Ask A Scientist© Environmental Science Archive

Author:     dragonlady
Text:       I just learned of the IFR that states that almost all fuel 
recycled and regenerated. My question: has anyone worked out what to do with 
the radioactive wastes that even this type of breeder reactor will generate? T 
understand that the wastes will be much less and will be dangerous for only 2 
to 3 hundred years, but that still seems to be a problem to me, especially 
given that we must take care to not adversely impact the seventh generation 
from now. Thanks

Response #: 1 of 2
Author:     Don Libby
Text:       I am not a physicist or waste manager, but as a sociologist in the 
field of preventive medicine I have done some work on social impact 
assessment. With a question about the safety of nuclear waste, I have to ask 
"what is the alternative?" Since a generation spans about 25 years, seven 
generations spans about 175 years, which (as I understand) is about the same 
as the half-life of the wastes that concern you. You have to admit that the 
seventh generation would probably be grateful to receive a dump full of waste 
that will be practically harmless in yet another seven generations rather than 
a dump full of waste that will be deadly for 400 generations to come. Of 
course it would ultimately be best if they receive no waste at all, but 
unfortunately that is no longer a possibility, since the waste is already 
here. We as a society must decide whether to develop more benign technologies 
or to abandon all attempts to develop and use nuclear power. The state of the 
world is such that other nations are pushing ahead with nuclear power 
development while research at ANL on the "integrated fast-breeder" was cut out 
of the budget this time around.

Response #: 2 of 2
Author:     Eric Dallman
Text:       Don Libby is correct in his statement that other nations are 
pushing ahead with nuclear power developments, which brings up several 
noteworthy points of the IFR project. First, it is obvious that nuclear power 
is a relatively cheap energy source, which makes it appealing to third world 
countries. Second, the fuel for most conventional reactors can be used for 
less peaceful purposes than making electricity. The IFR, once in commercial 
use, will supposedly be able to use the high level actinide waste from 
conventional reactors as fuel. This material is not of weapons grade and would 
not be worth stealing. Once the fuel (reactor waste) is in the IFR complex, 
all recycling processes are performed "in-house." There is little chance for 
diversion. Another important consideration is the efficiency of the IFR 
process. If nuclear power usage continues to increase at current levels the 
worlds uranium supplies will be depleted sometime early in the next century. A 
recycling reactor has the potential to substantially extend the usable life of 
what uranium we have left. When you speak of protecting the people 7 
generations from now you speak of a small unit of time in terms of the 
lifetime of high level waste (such as conventional reactor waste). 
Repositories currently being planned will need to be safe for at least a 
millennium. This is a considerably more difficult task than protecting 
something for a few hundred years. If you work at Argonne you should stop in 
building 201 and look at the displays on the first floor. (Also note that the 
IFR project may still receive funding from the Japanese, the DOD and DOE).