Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power

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

"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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • by e3m4n ( 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.
        • 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 do get contaminated (why do you think you wear them?) and it's

          • 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.
            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              I actually had the fucking job. I know what Im talking about.

              Ah, so you are a fanatic and cult member. That makes it easy: Everything you say is a lie and you should not be listened to at all. You just have a nice sample as to why by trying a lie by misdirection. And now you are trying an "argument from authority" fallacy.

            • by AleRunner ( 4556245 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @12:07PM (#62594892)

              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.

              Ahhh, yes, floor cleaner to the nuclear reactor plant. No doubt gives you a great basis. Reactors last forever (in your five year experience) and are never decommissioned [edfenergy.com]. The radioactive steel from a reactor has never had to be dealt with by anyone and the decommissioning happens instantly the fuel is removed because there's no need to wait for any short lived / highly radioactive elements remaining in the reactor to decay before the work is safe to begin. Decommissioning is of course free and anyone who claims it is a major part of reactor cost is a liar.

              TBH, given the insistence with which you are spreading falsehoods, it's most likely that I'm more qualified to discuss this than you. If you were an actual liar who knew how wrong the things he was saying were then you wouldn't do it so gratuitously.

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      I think this just tells us that any new nuclear facilities need to be super-large, self-contained, and preferably 1000m below sea level, 1000km away from the sea. In the event of a nuclear event, blow up the mountainside and bury the entire complex.

    • Excellent findings!

      It's bullshit. You read it with a open mind and you will clearly see it is a hit piece for non-nuclear propaganda. I can see there are already people explaining why it is bullshit far better than I can. I'll just let them explain it then.

  • Careful (Score:5, Informative)

    by ElizabethGreene ( 1185405 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @03:10AM (#62594046)
    TFS is conflating the waste storage problem of high level spent fuel rods and low level neutron activated steel and concrete. They are very different critters. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but it also doesn't help their credibility.
    • by wagnerer ( 53943 )

      I also love the 'just in America' we have a massive accumulation rate of spent fuel. That's because we don't recycle it like the rest of the world.

      • The way they ignore the mountains of toxic coal ash currently piling up is also noteworthy.

      • I also love the 'just in America' we have a massive accumulation rate of spent fuel. That's because we don't recycle it like the rest of the world.

        Which world are you living in? Also, in which Universe?

        In the Universe we occupy "recycling" spent fuel does not reduce the highly radioactive fission product waste at all - it must still be disposed of. It would require a Universe with very different physics for this not to be the case.

        And in the world the rest of us live in only France is operating a reprocessing system for most its spent fuel (and must still dispose of the intermediate and high level waste that the reprocessing plants produce). Even excl

  • by Sarusa ( 104047 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @03:10AM (#62594048)

    Given the same technology, generating power on a large scale is always more efficient than generating power on a smaller scale because your losses occur at the 'edges' and with a greater volume you've got more 'meat' and less edge.

    1 big dam is more efficient than 10 smaller 1/10th size dams. 1 big coal plant is more efficient than 10 smaller 1/10th size coal plants. 1 large nuke plant will be more efficient than 1000 1/1000th size nuke plants.

    On the other hand, it's nearly impossible to get a large nuke plant built these days in most countries (though Britain is trying) and small nuke plants are much better than building any new coal plants.

    And some of the small nuke plant makers are claiming they can do better on waste efficiency. It's possible - though these are not people you can trust with their claims, so we'll just have to see.

    • some of the small nuke plant makers are claiming they can do better on waste efficiency

      They are claiming they can do better on waste fuel, not on all waste.

  • Sure (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday June 05, 2022 @03:15AM (#62594054)

    But it will only be necessary to guard the wastes with armed guards for 184000 years, a bargain really compared to solar and wind, no?

    • This fear of nuclear waste, given the dire consequences of climate change is irrational: https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]
      • by higuita ( 129722 )

        no, you are seeing it wrongly
        the refusal of green energy because the only valid options are coal, gas and nuclear is the irrational part

        building big centrals is the easy solution that companies like, because they control that investment and the price
        building renewable energy sources require spread investment AND a big improvement in the electric grid distribution... big companies do not want to invest in the grid because that would put the power production out of their hands and end user of small companies

  • by Generic User Account ( 6782004 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @03:21AM (#62594074)

    Make sure that all costs are borne by the proponents of nuclear energy and no costs are externalized, not even insurance. Nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive and this will end it.

    • by Vihai ( 668734 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @04:42AM (#62594194) Homepage

      Do the same for all energy sources, remove subsidies, priority of dispatchment, and let's see which one would be preferable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Do the same for all energy sources, remove subsidies, priority of dispatchment, and let's see which one would be preferable.

        Renewables. Nuclear is several times more expensive by _all_ accounts that tried a realistic evaluation. This really is no discussion anymore, it is just fanatics on the nuclear side continuing to push tired old debunked lies because they cannot let go of their fetish.

        • by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          I have noted this before, but you need to look at an energy system. Sometimes more expensive elements are worth it given the overall cost-benefit break points. In that sense some nuclear, even if expensive, may make sense. But it's not likely to be any greater proportion of the total energy mix than now. If there are more BEVs, then that might mean a few more reactors, in which case optimising cost will make sense. However, it may also be in competition with storage mechanisms such as batteries. The balanc
        • I have modpoints, but I'd rather simply ask you: can you provide a source for your claim?
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Nuclear energy should have an extra tax levied to pay for the regulation needed. It needs experts keeping an eye on it, inspections, security from law enforcement... We shouldn't have to pay for any of that.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        Nuclear energy should have an extra tax levied to pay for the regulation needed.

        Revoke the Price-Anderson Act, that is all that is required to end the nuclear industry.

        It was put in place as a temporary measure until Nuclear power was proven safe, and it has been re-enacted at every passing of an Energy policy Act so, clearly, nuclear power is not safe.

      • Nuclear energy should have an extra tax levied to pay for the regulation needed. It needs experts keeping an eye on it, inspections, security from law enforcement... We shouldn't have to pay for any of that.

        Fans of pinwheels and mirrors in Europe are already paying a massive extra tax now that Russia has yanked its baseload fossil fuel rug from under their economies. The US can spare some gas, but LNG ships cannot match the energy bandwidth of Russian pipelines.

      • No, because industries paying for their own regulation sets up an incentive structure that inevitably leads to regulatory capture.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by blahabl ( 7651114 )

      Make sure that all costs are borne by the proponents of nuclear energy and no costs are externalized, not even insurance. Nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive and this will end it.

      No problem. As long as the subsidies for "green" energy, are, likewise, 100% on you. And that includes hidden subsidies like taxes on competition, carbon credits selling and so on. And yes, also the externalized costs, like pollution caused by mining for rare elements needed for wind turbine magnets and PVs, mining for lithium, cobalt and stuff needed for batteries for when the sun deigns not shine, and so on, and oh, let's not forget, recycling windmill blades and PV panels.

      So, deal?

      Yeah, didn't think s

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Deal.

        Offshore wind is now so cheap that it's in negative subsidy territory, that is companies are paying the state to build them.

        https://cleanenergynews.ihsmar... [ihsmarkit.com]

        In that case there was a bidding process, with the winner getting to give a proportion of the profits generated to the Dutch state for the first 20 years of the wind farms operation.

        Any potential costs that the state might incur such as the ones you mention should be more than covered by that.

        So yes, sign me up, I'd love to have a nice discount on

        • Deal.

          Offshore wind is now so cheap that it's in negative subsidy territory, that is companies are paying the state to build them.

          https://cleanenergynews.ihsmar... [ihsmarkit.com]

          In that case there was a bidding process, with the winner getting to give a proportion of the profits generated to the Dutch state for the first 20 years of the wind farms operation.

          Any potential costs that the state might incur such as the ones you mention should be more than covered by that.

          So yes, sign me up, I'd love to have a nice discount on my energy bill and/or taxes.

          One, what part of "If the average spot price in a quarter is below the bid price of $0.000015 per kWh (kr0.0001 per kWh), RWE receives the difference as a subsidy until it reaches a $988 million (kr6.5 billion) cap" from TFA you linked was too hard for you to understand? Two, paying to buy/rent the necessary land for construction isn't "negative subsidy", it's part of normal costs, greenie lies and word twisting notwithstanding. Three, I don't see them covering all the externalized costs. They still get rar

    • ... the functioning brain and the science of arithmetic?

  • by wagnerer ( 53943 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @03:58AM (#62594130)

    So on one had they are completely neglecting reprocessing and complaining about Pu-239 levels after 10,000 years. On the other they are complaining about neutron activation products that will be completely gone after 10,000 years. Whining about extra neutron activation from the existing 3 GigaWatt thermal designs is just looking for something to whine about. The half-life of those products is around 2-5 years or even shorter. Did they even do any analysis of how many years it would take to go from structural steel and concrete into the biosphere? Probably decades at least and that's without 'special handling'.

  • Stanford’s Questionable Study on Spent Nuclear Fuel for SMRs [neutronbytes.com]
    PNAS SMR waste study rebuttal [energyfromthorium.com]
    Ted Nordhaus's rebuttal [twitter.com]

    The second rebuttal includes a link to a NAS Used Nuclear Fuel Meeting video, which features committee members Allison Macfarlane, Rodney Ewing, and Ed Lyman among others questioning presenters, proving that they have intentionally misrepresented and excluded SMRs in their paper. It is striking how ignorant and biased these "experts" are, and their treatment of the presenters is appalling. (

    • Not going to watch a video, but if you have a peer-reviewed study that rebuts this peer-reviewed study, I'll peruse it.

      Why people think videos are acceptable citations is beyond me. What a time waster.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 )

        You could also read the things being linked, like the Twitter thread that includes very specific criticisms of supposed flaws in this study. For example, are the SMRs in this paper good examples of what is being planned? Or are they, as claimed, shelved and/or less efficient than what SMR designers support?

        • The numbers might be off, but the premise isn't wrong.

          SMRs never made sense. They were always going to be more expensive due to per-unit inspection and decommissioning costs. The only benefit is getting to sell the same shit a whole bunch of times. Reactors were built at the scale at which they were built because it was the least bad option. Making them smaller doesn't make them make more sense, it only makes them potentially more profitable because power companies get paid a percentage every time they buil

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            That's a lot of words to say that you have already made up your mind, and mere facts don't matter.

            • That's a lot of words to say that you have already made up your mind, and mere facts don't matter.

              I made up my mind based on facts. You made up your mind based on nuclear industry propaganda.

              • by Entrope ( 68843 )

                You literally started that comment with "The numbers might be off, but the premise isn't wrong." You don't care what the numbers really are because you will not let them inform you.

        • like the Twitter thread

          Your comeback to the complaint about a video is that a Twitter thread is a reputable debunking of the peer review article? The OP named names, a pointless appeal to authority. The peer review process exists for a reason. It's not hard to get published in a peer reviewed journal, many kids at university are able to do it.

          • by Entrope ( 68843 )

            No, my reference to the Twitter thread was a rebuttal to the blanket dismissal of someone else's argument because it contained, as part of one tweet in a long series that was just one of several citations, an indirect link to a video.

            And peer review doesn't guarantee truth, or even good faith.

  • by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @05:55AM (#62594268)

    I see this often from the anti-nuclear morons, they make some statement about how bad nuclear power is on some subject but then don't show how other options would do better. It amazes me that the anti-nuclear morons have been getting away with this fro so long. It appears people are finally picking up on these half truths.

    How much more waste would renewable energy sources produce than nuclear fission? It's a complicated question that would take an entire book to answer. Fortunately for us several people tried to quantify this for us.
    http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
    http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
    https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
    https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
    https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/... [blogspot.com]
    https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
    https://www.ted.com/talks/davi... [ted.com]

    I realize that many of those links are a few years old, but the technology has not changed significantly enough to change the conclusion. The numbers moved, that's not in doubt, but the gap between nuclear fission and renewable energy sources is still an order of magnitude.

    Nuclear fission produced a lot of low level radioactive waste that we can safely dispose of in landfills much like we would many heavy metal wastes. The medium level radioactive waste might have to be sealed in steel drums before being landfilled, that's all the special care that would need. The high level waste would hopefully end up being reprocessed for the valuable industrial, medical, and scientific isotopes.

    Just the total volume of waste that has to be dealt with from nuclear fission is tiny compared to that from wind, solar, and hydro.

    So many articles about nuclear power on Slashdot lately is telling me something is going on. I saw a YouTube earlier this weekend about how electric vehicles are a scam, and before that how corn ethanol fuels are a scam, and another video about carbon credits are a scam. All the videos ended on how we need nuclear fission power plants. There were other suggestion in one or two of those videos but all agreed on the need for more nuclear power plants.

    We need synthesized hydrocarbon fuels for a successful mission to Mars. A process that uses CO2 from the Martian air and water ice from the soil, powered by a NASA kilopower/KRUSTY nuclear fission reactor.

    Professional motorsports are working on carbon neutral synthesized hydrocarbon fuels so they can keep competing without upsetting the tree huggers.

    The US Navy is working on a hydrocarbon synthesis process that extracts dissolved CO2 out from seawater, produces hydrogen by electrolysis of seawater, all powered by electricity from a nuclear power plant aboard a ship. The goal was to avoid needing an "oiler", a ship bringing fuel oil to each battle group but they also got carbon neutral fuels as a bonus.

    The USAF, USMC, and US Army have their own carbon neutral fuel programs. The joint project between the USAF and US Army is looking at biomass fuels blended with petroleum fuels to extend fuel supplies in case of war. Like the Navy program it is to produce "jet fuel" but it is fuel they use in more than just jets. In war they use one fuel type for all vehicles, as well as for heaters, stoves, generators, cutting torches, coffee pots, and whatever else. The USMC and US Army are looking into windmills, solar panels, and other technologies to avoid relying on fuel brought by helicopters, air-to-air refueling tankers, and trucks. (The air-

  • 1. Nuclear recycling is a proven technology, the question is whether you can recycle enough material to make it worthwhile, and whether the material obtained will be useful. (Plutonium is very useful for power generators in space, so obtaining this isn't a problem.)

    2. Nuclear waste that generates heat is incredibly useful. Generating electricity from heat to generate heat involves two conversions and the process is wasteful. If you could simply use the heat from the waste to heat up water, which holds a lot

    • Fast reactors can burn nuclear waste, so 3+ and 4 don't generate much waste you actually need to store anywhere.

      You apparently believe that fast reactors destroy radioactive fission products. Fast reactor fanbois invariably seem to think this. They don't. All they do is burn-up the plutonium that would otherwise be in the spent fuel waste.

      And the reprocessing to get the plutonium out produces more total waste volume that must be disposed of than the original spent fuel itself.

  • by indytx ( 825419 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @07:17AM (#62594392)

    As usual, because the nuclear option is not a perfect option, it is a problem. These small reactors solve a huge problem for the nuclear industry, NIMBY. If not for NIMBY, the U.S.A. and most of the E.U. (not including France) would be farther on the road away from fossil fuels.

  • Nuclear fission is a stopgap solution until nuclear fusion is ready. The contaminated materials can be buried while without issue while the spent fuel can be highly reprocessed and reduced to very little material. Eventually, we can use the power from nuclear fusion to stabilize these materials, making them safe.

    Surrendering to fear only empowers the companies that profit off destroying the future of this planet's ecosystem. Might I remind you that we have created a mass extinction event and if we don't

  • This is something that seems to be always left mentioned. Fusion is clean, not radioactive etc, but current designs all cause the reactor and support structures to become activated and are radiactive waste.

  • 'Some neutrons escape from the core. This is a problem called neutron leakage, These materials become radioactive when “activated” by neutrons lost from the core.'

    Won't fusion reactors (assuming they are ever built commercially) have this same problem? Deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion results in an alpha particle (the nucleus of a helium atom) and a neutron. The neutron deposits its energy in a surrounding material, which generates heat. So in fusion and fission both you will have a lot of highly

    • Yes, activation of the structure is a major issue with fusion. One area of materials research in fusion power is developing materials with lower long-term activation potential.

  • âoeTo begin with the text of the Stanford press statement has a caveat the size of the Brooklyn Bridge.â

    âoeThe analysis was difficult, because none of these reactors are in operation yet,â said study co-author Rodney Ewing, the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security at Stanford and co-director of CISAC. âoeAlso, the designs of some of the reactors are proprietary, adding additional hurdles to the research.â

    âoeThis is a significant shortcoming of the report. The absenc

    • Sorry about the text encoding problems. Somehow the "smart" quotes feature went wrong. Here's the comment with fixed quotes:

      "What’s Wrong with this Study?"

      "To begin with the text of the Stanford press statement has a caveat the size of the Brooklyn Bridge."

      “The analysis was difficult, because none of these reactors are in operation yet,” said study co-author Rodney Ewing, the Frank Stanton Professor in Nuclear Security at Stanford and co-director of CISAC. “Also, the designs of some

  • by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday June 05, 2022 @11:31AM (#62594816)

    Finland has already figured out nuclear waste storage [science.org], including long term needs.

    So why are you worried about a tiny bit of waste compared to something like a coal plant, that can be easily safely tucked away until we figure out get ways to re-use it?

    In the meantime you get the only CO2 free energy that works at scale, which we desperately need.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...