![]() ![]() Instead, the commission reinforced calls for centralized management and storage. In 2013, President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission provided an opportunity to clean the slate and inspire new innovative solutions. ![]() The law mandated that DOE take ownership and management responsibility for all commercial spent nuclear fuel, and effectively foreclosed all solutions other than geologic storage. In the years since Congress designated Yucca Mountain the sole repository site, nuclear waste has become a toxic political issue. The modern approach to spent fuel management in the United States began with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, which further centralized federal control and narrowed back-end technology options. This policy has since expired and has not been renewed, but it set a non-legally binding precedent that the implicit policy of the United States is to not reprocess spent fuel. In short, spent fuel could be reprocessed the unburned uranium and plutonium would be recycled to fuel breeder reactors, thus significantly limiting the remaining fission products, or “waste,” that required disposal. But as concerns over perceived proliferation risks grew in the 1970s, plans to develop a national reprocessing capability were “indefinitely” deferred by the Carter Administration. In 1954, when nuclear power was commercialized in the United States, it was conceived to have a closed fuel cycle. In the United States, the historical politics of nuclear waste can be summarized by seemingly entrenched patterns: strong, centralized federal control narrowing of options over time and ultimately, vacillation of political will. But in that time, we have seen tremendous progress in the area of nuclear with our advanced nuclear reactors… but without a solution on nuclear waste, I believe that we are less likely to realize our full potential there.” “We’re effectively in the same place when it comes to the back-end of the fuel cycle as when we introduced that legislation six years ago. These are much-needed investments focused on the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, which comprises the stages leading up to power production in a nuclear reactor, from uranium mining to fuel fabrication. In contrast, the back-end of the fuel cycle-the management, reuse, or recycling of spent nuclear fuel-has been largely ignored as a focal point for innovation in the industry.Īt a hearing last summer on NELA, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska pointed out this imbalance: ![]() And on the horizon, congressional legislation-most notably the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA) and the Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act (NERDA)-further supports fuel cycle research and innovation. ![]() DOE’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) Initiative is connecting private sector innovators with national lab resources to bring new fuel cycle technologies to commercial readiness. Key facilities at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories, such as the Transient Reactor Test Facility and the now Versatile Test Reactor, provide testing capabilities to accelerate the development of new fuel concepts and reactor designs. In recent years, the US government has increased investment to support fuel cycle research, development, and deployment (RD&D) for existing as well as advanced nuclear reactors. This attention also creates an opportunity to reinvigorate innovation on back-end technologies that may prove to be the key to circumventing the longtime political impasse on nuclear waste. With scientific consensus building that nuclear power must play a significant role in mitigating climate change, there has been renewed focus on fuel design and fuel cycle research to support the next generation of nuclear technology. Innovation has always been a key tenet of the nuclear power industry. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |