The application of P&T would, if fully implemented, result in a significant decrease in the transuranic inventory to be disposed of in geologic repositories. Currently, it is believed that the inventory and radiotoxicity can be reduced by a factor of 100 to 200 and that the time scale required for the radiotoxicity to reach reference levels (natural uranium) will be reduced from over 100 000 years to between 1000 and 5000 years. To achieve these results it is believed that it would be necessary for plutonium and neptunium to be multiple recycled and for americium (curium) to be incinerated in a single deep burn step.

Partitioning and Transmutation (P&T) is a complex technology which implies the availability of advanced reprocessing plants, facilities for fuel fabrication of TRUs and irradiation facilities beyond the present NPP facilities.

Partitioning is to a certain extent a broadening to other nuclides of the current reprocessing technique which has been operating at industrial level for several decades and for which the main facilities, at least in Europe and Japan, exist or can easily be extrapolated from present day nuclear plants. Partitioning is the technology which can be considered as a form of "super - reprocessing" by which, in addition to U, Pu and Iodine (I-129) also the Minor Actinides (MA) and the Long lived Fission products (LLFP: Tc-99, Zr-93, Cs-135, Pd-107 and Se-79) would be extracted from the liquid high level waste.

Transmutation requires fully new fuel fabrication plants and irradiation technologies which are to be developed and implemented on industrial scale. The existing NPP's could in principle be used for transmutation but many practical obstacles may arise: e.g. interference with daily operation of the plants, core safety considerations and lack of transmutation or incineration yields. New irradiation facilities: dedicated Fast Reactors (FR), Accelerator driven transmutation devices and even Fusion Reactors have been proposed for transmutation and "incineration" purposes.

Dear Florian,

Thank you for your extensive reply. Interesting is that is used for converting the P & T extensive research is done, so within the framework of European research programs (PARTNEW, EUROPART), in Germany by KIT, acatech etc.

My question was: is it useful to integrate P & T in a repository concept for HAW? This is not trivial.

Best regards

Michael Lersow

@Michael:

To my opinion, at the present it is not useful to integrate P & T in a repository concept for HAW. There are still to many question marks, both on feasibility and on the industrial scaling (+ costs) of P&T. The search for a respository has to be basically grounded on existing technologies.

In pricipal, I could imagine the integration of P&T as an option, i. e. to ensure the retractability of HAW from a repository  for a certain timespan during which P&T might fully developed.

Hi Erik,

showing, that P & T is not mellow at present, you describe the current state of development, similar to Florian. However, part of the situation analysis is also that in Germany currently no repository concept for the long-term safe storage of HAW exist, one of which is still very far away. In parallel, major efforts are P & T to develop such an extent that its industrial application nothing prevents. So it would be even negligently P & T is not taken into consideration in the development of a repository concept. This leaves the possibility, that at the implementation of  a repository concept P & T is not considered.

All the best

Hi Michael,

technically, you might be right. Although even if P&T is applied in industrial scale some day, there will be technical-political obstacles:

Either the HAW has to be transported to the P&T facility (today, this would be no option according to  German legislation), or you would need P&T near the repository. This option would include i) either a massive investment in a P&T plant that is able to process the current HAW in a short time (say, several decades). This probably makes no economic sense - e.g.  you would need about 40-50 acceleration driven systems to burn the German HAW within 30 years. ii) alternatively, you would need either a near-surface storage for long time or the possibility to retract HAW from the repository.

All in all, probably P&T makes more sense within a concept of ongoing nuclear activities in general. I will not exclude that at some time future generations will see it this way. But I believe that it is the responsibility of politics/industry today to find a repository under the current status of R&D. If I had to counsel poltitics, I would therfefore strongly recommend not even to mention the term P&T in a repository concept because this will cause further delay today.

Hi Erik,

interesting conversation. First, if I should not even mention the concept of P & T out opportunism in  the currently taking place directional discussion in Germany, then I feel profoundly disciplined as researcher. P & T belongs very well in the discussion about a repository concept. Is it indeed, but also with some citations that you have argued here. What number of plants needed and where they be placed sensibly, is depends on the type of final disposal. Directly or indirectly. The number of plants of both costs and the time required for P & T is depends on the number of passes. A small amount HAW remains even after P & T. Germany currently gives out a lot of money for P & T, see acatech-study. Why? To used P&T in nuclear activities which not exist?

If you should come to the conclusion as soon as possible and then permanently HAW encapsulate, to then be left to succeeding generations, after our understanding of security about 40,000 future generations, then you should not think, in fact, at P & T. P&T is not "must have", rather "could have".

A concept can only delay beyond, if you have one.

About security for future generations can not think enough and the best is, they also involved in it. Otherwise our behavior is ironic. That`s my opinion.

Best regards

The analysis of the product material is essential at the beginning.According to that the management will be done.Some of the nuclear waste product do not have bad effect.So they can be applied in various fields.R & D have to play the main role.

Dear Anjana,

thank you for your answer. Here a little advice. The spent nuclear fuels will sorted in the most cases. A (small) part goes to the final deposal. Before all kind of radiooactive waste could be stored, these are precisely registered and conditioned. This will also be true if the high-level radioactive waste has been previously treated with P & T.

All the best

Dear Aswin,

from my front of view, a good answer or the standard way of disposal of HAW, with different possibilities. In Germany the HAW deprived of circular economy and the peaceful use of nuclear energy for power generation is completely finished. Germany has subjected itself a self-restraint, to want to store the spent fuel only on German territory. So far so good now, the question arises whether further restrictions should be addeded in the solution of this problem. The question arises whether P & T in the long term secure storage of radioactive waste can be helpful, not after that it must be applied.

In your study all the best