End Plutonium Fuel Programs

By Arjun Makhijani¹

For over half a century, the nuclear establishment has promised the world energy from plutonium. It was to be plentiful in supply, lasting into the indefinite future and, in the 1950s, even "too cheap to meter." After tens of billions of dollars in research and development expenditures and little to show for it, programs for the use of plutonium must be viewed as failures. Plutonium is now widely recognized as an uneconomic fuel. It is not competitive with uranium and is highly unlikely to be in the foreseeable future. The key plutonium fuel technology, the breeder reactor, converts uranium-238, which is not a nuclear reactor fuel, into plutonium-239, which is. However, breeder reactors have a dismal record, especially given the amounts of resources that have been poured into them. Of the 2,600 megawatts of breeder reactor capacity in the mid-1990s, almost half was in a single reactor in France, Superphénix, which has since been shut (see main article on wind power). Moreover, the process used to separate plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel, called reprocessing, is in many ways the dirtiest part of the nuclear fuel cycle. It has been responsible for extensive pollution of the seas, rivers, and soil. It has resulted in highly radioactive liquid waste, which must be stored in tanks. Among the problems posed by these tanks is the risk of catastrophic explosions, such as that which occurred in a military high-level waste tank in the Soviet Union in 1957. A complete electrical power failure at the French reprocessing plant at La Hague in April 1980 could have resulted in a similar disaster but fortunately did not because a spare generator was found offsite. The recent accident at the Tokaimura plant, in the processing of medium-enriched uranium fuel for Japan's experimental breeder reactor, provides another illustration, if one were needed, of the immaturity of the program, despite decades of effort. Japan's regulatory system was not up to the task of ensuring that there were appropriate radiation measuring devices, evacuation plans, or worker training. It is clearly unprepared for the added burden of ensuring the safety of commercial reactors fueled with plutonium in mixed with uranium-238. (Fresh fuel containing uranium-235 and uranium-238 is currently used). A severe accident in such a reactor would imperil not only local people with fallout, but much of East Asia as well. The use of plutonium fuel also puts weapons-usable plutonium into circulation in the commercial economy which increases proliferation dangers. Currently, there are vast quantities of plutonium stored at many sites. For instance, thirty metric tons of separated commercial plutonium sit unused in about 12,000 steel bins at the Mayak complex in Russia, raising fears that some of it might wind up in a black market. The plutonium from just two of those bins is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Now, with the Russian economy in severe distress, terrorism having reached the heart of Moscow, it is time to rapidly put plutonium into non-weapons usable forms (see Energy and Security No. 3 and SDA vol. 5 no. 4), and move on to a safer energy future. While the nuclear establishment has been powerful enough to secure continued funding for plutonium as an energy source in several countries, despite its dismal past and prospects, the key for alternative energy sources lies in their economics. Our study on wind power shows that improvements in technology have made wind energy more economical than plutonium already, with every prospect that the relative economic advantage of wind power will continue to grow in the coming years. Other energy technologies, notably the rapid development of fuel cells both as stationary electricity sources and for vehicles, have improved the outlook that the world can achieve economic and environmental goals simultaneously, if both goals are vigorously and sensibly pursued. Wind power and fuel cells are two of the key technologies. When they are put into the context of existing high-efficiency technologies such as cogeneration of electricity and heat or combined cycle natural gas fired power plants (see SDA, vol. 6 number 3, March 1998), or hybrid gasoline-electric cars (see box on electric vehicles, hybrids and fuel cells), it can be shown that it is possible to meet a reasonable level of energy needs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce urban air pollution, and eliminate further proliferation and other security concerns associated with the present global energy system. A sound energy policy that would help achieve a relatively modest decrease in costs of key technologies is one crucial missing ingredient to enable us to link to that more desirable future. In 1952, the Paley Commission, appointed by President Truman, judged the promise of renewable energy sources to be greater than that of nuclear power for meeting energy needs and preventing economic dislocations due to disruptions in foreign oil supply. But shortly thereafter, the US government chose to ignore that recommendation in favor of pursuing nuclear power, largely as part of its Cold War propaganda campaign. It is well past the time when Cold War dreams of plutonium as a "magical" energy source should have been abandoned in favor of renewable energy sources and technologies that will dramatically change the efficiency of energy conversion and use. These technologies should be pursued with the same determination as nuclear energy was in the first decades of the Cold War. This time, it is a race against time. There are many indications, such as the increased frequency of severe climatic events, that the world is not yet on a course to win the battle against global warming. It is imperative that powerful governments set aside the pork-barrel plutonium projects with which they have so long fed the nuclear establishment. A firm commitment of public resources to purchase wind power, fuel cell powered vehicles and stationary fuel cell sources, solar energy, and cogeneration for public buildings is needed by the countries with large fossil fuel and/or nuclear power programs. The best institutional vehicle for the acquisition of these technologies is for governments to adopt procurement policies that will provide a steady market for them, while encouraging competition that will enable a decrease in costs over time. The US government needs to take far greater leadership than it has done, because the United States is by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the largest generator of nuclear energy, and the largest diplomatic and financial influence in the world. Yet, so far, the US government has failed to meet its commitments on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions made at the global environmental summit in 1992 and is not on track to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol (the global treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - see SDA vol. 6 no. 3 - which remains to be ratified by the United States Senate). In view of the promise of these technologies and of the need to play catch up as a result of these failures, an investment of five to ten billion dollars a year in renewable energy technologies, including efficient energy conversion using fuel cells, is warranted. Much of this will be returned directly in the form of reduced energy costs.