Nuclear debate must look at waste legacies

ACROSS the world, the contentious debate over the future of nuclear power continues apace. In East Asia, for instance, it emerged earlier this month that a nuclear plant in Taiwan may have been leaking radioactive water for three years. Meanwhile, Japan is still struggling to contain radioactive water from Fukushima; and in South Korea prosecutors are conducting a huge investigation into forged nuclear safety certificates.

The old controversies over nuclear reactors — their dangers, benefits and costs — remain at the fore. But as politicians, energy experts and the general public weigh the pros and cons, one key element in harnessing energy from the atom is being neglected. That is, the link between the different methods of producing nuclear power and the nature — and longevity — of the radioactive waste that each method leaves behind. This raises the issue of intergenerational justice: the technical choices we make today will determine the extent of the burden humanity will face in containing contaminated by-products that can remain radioactive for thousands of years.

What is most striking is the “missing nuclear debate”. Little is said about the major distinctions between the various production methods, or nuclear fuel cycles. Rather than reducing nuclear power to a simple yes/no, good/bad dichotomy, we need to focus first on the advantages and disadvantages of each nuclear energy production method, including the burdens and benefits they pose now and in generations to come.

One of the key differentiating features between the various production methods is the nature of waste that is produced after irradiating fuel in a reactor. In the socalled open fuel cycle (common in countries including the US and Sweden) spent fuel is disposed of as waste that will remain radioactive for 200,000 years. In the alternative, known as the closed fuel cycle, spent fuel is reprocessed to extract the redeployable uranium and plutonium, which are then re-entered into the fuel cycle. In the closed fuel cycle, the lifetime of radioactive waste is reduced to about 10,000 years.

There is a strong case for arguing that people living today should deal with the burdens of nuclear power because we enjoy the lion’s share of benefits. Thus, from a moral point of view, if we want to keep developing nuclear power, the closed fuel cycle is preferable because it reduces radioactive lifetime of waste and the burdens on future generations. However, the closed cycle brings about another dilemma. In order to reduce concern for future generations, we will create short-term safety, security and economic burdens for people currently alive.

Nuclear reprocessing itself is a complex and costly chemical process. The plutonium separated during reprocessing in the closed cycle method raises the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

But there is an even better prospect for easing the future burden: the development of so-called fast reactors capable of reducing the lifetime of radioactive waste to a couple of hundred years. This involves the development of extended closed fuel cycles based on multiple recycling and new reactor technology. This method, referred to as Partitioning and Transmutation ( P&T) has been scientifically proven but may require decades of development before it can be practically applied. Nonetheless, P&T represents a potential breakthrough that could genuinely transform the debate.

Several countries that use nuclear power on a big scale, including China, have decided to build more reactors. Moreover, smaller members of the nuclear energy club with long-standing reservations over future expansion, such as Switzerland, are now re-evaluating their stance. Meanwhile, there is a growing push elsewhere in the world towards the adoption of nuclear energy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that about 50 countries will have nuclear reactors by 2030 — up from 29 today. If these projections are borne out, the 432 nuclear reactors currently operable around the world will be joined by more than 500 others.

The debate needs to become more enlightened and inclusive of future technological prospects — and more reflective of the quest for intergenerational justice. It is only on those terms that we can compare nuclear with other energies, such as coal, which can help us answer the thorny question of whether nuclear power has a role to play in the future energy mix and combating climate change.

Taebi lectures in philosophy at the Delft University of Technology.