A common criticism of nuclear energy is the need to store spent fuel. Another criticism, albeit a less common one, is the personal and environmental risks of uranium mining. While often overblown, together these concerns limit the progress nuclear power can make in the United States. One technology could address both concerns: fuel reprocessing.
By reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, nuclear plants can reduce both the amount of fuel they need to produce and the amount of output waste.
After nuclear fuel is used, much radioactive material remains. However, it becomes impractical as a source of power after 18 to 24 months. This “spent” fuel can be highly radioactive and must be carefully dealt with. Currently, all spent fuel in the U.S. is stored on site at nuclear power plants. A long-term storage site was planned at Yucca Mountain in Nevada but stalled due to opposition. However, spent nuclear fuel retains 90 percent of its potential energy, and thus can be recycled. By running the fuel back through a processing plant, spent fuel can be made useful again. What is more, this process can be run multiple times. This “closed fuel cycle” could possibly run almost indefinitely.
This technology has long been proven. France, which gets 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear plants, recycles 96 percent of its nuclear waste. France’s La Hague site is responsible for almost half the world’s reprocessing. It even reprocesses for other countries in Europe. This means French nuclear plants produce 70 percent less waste and reduce their natural uranium needs by 17 percent. Several other countries also reprocess their spent nuclear fuel.
This technology even has a history in the United States. The U.S. used to operate reprocessing plants into the 1970s. A facility in Idaho Falls opened in 1963 and reprocessed uranium for the government. Several other plants were planned, and one more even briefly opened, but these plants were shut down due to lack of funding and new government regulations.
President Jimmy Carter put a moratorium on nuclear reprocessing due to nonproliferation concerns. While that moratorium has since been lifted, no reprocessing plants have opened.
The current method to reprocess spent fuel, plutonium-uranium extraction or PUREX, does produce separated plutonium that can be used to make nuclear weapons. This raises legitimate concerns about security and proliferation. India developed its nuclear weapons program using recycled plutonium reportedly from a civilian site. This demonstrates the care needed when allowing reprocessing. It also highlights the need for security around potential reprocessing sites. However, nuclear plants are already incredibly secure. Additionally, the long experience other countries have with reprocessing without incident shows it can be done securely. Other reprocessing methods have been proposed, such as uranium-only extraction or UREX, that do not produce separated plutonium. If fully developed, these methods could further alleviate proliferation concerns, but are currently only theoretical.
Cost is another impediment to nuclear fuel reprocessing. Reprocessing is an expensive process, one that can be more expensive than buying new fuel and traditional storage methods. It may not be economically viable without subsidies – or substantial permitting reform. While we will never know the innovations that could have developed without the U.S. moratorium on reprocessing, it is possible that these lost developments could have lowered the cost of reprocessing today. However, some companies might be willing to invest if they have the chance, and securing a reliable supply of plutonium and uranium is a national security imperative.
To build a fuel reprocessing plant, a company requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However, the NRC has no rules for reprocessing applications. It began rulemaking in 2013 but subsequently suspended and then discontinued rulemaking in 2021, citing a lack of interest. Without further rulemaking, companies wanting to build reprocessing plants are unable to proceed into production. However, this hasn’t stopped some companies from exploring the technology. The NRC should resume rulemaking to allow these companies to proceed with projects that may improve the US nuclear fuel cycle. The NRC should also take care to ensure that the rules it does implement are not so stringent that reprocessing becomes economically impossible.
Nuclear energy is a safe, clean, and reliable source of energy. As artificial intelligence increases demand for electricity and the world transitions away from fossil fuels, nuclear energy is poised to fill the gap. Nuclear fuel reprocessing could make nuclear power even more competitive, providing America with the energy she needs to move into the future.
Written by Patrick Conrad, Public Policy Intern
The Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure (Aii) is an independent, national research and educational organization working to advance innovation across industry and public policy. The only nationwide public policy think tank dedicated to infrastructure, Aii explores the intersection of economics, law, and public policy in the areas of climate, damage prevention, eminent domain, energy, infrastructure, innovation, technology, and transportation.