|
|
| Fig. 1: France Radioactive Materials and Waste by Category 2016 - 2021. [1] Plotted here are the normalized values for France's national inventory of natural uranium, uranium from spent fuel processing, uranium oxide fuel, and mixed oxide fuel between the end of 2016 and the end of 2021. The normalized inventories for each year were calculated by dividing tonnes of heavy metal for each material volume in a given category for a given year by the maximum value across all years for that category. (Image Source: J. Ibrahim) |
France is one of the main proponents and users of nuclear energy globally. Nuclear energy accounts for nearly 70% of France's electricity. Consequently the country has thoroughly explored dand invested in optimizing the nuclear energy generation process, notably through recycling used fuel. France is among the few nations with nuclear fuel reprocessing/recycling capabilities. Consequently many nations ship their waste to its facilities for reprocessing. As of the end of 2021, France's ANDRA reported that nearly 8% of all its uranium from spent fuel reprocessing originated from outside the country. [1]
At the end of 2016 France reported a total inventory of 310,000 tonnes of depleted natural uranium, 29,600 tonnes of uranium from spent fuel reprocessing, 12,000 tonnes of spent uranium oxide fuel awaiting reprocessing, and 1,960 tonnes of spent MOX fuel awaiting reprocessing across all of its facilities. By the end of 2021 the total inventory of depleted uranium increased by 4.5% to 324,000 tonnes and the inventory of uranium from reprocessed spent fuel increased by 15.5% to 34,200 tonnes (See Fig. 1).
Early in 2024 France announced it would continue with its closed fuel cycle strategy. Energy and Finance Minister Le Maire reaffirmed a national mission towards decarbonization of the economy - strengthening the nation's energy sovereignty and reindustrialization of the country with nuclear power.
France's strong support for continued development of nuclear energy projects and commitment to CFC make it clear that the country is headed for a future dominated by nuclear energy. To ensure that the country can continue operation with a closed fuel cycle, a national framework was developed. The primary goals of this framework were to establish a clear system for radioactive waste reporting, classification. It included planning for long-term or interim storage of this waste - for processing or disposal - and research investments for separating and transmuting long-lived radionuclides in used fuel. [2]
France's decision to continue implementation of a closed fuel cycle coincides with its plans to both upscale power generation in existing plants and open new plants. [3] While the investments required for reprocessing at scale are immense, the reduced need for enriched uranium can be valuable in periods with significant instability in uranium pricing. [4]
Despite France's seemingly successful reprocessing system there remains much controversy in the decision to use a closed fuel cycle. According to one source, there may be enhanced immediate radiological risks to the environment and to the public compared to open fuel cycling. [5] Taebi and Kloosterman argue that the proliferation risks present in transportation of used fuel for recycling are non-negligible. Smaller countries unable to afford these reprocessing facilities transport their waste to countries like France with the capabilities to recycle. It is believed that this will increase exposure risk for nearby populations. There is however substantial evidence suggesting that there is no difference in exposure risks between the cycles. [6] Proponents of the closed fuel cycle argue there is far more benefit from the recycling of used nuclear fuel. [5] The Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) argues that reprocessing nuclear fuel significantly reduces demand for natural uranium and thus reduces uranium mining operations. But experts suggest that this may not be enough to offset the radiological risks during transportation. In this assessment, Taebi and Kloosterman argue that the NEA fails to account for the distribution of risks between populations near reprocessing facilities and populations not in the vicinity of these facilities - or from facilities that ship their used fuel to other countries for reprocessing. [5] Recycling methods such as partitioning and transmutation may facilitate significant reductions in the radiotoxicity of spent fuel but this technology is only available at the laboratory scale right now.
Another consideration when comparing CFC and OFC is the cost associated with each approach. It is thought that CFC can only be competitive to OFC if uranium prices significantly increase, since the expenses associated with reprocessing are overwhelmingly large compared to the once through strategy. Researchers found that even when making the cost of disposing of the high level waste (HLW) from reprocessing negligible, OFC was still more affordable. [7] In 2000, researchers determined the costs for choosing to reprocess used fuel would amount to $0.5 billion per installed GWe over a 40-year reactor life or an 85 percent increase of the total spent fuel and waste management (back-end) costs. [4] Bunn et al. estimated that for a facility managing 800 tHM per year would cost nearly 5,600 per kilogram at the high end to reprocess the spent fuel while 40 year storage and direct disposal would cost closer to 900 per kilogram. [8] While these cost assessments are not a complete representation of all of the costs associated with reprocessing or with interim and long term storage, they provide insight into some aspects of each fuel cycle strategy that could be the most financially taxing.
© Jawad Ibrahim. The author warrants that the work is the author's own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.
[1] "National Inventory of Radioactive Material and Waste: 2023 Essentials," Agence Nationale Pur la Gestion des Déchets Radioactifs," February 2023.
[2]P. Raimbault, "Safety of Radioactive Waste Management in France," in Issues Relating to Safety Standards on the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEDA-TECDOC-1282, 2022, p. 39.
[3] C. E. Velasquez et al., "Assessment of the French Nuclear Energy System - A Case Study," Energy Strat. Rev. 30, 100513 (2020).
[4] J. Deutch et al., "The Future of Nuclear Power," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.
[5] B. Taebi and J. L. Kloosterman, "To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles." Sci. Eng. Ethics 14, 177 (2008).
[6] M. K. Goldstein et al., "Health Effects From the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Other Sources in Perspective," Environ. Manag. 3, 447 (1979).
[7] M. Schneider and Y. Marignac, "Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France," International Panel on Fissle Materials, April 2008.
[8] M. Bunn et al., "The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel," Nucl. Technol. 150, 209 (2005).