Australia's plan for nuclear waste (James Conca, Forbes)

Link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/05/11/australia-should-cash-inon-a-single-global-nuclear-repository/#57abb7c65f68 The follow are excerpts. Please see the above link for the original, complete article and embedded hotlinks .

Forbes / Energy

Australia Should Cash In On A Single Global Nuclear Repository The World Nuclear News reported May 10, 2016 that Australia is thinking about building a deep geologic nuclear repository that would take nuclear waste from the whole world, or at least from those countries that have no viable option for their small amount of nuclear waste. .. ..

This is a very big deal. And also a very good idea.

The nuclear fuel cycle (see figure) includes mining the uranium ore needed to make nuclear fuel, enriching the U235-content to sustain a controlled reaction, fabricating the fuel to work in a specific reactor, operating a nuclear power plant to burn the fuel to make electricity, and whatever steps are used to recycle, reuse or dispose of the final waste.

page 1

The nuclear fuel cycle includes mining the uranium ore needed to make the fuel, enriching the U235-content, fabricating the fuel, a nuclear power plant to burn the fuel to make electricity, and whatever steps are used to recycle, reuse or dispose of the final waste. Small-user nations, who have just a few nuclear reactors, only have one or two steps, such as those outlined in solid lines. They cannot afford to build a deep geologic repository for such a small amount of waste. But if some country, like Australia or the United States, decided to accept nuclear waste from these small-user countries, it would solve a global problem in a very cost-effective way. Figure adapted from NEI

All large nuclear generator nations, such as France, the United States, Japan, S. Korea, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and India, have, or are developing, all parts of the cycle. They anticipate sufficient waste over the next century to justify the expense of a deep geologic repository.

However, countries having, or planning, less than five reactors, such as Argentina, South Africa and about 40 other countries, will not have sufficient waste generation, or a favorable geologic site, to justify the economic and environmental issues of developing their own repository.

If some country, like Australia, with many viable sites for a single deep geologic repository, decided to accept nuclear waste from these small-user countries, it would solve a global problem in a very cost-effective way. It would also generate significant page 2

revenue for that country. And there isn’t much nuclear waste to begin with, since one ton of nuclear fuel generates the same amount of electricity as 11 million tons of coal.

All of the world’s nuclear waste would fit into just one repository Even the trans-oceanic shipping issues have been solved with the Japanese and Isreali IAEA/United States transoceanic shipping programs.

The Royal Commission performed a pretty independent and comprehensive investigation into whether Australia should help address some of the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle (see figure), particularly in: - exploring and extracting uranium ore and other relevant minerals, - further processing and manufacturing of radioactive materials (enrichment and fabrication), - nuclear power, and - the storage and disposal of radioactive and nuclear waste.

Australia already has the most, and best, uranium ore deposits in the world and is a major global supplier of uranium.

The commission conducted an open and transparent investigation, with many public sessions, expert witnesses, and on-site visits of fuel cycle facilities in Asia, Canada, Europe, the United Arab Emirates, the UK and the US. The final report highlights the establishment of a facility for the disposal of international used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, finding that Australia “has the necessary attributes and capabilities to develop a world-class waste disposal facility, and to do so safely”.

The commission also determined that such a facility could generate a profit exceeding $100 billion over the life of the project, while saving the world over $400 billion. Because the worldwide cost savings is so large, a reasonable waste handling fee could be charged to each small-user nation, say $2 billion per 1200-MW reactor per 50 years, providing sufficient funds to handle this external waste plus all of Australia’s own.

No taxpayer dollars would be needed. .. .. page 3

Agneta Rising, Director General of the London-based World Nuclear Association, said that the report had “fundamentally changed the nature of the global nuclear waste discourse.” .. ..

In fact, the storage and subsequent deep geologic disposal of the waste from the small-user nations is not difficult at all scientifically, technically or economically – only politically. .. ..

While spent fuel from a commercial reactor cannot really be used to make a nuclear weapon, and is itself a poor candidate material for dirty bombs, the existence of many countries having a small amount of spent fuel with little ability to dispose or otherwise handle the spent fuel causes pressure for these nations to find easy ways to rid themselves of it.

Controlling nuclear materials of all types is essential to non-proliferation, and taking control of spent fuel from small user nations is the easiest way to prevent this particular type of proliferation vector. Having a cost-effective option in a stable nation like Australia or the United States – with full transparency in full compliance with non-proliferation treaties and agreements – is the safest option for all smalluser nations and the world at large, especially as peaceful nuclear power spreads throughout the world.

So, while economics will be the real driver, non-proliferation and environmental protection are the important benefits.

Dr. James Conca is a geochemist, an RDD expert, a planetary geologist and professional speaker.

page 4