New reactor concepts do not solve the problem of finding a final storage facility for radioactive waste, says Christian Kühn, President of the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE). They also did not answer the pressing questions of climate protection. Kühn draws the conclusion based on a scientific study that BASE had carried out by the Öko-Institut, the Technical University of Berlin and the Bremen Physics Office.
Advertisement
In the face of climate change and the energy crisis triggered by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, nuclear power has received a boost in some countries; in Brussels, just 30 have committed to expanding it. Countries like France and Great Britain are not only planning and building new conventional nuclear power plants, they are also considering new approaches.
Not ready for the market even after decades
The study shows that it is currently not foreseeable that such “Generation IV” power plants will be introduced onto the market (PDF). “Despite some intensive advertising from manufacturers, we currently see no development that makes the construction of alternative reactor types likely on a large scale in the coming years,” said Kühn.
The study considers seven concepts, including lead- and gas-cooled reactors, molten salt reactors or accelerator-driven systems. All of the concepts discussed under the heading “Generation IV” have been developed for decades and have not yet reached market maturity, according to the study. If the technical hurdles and safety issues can be resolved, further development would likely take several decades.
Alternative reactors would also produce highly radioactive waste, and they could also differ significantly from the waste from light water reactors. For example, if molten salt were not used instead of solid fuel elements, waste treatment would be significantly more difficult because current final storage plans are generally not designed for this waste. Although high-level radioactive waste could be reduced through reprocessing technology, significantly more medium- and low-level radioactive waste was generated.
No set of rules available
Transmutation is also viewed critically in the study. This means breaking down components of the existing highly radioactive waste. Firstly, this would involve a lot of effort over a long period of time. Secondly, this would only slightly reduce the space required for a repository because the long-lived fission products, which have the greatest influence on safety, would be difficult to transmute.
On top of that, existing regulations from the IAEA, the USA, Canada and Great Britain are based on long operational experience with light water reactors. Accordingly, they contain technology-specific specifications that are not directly applicable to alternative reactor concepts. Rules are being revised, but it could take a long time until they are solidified due to a lack of operational experience.
BASE has also already had a report prepared on the concept of small modular reactors – also known as mini nuclear power plants. The Oeko-Institut came to the conclusion that mini-nuclear power plants potentially have safety advantages over large nuclear power plants, but that the large number of reactors required would significantly increase the associated risks. In addition, questions regarding safety, transport, dismantling as well as interim and final storage have not yet been clarified.
(anw)