools are

often near full-capacity – “they reach capacity at three to four pools per year”66.

                                                                                                               61  Mack, George, and David Sadowski. "Why Uranium Prices Will Spike in 2013: Raymond James." The Energy Report. August 23, 2012. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/why-uranium-prices-will-spike-in-2013-raymond-james. 62  Woods, Peter, Adrienne Hanly, and Robert Vance. "Uranium Resource Availability to Support Global Expansion of Nuclear Energy Systems." IAEA.org. July 30, 2012. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/4th_Dialogue_Forum/DAY_2_31_July-ready/3._-_INPRO_2012_U_availability.pdf. 63  "World Nuclear Association." Uranium Markets. February 3, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets/. 64  "Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks: Key Points and Questions & Answers." United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 13, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html. 65  Ibid.  66  Schnitzer, Daniel. "A Link without a Chain: Assessing the Proposed Return to Reprocessing in the United States Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." 2007. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2933089-dt-content-rid-

26

Disposal facilities are a more long-term solution – they are where spent fuel rods are

taken after temporary storage. Currently, the preferred (and most realistic) option is

burying the waste in the ground, or “geological disposal”67. There is a risk of

radiation spreading associated with this process, particularly if the disposal sites are

near water sources or fault lines. In the U.S. alone, political debates about public and

environmental safety have halted funding for its main permanent “geological

depository,” Yucca Mountain68. Even if we assume the U.S. is capable of building

substitutes with the same aggregate capacity as Yucca Mountain, and nuclear energy

keeps its current share of U.S. electricity, the depository will be exceeded in 50 years,

pointing to the need for a viable long-term solution69.

Many studies have attempted to quantify the costs of reprocessing and direct

disposal. Shown below are Tolley’s estimates70.

Direct Disposal Costs (for the U.S.A)

Temporary Storage for Cooling $0.09/MWh Permanent Disposal (at Yucca Mountain equivalent)

$1.00/MWh

Total $1.09/MWh

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             6038641_1/courses/2015.04.0612900001/Course Documents/D.Schnitzer,Link w o Chain (thesis)/DanSchnitzer BA Final May18 copy.pdf. 67  "The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste: Safety and Sustainability." IAEA.org. January 7, 2003. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/longtermstoragerw0609.pdf. 68  Abel, David. "Security, Storage Concerns Linger at Closed Nuclear Sites." BostonGlobe.com. November 26, 2015. Accessed December 2, 2015. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/26/the-long-road-decommissioning-nuclear-power-plant/k5VWUQzLKCIz2VuYs8RhoO/story.html. 69  Schnitzer, Daniel. "A Link without a Chain: Assessing the Proposed Return to Reprocessing in the United States Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." 2007. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2933089-dt-content-rid-6038641_1/courses/2015.04.0612900001/Course Documents/D.Schnitzer,Link w o Chain (thesis)/DanSchnitzer BA Final May18 copy.pdf.  70  Tolley, George. "The Economic Future of Nuclear Power." Anl.gov. August 1, 2004. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~anitescu/EXTRAS/READING/NuclIndustryStudy-Summary.pdf.  

27

Recycling Costs (imputed for USA, based on UK + France costs)

Transport waste fuels $63/kg

Price for reprocessing $904/kg

Energy created per 1kg of uranium 399,000 kWh

Total costs per Kg ($967/kg)/($399,000kWh/kg) = 0.24 cents/kWh = $2.40/MWh

These suggest that given current conditions, the recycling costs for the USA exceed

the direct disposal costs by $1.31/MWh, a sizable difference. Other estimates offer

similar analyses: Lobdell notes there should be a $1.82/MWh difference between

direct disposal and recycling71.

These costs are further outlined in a 2007 CBO report comparing direct

disposal to reprocessing. CBO considers the costs of reprocessing services,

transportation, and long-term disposal of waste, which is partially offset by “fuel

credits” incorporating the value of the reprocessed fuels72. For direct disposal, these

costs include the costs of interim storage to cool the spent fuel, transportation, and

long-term disposal. The CBO additionally outlines two reports – a Boston Consulting

Group report and a Harvard Kennedy School of Government report – which conduct

analysis for only thermal reactors. Fast neutron reactors are not considered as an

insignificant number of them are planned for commercial purposes in the US and their

costs are not well-known, compared to that of the 60-year old PUREX process used in

                                                                                                               71  Lobdell, Simon. "The Yucca Mountain Repository and the Future State of Reprocessing." Washington Internships for Students of Engineering. August 15, 2002. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/2002/simonlobdell.pdf. 72  Orszag, Peter. "Costs of Reprocessing Versus Directly Disposing of Spent Nuclear Fuel." November 14, 2007. Accessed November 23, 2015. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8808/11-14-nuclearfuel.pdf.

28

conjunction with thermal reactors73. However, the Kennedy School report does state

that fast-neutron reactors will add on substantial costs to reprocessing because of the

large capital expenditures that would be required to build them. Overall, the BCG

report estimates reprocessing to cost about $30 more per kilogram than direct

disposal, which is estimated at $555/kg. The Kennedy School report, on the other

hand, computes reprocessing to cost $700 more per kilogram. When we consider

these prices with the volume of waste to be generated over the lifetime of plants, the

reports suggest that reprocessing costs anywhere from $2B to $26B in present-value

terms using a discounted-cost framework based on 2007 prices74.

This wide range can be explained by varying assumptions of discount rates,

assumed lifetimes of plants, repository costs, and densification factors, which the

CBO attempts to reconcile by utilizing “averaged” assumptions of the two reports.

The CBO ultimately concludes this difference in cost to be between $5B and $11B75.

These estimates are exceedingly sensitive to small differences in assumptions, and

particularly so when we examine the assumption of a discount rate. In some countries,

it is difficult to open nuclear plants, due to government regulations; these barriers are

associated with a lower discount rate. In contrast, in competitive, open markets, it is

harder to generate revenue, so a higher discount rate is given76.

Hence, it appears in the mid-to-short run, nuclear reprocessing seems

economically less viable than direct disposal. In the next section, we address long-

term considerations as well as externality analysis, which makes reprocessing seem a

much more viable solution.

                                                                                                               73  Ibid.  74  Ibid.  75  Ibid.  76  Ibid.  

29

Long-Term Analysis

Our short-term cost-benefit considerations hinged upon a relatively static price

for uranium, which is an unrealistic assumption given market dynamics; changes in

the market price of uranium, along with other regulatory changes may make

reprocessing more viable in the long-run. In this section we examine the mutability of

prices through a breakeven price of uranium at which reprocessing is viable, and other

market structural components.

Bunn et al. constructed a realistic long-term model assuming non-static prices

of uranium, which accounts for changing prices due to supply shortages. As

mentioned above, uranium shortages are a possibility in the long-run perhaps due to

resource constraints and/or lack of reprocessing. Bunn investigates the breakeven

price at which reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from existing light-water reactors

(LWRs) and recycling the resulting plutonium and uranium is cost-effective across a

wide range of potential reprocessing prices77. According to his model, at a

reprocessing price of $1000/kg of heavy metal, reprocessing and recycling plutonium

in existing LWRs will be more expensive than direct disposal of spent fuel until the

market price for uranium reaches “over $360 per kilogram of uranium”78. Given the

current price is $36/lb (about $80/kg), this price is not likely to be seen for many

decades, if then79.

Bunn further analyzes the breakeven uranium price at which deploying fast-

neutron breeder reactors would become competitive compared with a once-through

fuel cycle in LWRs, for a range of differences in capital cost between the two. At a                                                                                                                77  Bunn, Matthew, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren, and Bob Van Der Zwaan. "The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel." MIT Opencourseware (OCW). July 30, 2003. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-812j-managing-nuclear-technology-spring-2004/readings/repro_report.pdf. 78  Ibid.  79  "UxC Uranium U3O8 Swap Futures End of Day Settlement Price." Indexmundi. December 2, 2015. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=uranium.

30

uranium price of $50/kg, reprocessing and recycling at the price of $1000/kg would

increase the cost of nuclear electricity by $1.3/mWh, which represents an 80%

increase of costs due to spent fuel management80.

The costs determining these estimates are in actuality, even larger. Bunn

assumes zero cost for providing start-up plutonium for fast reactors (FRs), zero

additional operations and maintenance costs for FRs compared to LWRs, and zero

additional security, licensing or shut-down expenses for the use of plutonium fuels in

existing reactors, among other assumptions81. These factors taken together lead to an

even increased breakeven price for uranium at which reprocessing/recycling is viable.

Even if we assume uranium prices consistently rise by 8% each year (a gross

overestimate based on historical data, and academics’ estimates) through a simple

Excel model, the price of uranium will double from $80 to $160 only in 2214, two

hundred years from now82. It would be well into the 22nd century before uranium

prices reach a level where reprocessing is economically competitive. This calculation

is clearly irrelevant over a long period due to technological changes improving

efficiency of LWRs and reprocessing technologies, however, today’s calculations

indicate that it is likely to be some time before the economic disadvantages of

reprocessing dissipate.

There are additionally some other market considerations that we must account

for in the long-term which may affect the viability of reprocessing, namely

privatization of the market due to price concerns, and security. If future nuclear

reprocessing efforts are to be conducted in the private sector, it may be even more

                                                                                                               80  Bunn, Matthew, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren, and Bob Van Der Zwaan. "The Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel." MIT Opencourseware (OCW). July 30, 2003. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-812j-managing-nuclear-technology-spring-2004/readings/repro_report.pdf.  81  Ibid.  82  Ibid.    

31

expensive due to taxes, and capital-borrowing rates. If nuclear processing is

privatized, the government may have to subsidize its price, assuming no changes in

coal/gas prices to internalize the externalities. Alternatively, the market price of

energy may just be driven up, because of the added reprocessing costs. We must also

address the question of increased security risks. While reprocessing could be

beneficial in the long-run considering potential shortages in uranium, we also face

increased risks of nuclear proliferation if plants are not secured sufficiently, due to the

byproducts of reprocessing. This risk will further drive up the costs due to the need to

engage in higher security detail.

Potential changes in market structure and security are hard to foresee, so we

cannot conclude if reprocessing will be economically feasible in the long-run.

However, given current conditions, reprocessing is more expensive than direct

disposal – this will likely continue to be the case until uranium prices reach about

$360, a price we are unlikely to see for at least a century83.

Externality Analysis: The benefits of switching to nuclear

As mentioned before, nuclear power is unique because unlike coal and gas, we

must factor negative externalities (i.e. waste) into the initial cost investment through

waste processing facilities. These upfront costs hinder policymakers from fully

transitioning to nuclear power. However, a case study between current energy sources

(coal) and nuclear power shows that even though current energy sources do not

require us to pay an initial upfront cost, their eventual cost vastly outweighs that of

building nuclear facilities.

                                                                                                               83  Ibid.    

32

The current cost of nuclear power is $51/MWh, which is more than coal at

$37/MWh84. However, because of the rising externality of global warming and the

increase of stringent policies governing coal and natural gas, coal is projected to

$91/MWh in the next few decades85. Furthermore, as coal decreases in supply,

companies are forced to pay transportation costs to import coal from other areas. In

2008, Southern Company spent $4.2 billion importing coal, while TVA spent $2.0

billion.86 This is not a sustainable model for cost. On the other hand, because nuclear

power is a relatively new technology, learning rate adjustments mean that our cost of

nuclear power can only fall (as we use more and more nuclear power, we learn how to

more efficiently design reactors, allowing us to save money). Thus, as mentioned

before, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power is projected to fall to

$44/MWh in the near future87. As a result, we can see that nuclear power will be more

efficient than coal.

Furthermore, our current infrastructure uniquely poises us to transition to nuclear

power. As of 2015, over 75% of coal plants have outlived their 30-year lifespan.88

Thus, most operating coal plants in the United States are incredibly inefficient and a

large externality to public health. Currently, there are 288 coal generators that have

been announced to be retired (41.2 GW total).89 Emissions profiles show that 353 coal

generators in 31 states (59 GW total) are also ripe for retirement.90 If we replace these

100.2 GW of coal generators with either nuclear power or another alternative, annual

                                                                                                               84  Ristinen and Kraushaar, Energy and the Environment  85  Tolley, George, and Donald Jones. "The economic future of nuclear power." University of Chicago (2004).  86  Cleetus, Rachel, Steve Clemmer, Ethan Davis, Jeff Deyette, Jim Downing, and Steve Frenkel. "Ripe for retirement: The case for closing America’s costliest coal plants." (Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013).  87  Tolley, “The economic future of nuclear power”  88  Cleetus, “Ripe for retirement”  89  Ibid.  90  Ibid.  

33

carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by between 245 – 410 million tons.91

This would be a 16.4% reduction in US global warming emissions (2010 numbers).92

Assuming a carbon price of $15/ton, which is consistent with price forecasts from

expert government and industry analyses, this would be equivalent to 3.67 – 6.15

billion dollars saved.93

Furthermore, coal plants emit sulfur, causing acid rain; release mercury, poisoning

waterways and children; create smog, which causes lung disease, asthma, and death;

and leaves toxic ash. Emissions of sulfur, soot, and nitric oxide have caused almost

13,200 deaths annually and more than 20,000 heart attacks in the United States.94 This

is estimated to cost another $100 billion.95 In comparison, the Chernobyl accidents

only caused 31 immediate fatalities, and between 9000 to 33,000 latent fatalities over

the next 70 years96. On the other hand, 4386 individuals were killed in the Philippines

by an oil accident, and 2700 individuals in Afghanistan were killed by similar

reasons.97 Thus, at most, there are less than 500 latent fatalities by nuclear accidents

per year, while there are more then 13,000 deaths due to coal per year.

Even if coal health standards are improved, this is not cost efficient. In 2009, New

Hampshire attempted to clean up its 52-year-old Merrimack coal plant. However, it

cost $422 million for this single power plant, and the reductions in global warming

were not high98. Thus, although upfront costs of coal are not very high compared to

                                                                                                               91  Ibid.  92  Ibid.  93  Ibid.  94  Schneider, Conrad G., Jonathan M. Banks, and Marika Tatsutani. The toll from coal: An updated assessment of death and disease from America's dirtiest energy source. Clean Air Task Force, 2010. http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf    95  Ibid.  96  Gordelier, Stan and Ron Cameron. “Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with those from Other Energy Sources”. Nuclear Energy Agency: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010.    97  Ibid.  98  Cleetus, “Ripe for retirement”  

34

nuclear cost, the “Pigouvian tax” (negative externalities) of coal make nuclear power

much, much more viable in the long run.

Conclusions: Solving the Conundrum

We arrive at a conundrum: due to the large externalities from coal which are often

not initially priced into the policymaker’s cost considerations, the United States has a

strong incentive to switch to nuclear power. However, reprocessing is currently more

expensive than direct disposal and will continue to be the case until uranium reaches

the price of $360 per kilogram, which will not happen for over a century. As a result,

the United States has an incentive to use direct disposal methods, which are ultimately

not sustainable due to our lack of space and geographical capacity.

However, there may be a solution to this conundrum. Countries such as France

and Japan have developed and invested in better infrastructure and technology for

reprocessing than the United States does. Due to their comparative advantage in such,

it could be economically efficient to outsource reprocessing to those countries. In fact,

France has already begun to lease fuel recycling services to other countries99. In 2015,

France took spent nuclear fuel from Belgium, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and

Switzerland and reprocessed that fuel for reuse in nuclear reactors100. The back-end

fuel services that France offers could thus be a solution to the lack of reprocessing

infrastructure of many countries. In Figure 8, we see a representation of how this

outsourcing could potentially work.

                                                                                                               99  Rosner, Robert, Lenka Kollar, and James P. Malone. The Back-End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Establishing a Viable Roadmap for a Multilateral Interim Storage Facility. (Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2015).    100  Ibid.  

35

 

Figure  8.  Outsourching  Nuclear  Fuel  Reprocessing  (Source:  Rosner  et.  al  2015,  The  Back-­‐End  of  the  Nuclear  Fuel  Cycle)  

 Unfortunately for the United States, overseas transportation costs could be too

much for this to be a viable solution. Even more, unseen social costs such as the

danger of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and nuclear accidents in transportation

could make this an unviable idea. We will explore this in the next section.

36

IV. Social Costs of Nuclear Waste Disposal

Radiation-based technology is a key input in a number of sectors including

medicine and energy. Indeed, radiation-based processes are often more efficient than

their alternatives. In particular, nuclear power produces almost no conventional

pollutants like greenhouse gases, and is a more reliable source of energy than

renewables such as wind or solar power that rely on weather. However, using

radiation as an energy source comes with its risks. Some of the major risks include

safety issues related to production of the energy, as well as the storage and disposal of

the substantial amount of nuclear waste that can remain highly toxic for centuries if

left untreated. In the following sections, we will examine various sources of costs and

controversies related specifically to the disposal of nuclear waste, either stored or

reprocessed.

Issues Presented by Radioactive Waste Disposal Mechanisms

Even though the nuclear waste disposal processes we examined earlier in this

paper that involve spent fuel pools and deep geological repositories seem

straightforward, there are in fact significant risks throughout. Very few spent fuel

pools are equipped with special steel-reinforced barriers that act as additional

safeguards against radiation leakage. Furthermore, pools at nuclear plants are not

officially required to have backup generators in place. In an emergency, these pools

could overheat to the point at which they evaporate and turn into steam, leaking

deadly radiation directly into the atmosphere. Dry casks are more viable as a

permanent solution than spent fuel pools, as spent fuel can be stored in these

containers relatively safely for decades. Yet, they are by no means ideal. Since the

casks themselves are still typically placed outdoors and above-ground, they still have

37

the potential to cause leakage. The limitations with capacity of the casks is another

concern. Building a large metal canister for every ten tons of uranium is impractical,

especially since these canisters are designed to last only 30 years and will become

functionally useless certainly within a century.

We will further examine a few problems associated with current nuclear waste

disposal mechanisms, and various social costs imposed by each type of such

problems.

1. Space Constraints

Roadblocks preventing countries from developing effective long-term radioactive

waste disposal mechanisms are wide-ranging and numerous, but the first and perhaps

most obvious obstacle to establishing permanent radioactive waste disposal sites is a

physical lack of space. While geological repositories dug deep beneath the Earth’s

surface are not the only way to permanently store waste, they are the most common,

have a strong track record, and are theoretically sound from a scientific perspective.

Yet not all countries that currently have nuclear power plants have regions with

suitable geographical features to house such repositories. Japan, for example, is a

relatively small and heavily populated country, yet is home to close to 50 nuclear

power plants. The physical and geographical strain on building an underground

repository would thus be far more significant on Japan than a larger, less populated

country.

Furthermore, even if a country were able to build repositories, it may need

more repositories than its geographical status allows. The United States, for example,

recently shut down a thirty-year exploration of Yucca Mountain as a potential

permanent repository site, but even if that project had gone ahead, the site’s estimated

38

capacity of over 75,000 tons of nuclear waste would have been insufficient to meet

America’s steadily growing stores of toxic nuclear waste.101

Some countries have tried to delay the issue by reprocessing (recycling)

nuclear waste. While nuclear reprocessing allows nuclear power plants to avoid the

issue of lack of disposal space, the reprocessing process is associated with its own

risks and could impose negative externalities in the society. The biggest risk behind

the reprocessing process is the risk of diversion of reprocessed spent fuel and its

potential misuse for military or violent purposes. In fact, one of the reasons why the

United States began the movement toward direct disposal of nuclear waste in 1970s,

rather than investing on reprocessing technology, was the concern for proliferation.

There was a controversy between direct disposal and PUREX-based reprocessing

policies in late 1970s, which led the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation

(INFCE) to examine “various fuel cycle concepts which might be able to mitigate the

proliferation concern.”102 For example, processes such as COEX and UREX both do

not separate out plutonium, decreasing the likelihood that plutonium can be taken and

used in nuclear weapons.

2. Overcrowding

Another challenge in developing long-term nuclear waste disposal methods stems

from the limitation in the capacity of current repositories. Particularly, in the case of

spent fuel pools, each can only safely hold a limited amount of superheated,

radioactive nuclear waste, and as the ratio of waste to water rises, the odds of a

meltdown increases dramatically. Such an accident would have dire effects on the                                                                                                                101 Jonathan Fahey and Ray Henry, “U.S.’s Growing Nuclear Waste Problem,” Huffington Post, March 23, 2011, http://www. huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/us-nuclear-waste-radioactive-storage_n_839438.html. 102 "Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options." IAEA.org. August 1, 2008. Accessed November 30, 2015. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1587_web.pdf.

39

surroundings of the plant, releasing tons upon tons of toxic steam into the air and

contaminating water systems.103 In addition, despite the advantage of relative

convenience in construction, pools are also not the safest means to store waste since

they remain fairly open and exposed. In the event of a natural disaster, such as an

earthquake like the one that impacted the Fukushima plant in Japan, these pools could

be compromised and leak toxic materials into the environment.

3. Transportation of Hazardous Materials

A global approach to solving the nuclear waste disposal problem might involve

transferring said waste from countries who have land or resource constraints and are

thus unable to safely store their own waste, to those that do possess the proper

infrastructure. Such an agreement, however, also creates additional risks related to the

transportation of the nuclear waste over long distances. Since the nuclear waste is

extremely radioactive and remains potent long after being used in power plants, the

possibility of leakage during the transportation process imposes a significant threat on

the environment and public health. Another security concern is that the waste could

fall into the hands of terrorist organizations or other third-party players who might

seek to weaponize it. Groups that are able to pilfer spent fuel and gain access to a

refinery could potentially turn the waste into weapons-grade material, imposing a

security threat to the rest of the world. While the IAEA has recommended that certain

safeguards be put in place to prevent these sorts of incidents from occurring, there are

many different points at which malicious groups can attack, from the time waste

leaves a secured facility to when it arrives at a storage facility, especially if the

transportation distance is long.

                                                                                                               103 Ibid.

40

4. A Problem of Optics

Political scrutiny is not insurmountable, but still seriously impedes the

implementation of internationally agreed-upon standards and plans of action. The

term “nuclear” has developed something of a negative reputation among the general

public, in part thanks to well-known disasters such as Chernobyl and the 2011

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. As a result, proposed programs that

would research disposal sites and other aspects of nuclear technology have been

frustrated by opposition from regional authorities, national representatives, and vocal

citizens.

Two recent examples highlight the public-image issue of nuclear waste. The

first relates to the prolonged battle for a repository to be built at Yucca Mountain in

the United States. The mountain was first proposed as a site for nuclear waste disposal

in 1983, and Congress approved a report on the feasibility of the proposal in 1987.104

Since then, the American government has spent billions on the project conducting

extensive scientific analyses. Yet, due to political stalemate and countless technical

delays, no work has actually been done to convert the site into an appropriate facility

after three decades. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) finally deemed the

Yucca Mountain site geologically sound and capable of hosting a storage facility in

late 2014,105 but popular fears and concern about nuclear waste have pushed the

actual start of construction yet further into the future. Local residents were unhappy

that their state would be home to a “dump site” for waste, and their national

representatives have accordingly argued against it. The site, inactive despite being

verified as a safe location to contain nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years,

                                                                                                               104 Silverstein, “Yucca Mountain.” 105 Matthew L. Wald, “Calls to Use Yucca Mountain as a Nuclear Waste Site, Now Deemed Safe,” New York Times, October 16, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/calls-to-use-a-proposed-nuclear-site-now-deemed-safe.html.

41

is just one instance of the many obstacles to implementing long-term solutions. A

similar situation to Yucca Mountain began in Japan in 2007, when the town of Toyo,

towards the southern end of the archipelago, applied with Japan’s Nuclear Waste

Management Organization (NUMO) to host a permanent underground repository

site.106 The move was met with outrage from the citizens of the town, and the town’s

mayor, who spearheaded the effort, was swiftly voted out of office, leading the new

mayor to quickly cancel the application. The pervasiveness of this kind of antinuclear

sentiment has led to a shortage of towns willing to host a repository.

In the case of the United States, Japan, and many countries in similar

situations with residents fearful of nuclear technology, it may be more politically

feasible to look into shorter-term facilities with lower capacities, which are perceived

to be less risky by the public. However, relying on smaller facilities such as above-

ground temporary storage repositories would introduce security vulnerabilities; they

are not an adequate substitute for proper long-term storage systems, and thus cannot

be relied upon as the only solution.

5. Financing

Properly researching, developing, and building a deep geological repository, or

any similarly complex storage system, is an expensive endeavor, and insufficient

funding often proves to be a significant obstacle. In the case of Toyo, NUMO’s initial

mockups were estimated to cost 29 billion dollars,107 placing a significant financial

burden on the government. Some countries are able and willing to foot the bill —

governments in Finland and Sweden, for example, successfully pushed through

                                                                                                               106 Yuriy Urabe, Masumi Humber, and Emi Suga, “Japan’s 17,000 Tons of Nuclear Waste in Search of a Home,” Bloomberg Business, July 9, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-10/japan-s-17-000-tons-of-nuclear-waste-in-search-of-a-home. 107 Ibid.

42

repository projects — but many either cannot afford the astronomical cost, or face

strong reluctance from the taxpayers. The United States tried to be more creative in

funding the Yucca Mountain project by levying a special nominal fee on households

whose electricity came from nuclear power plants. The tax was quite successful and

raised around 35 billion dollars; such new sources of revenue, especially from those

who benefit most from a stronger nuclear program, are worth exploring as a

workaround.

Case Studies of Consequences of Radiation Leak

Throughout history, there have been a few major disasters due to radiation

leakage that have left lasting impacts on the environment and the public’s perception

of nuclear energy. The first of these was the Three Mile Island disaster, so named

after a nuclear power station in central Pennsylvania. On March 28, 1979, a series of

mechanical failures led to a valve becoming improperly stuck in an open position,

causing the leakage of significant amounts of coolant essential for moderating the

temperature of the reactor. Without an adequate supply of water, the reactor

overheated and suffered a partial meltdown. The crisis lasted nearly a week and

resulted in tens of thousands of tons of radiation-tainted water and steam being

released into the air.108 Although no one died in the immediate aftermath and research

indicated that the health impact of the released radiation was minimal, the reputation

of nuclear energy was nevertheless stained.

In 1986, less than a decade after Three Mile Island, another and even more

notorious disaster occurred, this time at a plant in Ukraine, then a part of the Soviet

Union. A power surge at a nuclear station at Chernobyl destroyed a reactor, resulting

                                                                                                               108 Clyde Haberman, “Three Mile Island, and Nuclear Hopes and Fears,” New York Times, April 28, 2014, http://www.nytimes. com/2014/04/29/us/three-mile-island-and-nuclear-hopes-and-fears.html.

43

in explosions and fires that spread radioactive waste with a magnitude fifty times

greater than the 2011 disaster at Fukushima. More than thirty people died from

radiation poisoning directly tied to the explosion in the following months; thousands

of children developed thyroid cancer from drinking contaminated milk.109 Even now,

nearly three decades later, the area remains highly radioactive and deadly to approach

without proper protective gear. Moreover, uncooperative weather such as strong

winds or heavy rain can push the radioactive particles either hundreds of miles away,

since when radiation leaks into the atmosphere, it does so mostly as a gas. This can

impact even locations far away from the site of the accident.

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are indicative of the worst-case outcomes

that can result from the improper management of nuclear waste. Indeed, the

uncontrolled leakage of radiation can be even more deadly than the fallout from a

nuclear bomb or power-plant explosion, insofar as it has large long-term health and

environmental impacts.

                                                                                                               109 Adi Narayan, “Comparing Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Accidents: Q&A,” Bloomberg Business, March 17, 2011, http://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-16/comparing-nuclear-events-at-fukushima-chernobyl-three-mile-island-q-a.

44

V. Conclusion and Possible Solutions

Based on our analysis, nuclear reprocessing is technologically feasible, and

several countries in the world (notably France) are reprocessing their spent nuclear

fuel. However, economically speaking, nuclear reprocessing is not feasible when we

compare it to its commonly used alternative, direct disposal. When we account for

short-term costs given current technology constraints including storage and fixed and

operating costs, reprocessing is far more expensive than direct disposal. The picture is

even murkier when we take uranium prices as mutable – given the current structure of

the market, nuclear reprocessing does not appear viable for over a century. It is worth

considering that our analyses place an emphasis on widespread and already-

commercial technologies for which the costs are known, as opposed to new and

perhaps more effective methods of reprocessing that are under development or to be

commercialized in the near future.

However, our externality analysis shows that nuclear power is still more

economically and environmentally viable compared to current conventional sources

of power such as coal and gas. Although initially, nuclear power appears more

expensive than coal and gas, this is only true because the negative externalities of

waste removal are factored into its upfront facility costs. These upfront costs hinder

policymakers from fully transitioning to nuclear power, due to the reliance on short-

term quick-fix cost-minimizing solutions. In actuality, even though coal and gas do

not require us to pay these initial upfront costs, their eventual costs on society vastly

outweigh those of nuclear facilities. As a result, it is optimal to transition to nuclear

power, but direct disposal is a quick-fix solution that cannot stand in the long-run. As

we slowly lose geographical space, we must find a way for reprocessing to occur.

45

We explore the possibility of outsourcing reprocessing to countries such as

France, who have well-developed reprocessing infrastructure. However, this leads to

increased security costs, as the frequent transport of nuclear material would raise

concerns about theft or terrorist activity related to the nuclear material.

Thus, under our assumptions and social and economic analyses, the United

States’ current process of direct disposal is economically more viable to that of

nuclear reprocessing. While reprocessing is feasible, the current pricing structure of

the market makes it unlikely to be adopted in the short-to-medium run, given political

barriers. However, direct disposal cannot be a long-term solution. Based on these

considerations, we offer several solutions outlined in the section below.

Possible Solutions

Even though the most common methods for storage and disposal have allowed

us to manage the nuclear waste so far, relying solely on quick fixes does not provide

practical solutions in the long-run. Temporary storage solutions may even lead to

further problems due to their relatively high security and environmental risks. It is

thus quite troubling that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

America’s top regulatory agency on nuclear policy, announced that high-level nuclear

waste would be permitted to be stored above-ground indefinitely.110 This essentially

means that the United States can continue to build nuclear power plants without fully

answering the waste question. Furthermore, if the United States — one of the largest

producers of nuclear waste by overall volume and a global leader in nuclear

technology — has declared above-ground storage to be an acceptable means of

                                                                                                               110 Matthew L. Wald, “Nuclear Waste Is Allowed Above Ground Indefinitely,” New York Times, August 29, 2014, http://www.nytimes. com/2014/08/30/us/spent-nuclear-fuel-is-allowed-to-be-stored-above-ground.html.

46

permanent storage, smaller countries with fewer resources cannot be reasonably

expected to shoulder the burden of funding the expensive research and development

required to construct deep geological repositories or pursue capital-intensive

reprocessing technologies. Overcoming this disincentive requires universal

commitment to the safe disposal of radioactive materials.

1. International Cooperation

One way to ensure that all countries, regardless of wealth, have access to

technologies vital to nuclear waste disposal is through bilateral and multilateral

partnerships. For instance, in 2011, the United States and Japan held talks with

Mongolia about the creation of a potential joint US–Japan nuclear waste disposal site

on Mongolian land.111 While Mongolia does not yet have the capacity to operate

nuclear power plants, it does have plans to upgrade its technology as soon as 2020.

Either way, the country’s vast territories present more options for disposal sites than

the much smaller and densely populated Japan. The partnership thus has the potential

to be beneficial for all parties; Mongolia could benefit significantly from its two

partners’ technical knowledge and financial support, since both are well-established in

the nuclear energy market, while the US and Japan will gain a safe and permanent

location to store their spent nuclear fuel. Creative forms of international cooperation

can help countries overcome their individual limitations that we examined in previous

sections.

                                                                                                               111 “Japan, U.S. Plan Nuclear Waste Storage in Mongolia: Paper,” Reuters, May 9, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/ us-energy-nuclear-mongolia-idUSTRE74805020110509.

47

2. The Stakes for Countries without Nuclear Programs

It may seem as if nuclear waste disposal is an issue affecting only those countries

who are home to nuclear power plants or are otherwise avidly pursuing nuclear

technology. However, even those members who do not currently possess nuclear

technology have an acute interest in the topic. Nuclear disasters do not stop at

borders, and debris and radiation from a nuclear meltdown often spread beyond the

political boundaries of the country in which the plant was located; wind and rain can

blow tainted steam and microscopic radioactive waste particles into the atmosphere

and into the water system in a wide radius around the disaster site. Waste disposal,

therefore, is a global problem. Countries without nuclear capacity may accordingly

find it in their interests to advocate for stringent policies on the holding and disposing

of radioactive waste to avoid being impacted by negative externalities of radiation

leakage and nuclear energy development.

48

VI. References "4 The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative and Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

Programs." National Research Council. Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008. doi:10.17226/11998.

Abel, David. "Security, Storage Concerns Linger at Closed Nuclear Sites."

BostonGlobe.com. November 26, 2015. Accessed December 2, 2015. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/26/the-long-road-decommissioning-nuclear-power-plant/k5VWUQzLKCIz2VuYs8RhoO/story.html.

Adi Narayan, “Comparing Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Accidents: Q&A,”

Bloomberg Business, March 17, 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-03-16/comparing-nuclear-events-at-fukushima-chernobyl-three-mile-island-q-a.

Ahearne, John F. "Special Issue: Radioactive Waste." Phys. Today Physics Today 50

(1997): 22. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.881792. Berry, R.S. "Nuclear Power: History, Positives and Negatives, Comments,

Observations." Lecture, BPRO 29000, Energy & Energy Policy, Chicago, October 21, 2015.

Bryne, Peter. "Uranium Has a Bright Future." Uranium Has a Bright Future. April 13,

2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2015/04/13/uranium-has-bright-future.

Bunn, Matthew, Steve Fetter, John P. Holdren, and Bob Van Der Zwaan. "The

Economics of Reprocessing vs. Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel." MIT Opencourseware (OCW). July 30, 2003. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engineering/22-812j-managing-nuclear-technology-spring-2004/readings/repro_report.pdf.

Chamberlain, David B., Cliff Conner, Joseph C. Hutter, Ralph A. Leonard, David G.

Wygmans, and George F. Vandegrift. "TRUEX processing of plutonium analytical solutions at Argonne National Laboratory." Separation science and technology 32, no. 1-4 (1997): 303-326.

Cleetus, Rachel, Steve Clemmer, Ethan Davis, Jeff Deyette, Jim Downing, and Steve

Frenkel. "Ripe for retirement: The case for closing America’s costliest coal plants." (Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, 2013).

Clyde Haberman, “Three Mile Island, and Nuclear Hopes and Fears,” New York

Times, April 28, 2014, http://www.nytimes. com/2014/04/29/us/three-mile-island-and-nuclear-hopes-and-fears.html.

“Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection Guidelines,

Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs,” United States Department of

49

Energy, http://www.energy.gov/ne/downloads/deep-borehole-disposal-research-demonstration-site-selection-guidelines-borehole-seals.

Emsley, Ian. "WNA 2013 Fuel Market Report." IAEA.org. June 30, 2014. Accessed

November 20, 2015. http://www-pub.iaea.org/iaeameetings/cn216pn/Monday/Session1/191-Emsley.pdf.

Gordelier, Stan and Ron Cameron. “Comparing Nuclear Accident Risks with those

from Other Energy Sources”. Nuclear Energy Agency: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010.

Hegedus, L. Louis, and Dorota S. Temple, eds.Viewing America's Energy Future in

Three Dimensions. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press, 2011. Hérès, Xavier, P. Baron, C. Hill, E. Ameil, I. Martinez, and P. Rivalier. "The

separation of extractants implemented in the DIAMEX-SANEX process."ATALANTE (Nuclear Fuel Cycles for a Sustainable Future) (2008).

“Japan, U.S. Plan Nuclear Waste Storage in Mongolia: Paper,” Reuters, May 9, 2011,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/09/us-energy-nuclear-mongolia-idUSTRE74805020110509.

Jonathan Fahey and Ray Henry, “U.S.’s Growing Nuclear Waste Problem,”

Huffington Post, March 23, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/us-nuclear-waste-radioactive-storage_n_839438.html.

Kharecha, Pusher, and James Hansen. "Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than

Nuclear Power." Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. April 23, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/.

Koch, Frans H. "Hydropower–internalised costs and externalised benefits."

Externalities and Energy Policy: The Life Cycle Analysis Approach 15 (2001): 131.

Lobdell, Simon. "The Yucca Mountain Repository and the Future State of

Reprocessing." Washington Internships for Students of Engineering. August 15, 2002. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.wise-intern.org/journal/2002/simonlobdell.pdf.

Mack, George, and David Sadowski. "Why Uranium Prices Will Spike in 2013:

Raymond James." The Energy Report. August 23, 2012. Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.theenergyreport.com/pub/na/why-uranium-prices-will-spike-in-2013-raymond-james.

Matthew L. Wald, “Calls to Use Yucca Mountain as a Nuclear Waste Site, Now

Deemed Safe,” New York Times, October 16, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/calls-to-use-a-proposed-nuclear-site-now-deemed-safe.html.

50

Matthew L. Wald, “Nuclear Waste Is Allowed Above Ground Indefinitely,” New York Times, August 29, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/us/spent-nuclear-fuel-is-allowed-to-be-stored-above-ground.html.

Nash, Kenneth L., and Gregg J. Lumetta. Advanced separation techniques for nuclear

fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste treatment. Elsevier, 2011. National Academy of Sciences (US). US Committee on the Internationalization of the

Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Internationalization of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Goals, Strategies, and Challenges. National Academies Press, 2009, 63.

Orszag, Peter. "Costs of Reprocessing Versus Directly Disposing of Spent Nuclear

Fuel." November 14, 2007. Accessed November 23, 2015. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8808/11-14-nuclearfuel.pdf.

Pacala, S. "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years

with Current Technologies." Science 305, no. 13 (2004): 968-72. Accessed December 3, 2015. doi:10.1126/science.1100103.

Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster,

2012. 896. Ristinen, Robert A., and Jack J. Kraushaar. "Chapter 6: The Promise and Problems of

Nuclear Energy,” in Energy and the Environment, by Robert A. Ristinen, Jack J. Kraushaar, (Wiley-VCH, October 1998), 171-209.

Robert Alvarez, “Spent Nuclear Fuel Pools in the U.S.,” Institute for Policy Studies,

May 24, 2011, http://www.ipsdc.org/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_us_reducing_the_deadly_risks_of_storage/.

Rosner, Robert, Lenka Kollar, and James P. Malone. The Back-End of the Nuclear

Fuel Cycle: Establishing a Viable Roadmap for a Multilateral Interim Storage Facility. (Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2015).

Schneider, Conrad G., Jonathan M. Banks, and Marika Tatsutani. The toll from coal:

An updated assessment of death and disease from America's dirtiest energy source. Clean Air Task Force, 2010. http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

Schnitzer, Daniel. "A Link without a Chain: Assessing the Proposed Return to

Reprocessing in the United States Global Nuclear Energy Partnership." 2007. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2933089-dt-content-rid 6038641_1/courses/2015.04.0612900001/CourseDocuments/D.SchnitzerLinkwoChain (thesis)/DanSchnitzerBAFinalMay18copy.pdf.

51

Silverio, Leticia Borges, and Wendell De Queiroz Lamas. "An Analysis of Development and Research on Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing." Energy Policy 39 (2010): 281-89.

Silverstein, “Yucca Mountain.” "Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options." IAEA.org. August 1, 2008. Accessed November

30, 2015. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1587_web.pdf.

"Spent Fuel Storage in Pools and Dry Casks: Key Points and Questions & Answers."

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April 13, 2015. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/faqs.html.

"Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Flowsheet." Nuclear Science, 2012. Accessed

December 3, 2015. https://www.oecd-nea.org/science/docs/2012/nsc-wpfc-doc2012-15.pdf.

"The Economics of Nuclear Power." World Nuclear Association. September 5, 2015.

Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power/.

"The Long Term Storage of Radioactive Waste: Safety and Sustainability." IAEA.org.

January 7, 2003. Accessed November 20, 2015. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/longtermstoragerw0609.pdf.

Tolley, George. "The Economic Future of Nuclear Power." Anl.gov. August 1, 2004.

Accessed November 21, 2015. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~anitescu/EXTRAS/READING/NuclIndustryStudy-Summary.pdf.

Touran, Nick. "Recycling Nuclear Waste and Breeder Reactors." What Is Nuclear

Recycling? March 1, 2009. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html.

Touran, Nick. "WHAT•IS•NUCLEAR?" What Is Nuclear? / Where Did the Energy in

Nuclei Come From? 2007. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/orig_of_energy.html.

"Uranium Supply and Demand in Balance for Now." World Nuclear News.

September 12, 2013. Accessed November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-Uranium_supply_and_demand_in_balance_for_now-1209137s.html.

"UxC Uranium U3O8 Swap Futures End of Day Settlement Price." Indexmundi.

December 2, 2015. Accessed December 3, 2015. http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=uranium.

Wald, “Reactor Fuel Risk.”

52

Weinberg, Alvin M., and Harold W. Lewis. "The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technological Fixer." Phys. Today Physics Today, 1994, 63.

"What Is Nuclear? / Nuclear Reactors." What Is Nuclear? / Nuclear Reactors.

Accessed December 3, 2015. https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucreactor.html#components.

Woods, Peter, Adrienne Hanly, and Robert Vance. "Uranium Resource Availability to

Support Global Expansion of Nuclear Energy Systems." IAEA.org. July 30, 2012. Accessed December 3, 2015. https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/4th_Dialogue_Forum/DAY_2_31_July-ready/3._-_INPRO_2012_U_availability.pdf.

World Nuclear Association. "Processing of used nuclear fuel." Last modified

November 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Processing-of-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/

World Nuclear Association. “Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel”. Last modified December

2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Fuel-Recycling/Mixed-Oxide-Fuel-MOX/

"World Nuclear Association." Uranium Markets. February 3, 2015. Accessed

November 20, 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets/.

Yuriy Urabe, Masumi Humber, and Emi Suga, “Japan’s 17,000 Tons of Nuclear

Waste in Search of a Home,” Bloomberg Business, July 9, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-10/japan-s-17-000-tons-of-nuclear-waste-in-search-of-a-home

53