|
|
| Fig. 1: COGEMA's La Hague Nuclear Reprocessing Facility (Source: Wikimedia Commons) |
Within the global energy landscape, France is the "nuclear kid" in an assuredly non-nuclear family. Their 58 nuclear reactors have supplied the country with about 70% of its electricity for decades and exported cheap electricity to other European entities. [1] Of course, beyond their unique scale, France's nuclear program stands out for a variety of factors, including its long-term successful fuel reprocessing program and facilities. While not the only country currently recycling the nuclear fuel out of fuel rods, they do so at the greatest rate, producing about 1700 tonnes of reprocessed fuel annually. [2]
After the French government nationalized the country's production, supply, and distribution of electricity in 1946, the country launched into the nuclear energy field, growing to a double digit number of operational reactors by the 70s. Well aware, along with the rest of the globe's nuclear-power producing countries, that their reactors would produce thousands of tonnes of spent fuel and radioactive waste each year, they began establishing programs to manage the full cycle of the nuclear energy program. [3]
However, there was significant debate in the 60s and 70s worldwide concerning how the nuclear programs of the world should manage their spent fuel and waste. The United States, highly concerned with the risk of nuclear proliferation, felt that any reprocessing of the plutonium contained within spent nuclear fuel rods would increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. France and Great Britain, however, saw reprocessing as an opportunity to decrease costs, improve efficiency, reduce nuclear waste, and (according to some) even reduce the risk of proliferation. France became an early adopter of a closed nuclear fuel cycle by handling their spent fuel in house. [4]
In 1966, France opened a reprocessing facility in La Hague, dedicated to extracting uranium and plutonium from the spent fuel rods to be converted into usable fuel for subsequent fuel rods. Since opening, the plant processed over 20,000 tonnes by the 2000s and has reprocessed over 30,000 tonnes of fuel, consistently on pace with that predicated by analysts in the 80s, demonstrating its consistency as a reprocessing plant. [5,6]
While there are multiple strategies for processing spent fuel, the Plutonium Uranium Reduction Extraction, or PUREX, process remains the industry standard. After letting the fuel rods cool in a pool for about seven years, the reprocessing facilities extract the 96% of the fuel that can be reprocessed. They then begin by dissolving the reprocessable fuel in nitric acid before subjecting the solution to subsequent dissolution processes, separating the uranium and plutonium out. [7] From this, the chemical pipeline splits.
The uranium, now as a uranium oxide, can be enriched and used in reactors, reducing the amount of uranium needing to be mined and hence lowering both costs and environmental impacts of the uranium used in nuclear energy. The plutonium is mixed in as plutonium oxide with other uranium oxides into what is referred to as a mixed-oxide, or MOX, fuel. MOX fuels can be utilized in light-water reactors as well as fast reactors around the world. Some light-water reactors in France use upwards of 30% MOX fuel in their cores. [8] The amount of MOX fuel used each year in France fluctuates and is mostly reported by the processing companies such as Orano.
While PUREX process allows France to achieve a remarkable level of efficiency, not all nuclear waste is able to be processed into MOX fuel. In fact, it is only the spent fuel that France designates as "reusable." [9] High-level waste, as well as various intermediate-level, low-level, and long-lived fission waste products must be dealt with differently than just the spent fuel rods.
For the high-level waste which results mostly from spent fuel reprocessing, France uses vitrification (from the latin "vitrium" for glass), a process that essentially turns these waste products into a type of glass by mixing the waste with silica and glass forming compounds at a high temperature, generating a glass-like matrix with the nuclear waste particles suspended within it, allowing for more stable storage of the waste. [10] While it is difficult to say how much nuclear waste in total is vitrified since there is no universal reporting measures for nuclear waste, it is claimed that about 95% of the waste that France labels as high-level is ultimately vitrified. [9] The remaining high-level waste as well as intermediate-level and low-level waste is mostly in interim storage at La Hague, Macroule, and other French facilities, or disposed of in repositories such the CIRES above-ground facility. [9]
Like virtually every aspect of nuclear energy, France's closed fuel cycle and reprocessing programs are subject to criticism and scrutiny. First, concerns over the risk of proliferation were never fully dissipated. Dissidents worry that the separation of the plutonium out of the fuel rods into a usable form increases the risk of terrorism should this fuel be stolen or mismanaged. Secondly, the as global demand has decreased for France to process imported spent fuel, the economics has become cloudier, with some arguing that the reprocessing program is more costly than simply purchasing new fuel. [11] Additionally, as with many energy systems, some argue that France's continued financial and scientific support for reprocessing detracts attention from potentially cheaper and more sustainable energy sources.
France has remained the world's leader in nuclear energy, relying on it for their domestic power grid more than any other country. But with the global debates concerning nuclear energy and nuclear fuel reprocessing still alive and strong after over half a century, it's consistently unclear precisely what France's future energy landscape will look like. With reports coming out in March 2024 that France plans to continue its fuel reprocessing until 2040, its possible that France finds itself increasing isolated as the world nuclear kid.
© Ky Friedman. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] C.E. Velasquez et al., "Assessment of the French Nuclear Energy System - A Case Study," Energy Strategy Rev. 30, 100513 (2020).
[2] I. W. Leigh and S. J. Mitchell, "International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Fact Book," Pacific Northwest Laboratory, PNL-3594, January 1990.
[3] M. Schneider, "Nuclear Power in France: Beyond the Myth," Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament, December 2008.
[4] V. Gilinsky, "Plutonium, Proliferation and the Price of Reprocessing," Foreign Aff. 57, 374 (1978).
[4] R. J. Roscoe et al., "Mortality Among Navajo Uranium Miners," Am. J. Public Health 85, 535 (1995).
[5] J. Rastoin and D. Bastien, "The Nuclear Fuel Cycle," Nucl. Eng. Des. 114, 187 (1989).
[6] "Spent Fuel Reprocessing Options," International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA-TECDOC-1587, August 2008.
[7] E. R. Merz, C. E. Walter, and G. M. Pshakin, ed., Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) Exploitation and Destruction in Power Reactors (Springer, 1995).
[8] M. Schneider and Y. Marignac, "Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France," International Panel on Fissile Materials, April 2008.
[9] R. Harms et al., "World Nuclear Waste Report 2019 - Focus Europe," World Nuclear Waste Report, 2019.
[10] "Vitrified High-Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, November 2017.
[11] F. N. von Hippel, "Rethinking Nuclear Fuel Recycling," Sci. Am. 298, No.5, 88 (May 2008).
.jpg){kind=link}