U.S. President Biden is making curbing climate change a priority for his administration. He is supporting research and development of advanced nuclear technologies. Although Biden is a Democrat, this new generation of reactors is also popular with many Republicans. Last October, before the last presidential election, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) awarded eighty million dollars each to TerraPower LLC and X-energy to construct new reactors that they claim will be operational in seven years.
One of the arguments for such new technologies is that many of the designs being considered are advertised as being much safer than current nuclear power reactors. However, upon close examination, many of the new reactor designs may present a greater risk of nuclear proliferation than conventional nuclear power.
These new advanced reactors are usually much smaller than conventional nuclear power reactors. They may be cooled by materials such as molten metal salts instead of water. Some of them are supposed to be able to burn nuclear waste as fuel.
Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). He said, “The technologies are certainly different from current reactors, but it is not at all clear they are better. In many cases, they are worse with regard to … safety, and the potential for severe accidents and potential nuclear proliferation.” Lyman is the author of the report UCS released Thursday called “‘Advanced’ Isn’t Always Better.”
While nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide during operation, a great deal of carbon dioxide is generated during the construction of commercial nuclear power plants and more carbon dioxide is released during mine, refining and transportation of nuclear fuel.
Current nuclear power is expected to play some role in lowering carbon dioxide emission in the U.S. The Biden administration hopes to reach zero carbon dioxide release from energy generation by 2050. Unfortunately, several of the ninety-four operating nuclear power reactors in the U.S. are being permanently closed because of high safety costs and stiff competition from natural gas, solar and wind energy. This situation has resulted in calls for funding the new nuclear technologies which are hoped to be less expensive than conventional nuclear power reactors.
The fuel for many of the new reactor designs would have to be enriched to a much higher percentage of U-235 than fuel now used in conventional power reactors. This means that the fuel supply chain could be a very attractive target for terrorists trying to create a crude nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb.
In order to fuel some of the new reactors with nuclear waste, it would be necessary to reprocess spent nuclear fuel it to make into new fuel. The U.S. has not reprocessed any spent nuclear fuel for decades because of a fear of proliferation and because of the expense. Other advanced reactors release large amounts of radioactive gases which adds to concerns about dealing with nuclear waste.
Lyman stated that advanced nuclear development funds would be better spent hardening conventional nuclear power plants from risks such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and flooding. The just released UCS report recommends that the DoE suspend its advanced reactor demonstration program until the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that functional prototype reactors be built and tested before any new advanced reactors can be licensed for commercial use.
Brett Rampal is the director of nuclear innovation at Clean Air Task Force, a nonprofit that supports advanced nuclear reactors to fight climate change and cut harmful emissions. He said that the report’s conclusions were not based on rigorous assessment of the U.S. nuclear industry. He added that if the DoE acted on the recommendations in the UCS report, it would “essentially cease innovation in nuclear energy today.”