Will Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Generate More Waste Than Conventional Ones? (stanford.edu) 284

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday June 05, 2022 @02:34AM from the fueling-a-debate dept. "A new study from Stanford and the University of British Columbia has bad news for the next generation of nuclear reactors," writes Slashdot reader SoftwareArtist
An announcement from Stanford University warns that "Small modular reactors, long touted as the future of nuclear energy, will actually generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants," citing joint research with the University of British Columbia published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study," said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). "These findings stand in sharp contrast to the cost and waste reduction benefits that advocates have claimed for advanced nuclear technologies...."

Energy is produced in a nuclear reactor when a neutron splits a uranium atom in the reactor core, generating additional neutrons that go on to split other uranium atoms, creating a chain reaction. But some neutrons escape from the core — a problem called neutron leakage — and strike surrounding structural materials, such as steel and concrete. These materials become radioactive when "activated" by neutrons lost from the core. The new study found that, because of their smaller size, small modular reactors will experience more neutron leakage than conventional reactors. This increased leakage affects the amount and composition of their waste streams.

"The more neutrons that are leaked, the greater the amount of radioactivity created by the activation process of neutrons," Ewing said. "We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive." That's a problem because already, just in America, spent nuclear fuel is accumulating at a rate of about 2,000 metric tonnes per year, the announcement notes, and is "currently stored in pools or in dry casks at reactor sites." But that's not the only issue: The study also found that the spent nuclear fuel from small modular reactors will be discharged in greater volumes per unit energy extracted and can be far more complex than the spent fuel discharged from existing power plants. "Some small modular reactor designs call for chemically exotic fuels and coolants that can produce difficult-to-manage wastes for disposal," said co-author Allison Macfarlane, professor and director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. "Those exotic fuels and coolants may require costly chemical treatment prior to disposal."

"The takeaway message for the industry and investors is that the back end of the fuel cycle may include hidden costs that must be addressed," Macfarlane said. "It's in the best interest of the reactor designer and the regulator to understand the waste implications of these reactors."

The study concludes that, overall, small modular designs are inferior to conventional reactors with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements, and disposal options. One problem is long-term radiation from spent nuclear fuel. The research team estimated that after 10,000 years, the radiotoxicity of plutonium in spent fuels discharged from the three study modules would be at least 50 percent higher than the plutonium in conventional spent fuel per unit energy extracted.

Because of this high level of radiotoxicity, geologic repositories for small modular reactor wastes should be carefully chosen through a thorough siting process, the authors said.

"We shouldn't be the ones doing this kind of study," said Ewing. "The vendors, those who are proposing and receiving federal support to develop advanced reactors, should be concerned about the waste and conducting research that can be reviewed in the open literature."

←

→

The Case for a Small Modular Reactor Revolution in Nuclear Energy

Fusion Energy: the 35-Country Clean-Energy Effort to "Bottle the Sun'

Google's Plan to Make Chip Development More Like Open Source Software This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Generate More Waste Than Conventional Ones? More Login

Will Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Generate More Waste Than Conventional Ones?

Load All Comments Full Abbreviated Hidden /Sea Score: 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 More

Nickname:

Password:

Public Terminal

Forgot your password? Close Close Search 284 Comments Log In/Create an Account

Comments Filter: ● All ● Insightful ● Informative ● Interesting ● Funny

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Excellent Findings (Score:2)

bycrazyvortex ( 9942666 ) Excellent findings! However, I'm worried that the economies that drive innovation in nuclear power will favor convenience and short term cost over long term sustainability.

Re: (Score:3)

bylocater16 ( 2326718 ) Especially in the first place they're going to be sold, Africa. Richer countries have people that can complain more effectively, witness decades long plans coming to nothing for storing nuclear waste in the US. But they'll get away with it other places.

Re: Excellent Findings (Score:5, Insightful)

bye3m4n ( 947977 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @08:07AM (#62594478) You fail to understand what they mean by "waste" . This isnt some form of radioactive poop coming out of the reactor. Every time you enter the reactor compartment to perform maintenance you don a full tyvex suit, cloth gloves that reach your elbows, a cloth hood, and often a face shield and respirator. Upon leaving the RC, you have to process through a CSCA (controlled surface contamination area). Your cloth gloves, suit, respirator filters, and tyvex suit are immediately put into a wastebin that is tagged as RAM(radioactive material). Its not that its full of actual radioactive particulate. Its that there is a small chance. After this, one uses an AN/PDR-56 to scan the rest of themselves in order to leave the CSCA. So the authors intent to make you believe its shedding more contamination is horse shit. Whats happening is that more maintenance is being done as a result of more smaller RCs, and more not-actually-contaminated materials are getting bagged as RAM. typical scaremongering by functionally illiterate journalists. Parent Share twitter facebook

Re: (Score:3)

byAleRunner ( 4556245 ) You fail to understand what they mean by "waste&quot [...] more not-actually-contaminated materials are getting bagged as RAM. typical scaremongering by functionally illiterate journalists. I also didn't read the article yet, but from the summary alone. "We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive." No, they are not just talking about an increase in non-contaminated waste, and even if they were, that's not so helpful because occasionally the gloves doget contaminated (why do you think you wear them?) and it's

Re: Excellent Findings (Score:3)

bye3m4n ( 947977 ) Youre guessing because you have no first hand experience. I actually had the fucking job. I know what Im talking about. Fe59 -> Co60 is not a damn concern because it never leaves the reactor compartment.