Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
Good riddance to bad rubbish
Plutonium is the bad genie of the nuclear age. Let out of the bottle in the 1940s to wreak havoc on the enemies of its creators, it is an element of ill-omen: non-existent in nature, poisonous, radioactive, persistent, the harbinger of nuclear weapons proliferation. Arguably, its use in energy generation is its only redeeming feature, and that is outweighed massively by its drawbacks. Its creation as part of the Manhattan Project is still held as a black mark against scientific research; it’s as close to the stuff of nightmares as has ever come out of a laboratory.
We’ve got rather a lot of it in the UK.
As with many of the nuclear industry’s problems, the plutonium stockpile —112 tonnes of the stuff, the world’s largest civilian stockpile — is a legacy of Britain’s early start as a pioneer of atomic power (and weaponry). Most of it comes from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. It costs some £2bn per year to manage, poses a security risk, and undermines the UK’s position when it comes to debates about nuclear proliferation. It’s 112 tonnes of embarrassment.
The debate has been rumbling on for years about what to do with it. Should it be classed as waste, encapsulated in glass and consigned to the UK’s planned deep repository? But that’s a waste in itself, because plutonium is, after all, a potential source of energy. So should it be converted into nuclear fuel? Plutonium is a component of mixed-oxide fuel (MOX), used in many nuclear reactors.
This is now the preferred option of the government — the plutonium’s potential will be realised. However, it hasn’t committed itself to building a plant to make the MOX. The economics are tricky — uranium is cheap, producing MOX is expensive, and the fuel would probably have to be given away. The entire project would entail a massive loss of money. Hence the government’s reticence.
So the MOX plant would be a dead-end. But the plutonium is a dead end in itself.
Another option is to use the plutonium in a fast reactor — a breeder unit, which would convert the element into a less radioactive, shorter-lived form. GE-Hitachi has, in fact, offered to build such a plant; but it’s of a type that has never been built in the UK. The connotations of breeder reactors, and their association with the problems of the Dounreay complex in Scotland, make them a hard sell. But GE-Hitachi claims that its plant could be commercially viable. Their proposal deserves more scrutiny.
Whatever happens, doing nothing just isn’t an option. The genie can’t be put back into its bottle; we can’t just wish it away or ignore it. But just like in the fairy tales, if we take care, ask the right questions, and keep a close eye on the dangers, we can make it work for us.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (15)
Anonymous | 7 Dec 2011 1:10 pm
The answer is to leave it where it is. In a few years time the long term answer will will be developed. Plutonium will be a very potent fuel for a new breed or reactor and we should store it and accelerate research into its future use.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roy Buffery | 7 Dec 2011 1:20 pm
We used to have a fast breeder programme which indicated a great potential for power generation but at a repoted higher cost than using the then conventional uranium. However that was before 'green generation' issue come into view and now we need alternatives to gas and coal. We ought to collect our own FB Data, review it properly just to see if we might, for once, be able to have our own FB generation plant(s) and not keep importing other countries so called 'tested' designs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob Chicken | 7 Dec 2011 1:27 pm
As I understand it, there is only a limited amount of uranium left to be dug out of the ground. If that is the case then in order to continue this type of technology we have little choice but to try and use our stockpile of plutonium. The good news is that invention and development never stops. If we allow and encourage our scientists and engineers to develop new reactors using this precious fuel, this will very likely result in a cleaner and safer way to produce electricity.
And as our electricity consumption rises by the year, the contribution by plutonium could be significant.
We led the world in the development of nuclear power some 50 years ago. We should now show faith in the current generation of scientists and engineers to come up with the goods again, and possibly to lead the world again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rob Hill | 7 Dec 2011 1:58 pm
Let's first dispell some myths. Plutonium is not a waste in the sense that the fission products from used nuclear fuel are. Neither is it intenseley radioactive. It is, or will become, a valuable source of energy either as MOX or in fast reactors. As far as I am aware, the reactor at the PFR at Dounreay worked very well. There were issues in the steam-raising plant. It was economics that killed off the fast reactor programme - mainly the availablilty of cheap uranium. Those same economics will surely turn the other way at some time in the future and then, maybe, our stockpile will be seen as an asset.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Dec 2011 2:10 pm
As the stuff exists, we should make use of it and accept the offer from GE-Hitachi. We should not however ignore the (not inconsiderable) risks, and insist that we are informed of all (really, every one) of them, including the potential costs. The chances of leaving all our energy needs to the (currently available) renewable options is just not sufficient. The only other alternative is to significantly cut back on energy usage with all that it entails. Back to Horses etc... - not really an alternative?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Graham Field | 7 Dec 2011 2:35 pm
Treating the plutonium as 'waste', would be a waste itself. It is a valuable resource, if used properly. It's just that 'now' might not be the best time to make use of it. So store it safely while you continue to seek a viable reactor design to make use of it.
Just how long would 112 tonnes last in a reactor anyway? (Sounds to me like a lot of fuel.) If it's enough to last the life of the reactor or two, then maybe it's worth developing one.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Hodge | 7 Dec 2011 2:59 pm
Converting Pu to a usable product - fuel for commerical or breeder reactors is a goal that the UK needs to pursue. In the long run the conversion will be a cheaper and viable alternative to the cost for security and storage of this highly radioactive and toxic material. As a member of the US MOX project I believe that is the correct approach to a difficult problem.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Cutter | 7 Dec 2011 4:45 pm
Let GE-Hitachi build and operate the reactor at their own cost, give them the Pu and allow them to sell the electricity at whatever price they can get with no government intervention. Let the market rule.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Dec 2011 5:45 pm
India uses plutonium for its fast breeder reactors. It may be an option that the government can think of, which will be benificary to both the countries.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Hadfield | 7 Dec 2011 6:57 pm
I think Mr Cutter's suggestion deserves further investigation. If GE-Hitachi will accept what he suggests, that seems a good way out of an expensive problem.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment