by Udo Pollmer June 18, 2024
Our nuclear power plants have now been shut down - but their nuclear waste is still there. And it continues to grow: coal-fired power plants are the biggest emitters of radioactive substances, all the more so as they are still being built in large numbers worldwide.1 This means that it...
...no longer makes sense to reactivate dirty coal-fired power stations to replace intact nuclear power plants.
But this does not change the fact that the existing nuclear waste is a nightmare. Even after our light and pressurised water reactors have been shut down, many generations will be left with the radiating legacy of the past decades. Nuclear energy is only debatable if there is a solution for the waste. One that does not require a supposedly safe repository for eternity. And it's not simply a dream to maintain that this will be possible.
Where did the crazy idea with the uranium come from?
After all, even back then, when politicians decided in favour of uranium, there were better solutions (to what?). For example, the thorium reactor. One tonne of thorium can generate as much energy as 3.5 million tonnes of coal.2 A handful is therefore enough to provide a person on earth with all the energy they need for their entire life. As it is not radioactive, it is only converted into a fissile form in the reactor. According to Maurice Bourquin, President of the CERN Council, "Compared to a conventional uranium power plant, the thorium reactor produces much less radioactive waste and this waste has a much shorter lifespan. So the waste is only dangerous for a period of three to five hundred years, not for hundreds of thousands of years."3
But uranium won, despite its risks. The reason: thorium is not suitable for producing plutonium. The superpowers coveted this for their arsenals of weapons. That was the purpose of the exercise. The vassals of the superpowers had no choice when it came to their energy supply. By the year 2000, around 1,000 tonnes of plutonium had been produced worldwide and since then more has been added every year by old power stations.4 (However, as the irony of world history would have it, cunning tricks have since been publicised as to how nuclear weapons could still be made from thorium.)5
But there are more absurdities in the uranium industry: the usual light water reactors can only use fuel rods that contain a certain uranium isotope (235U), which only makes up around 7 per mille in natural deposits. This is enriched to 3% to 4 %. The remaining uranium (238U) in the fuel rod cannot be used directly to generate energy, but is required to obtain plutonium (as fissile material or for weapons).
Plutonium and its dirty secret
Plutonium-239 has a half-life of around 24,000 years. In the wild, this isotope only occurs in tiny traces in rocks and meteorites. During the Cold War, nuclear power plants produced it for the military. The last purpose-built reactor was decommissioned in Russia in 2010 after 46 years of operation.6 Highly enriched uranium-235 is also used to produce warheads. Half-life 700 million years.
A total of around 70,300 nuclear warheads are said to have existed worldwide in 1986, compared to around 12,500 today. An estimated 58,000 warheads have been scrapped. While the world stares at the whereabouts of the plutonium, the weapons manufacturers speculate on the remaining residue, the so-called "depleted uranium".
"Depleted uranium" is what is produced during the manufacture of fuel rods and warheads and what remains when they are disposed of. The former is natural uranium from which the radioactive isotopes have previously been extracted. Here, the focus is not on radiation damage, but on the toxic effects of the heavy metal, in particular kidney failure.7-9 The second comes from old fuel rods and scrapped warheads. Its origin is revealed by its uranium-236 content.10 Radiation damage is plausible here.
With a density of 19 g/cm³, uranium almost reaches that of gold. This makes it suitable for armouring. Conventional ammunition simply bounces off. Conversely, however, the high density gives a projectile made of depleted uranium so much kinetic energy that it penetrates conventional armour plates like butter. On impact, the uranium and the armour wall together become liquid to gaseous. Inside, the glow destroys everything. Sometimes all that remains of the crew are their teeth.
The vaporised uranium contaminates the environment as dust, the fine particles pass through the blood-brain barrier and accumulate.11 The dust can render entire regions uninhabitable, as in the event of a nuclear accident. Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan in particular are said to suffer from the consequences of these munitions, although this is denied by the responsible NATO military personnel. This film provides information about the consequences: https://rumble.com/v184zb1-der-arzt-und-die-verstrahlten-kinder-von-basra-uranmunition-und-die-folgen-.html
Incidentally, the British supplied Ukraine with ammunition containing depleted uranium.12 Large quantities are thought to have exploded there after an ammunition depot was fired on by Russian missiles. The uranium cloud travelled as far as Poland and presumably further west.13
More plutonium?
In the meantime, the engineers have even managed to find a solution for the old nuclear waste. However, this required a paradoxical diversion. When they were looking for ways to utilise the relatively worthless uranium-238, they developed the fast breeder reactor. This allows uranium reserves to be utilised 50 times more effectively. The reactor uses it to produce its actual fuel - and now please take a deep breath: namely plutonium. It sure looks like they want to drive out the devil with a horde of Beelzebuben for good.
Don't the reprocessing plants already have enough problems separating the risky plutonium from the nuclear waste? And then either dump it in the sea or bury it in a mine? That's right! But in the meantime there has been a small change in the programme: today the plutonium goes into the fast breeder reactor. It "eats" the dreaded element by splitting it and using it as a source of energy. Regardless of whether it is radiating plutonium from decommissioned warheads or fuel rods.
If no nuclear warheads or fuel rods are available, the fast breeder also takes cheap, non-radioactive uranium-238 or thorium-232 and uses it to produce new fuel, namely plutonium-239 and uranium-233. Both nuclides are a "continuous" item inside the reactor, where they are split. This creates new, much smaller atoms with shorter half-lives, if they are still radioactive at all. The claim by BUND and others that "large quantities of highly toxic plutonium come into circulation with the operation of fast breeder reactors"14 is scary propaganda. Plutonium does not "circulate", but is destroyed to generate energy.
How is nuclear waste turned into a sought-after raw material?
The first BN-600 fast breeder went into operation in Beloyarsk in Russia four decades ago, in 1982. The second BN-800 with a higher output has been in operation since 2016 and the third BN-1200 is currently under construction. Russia can use these facilities to convert the plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons and highly radioactive nuclear waste into energy and thus dispose of it.15 Of course, this is not as simple as burning household waste in an oven. Transuranium elements such as plutonium, neptunium or americium must first be processed into fuel rods for this type of reactor.16
Reactors such as the Russian BN-800, on the other hand, make optimum use of nuclear waste by not slowing down the fast neutrons produced during nuclear fission with cooling water. Instead, they cool with liquid sodium, which is permeable to neutrons. Their unrestrained activity enables the plutonium to be utilised over a wide area. "Ideally," say the experts, "all the plutonium produced can be utilised in this way, so that in the end there is no plutonium left over that would have to be disposed of." 17
In Germany, the concept of the fast breeder reactor is rejected for precisely this reason. Because the Russian reactor is cooled with liquid sodium, it could explode on contact with water. According to BUND, the humidity in the air is enough to cause an explosion.18 In fact, tonnes of sodium have already leaked once in a fast breeder reactor, the French Superphenix - the result of hydrogen embrittlement in a storage container. Thanks to standard safety technology, nothing happened except economic damage.19 This incident is a distant warning of the risks of the planned hydrogen economy. (which, in contrast to sodium, see part 3)
The "explosive" devil's stuff, sodium, used to be in the form of shiny white metallic cubes in a jar filled with petroleum in the chemistry hall of many schools. The flammable paraffin protected the flammable metal from moisture. Naturally, the sodium in the reactor is protected from air ingress by an inert gas. Naturally, the vapour generators are located outside the reactor chamber. Naturally, the operators have a deeply layered, redundant safety system in case something should go wrong.19
Theoretically, a burst heating tube in the steam generator could lead to a violent reaction of the vapour with sodium. In this case, the necessary pressure relief is provided by a bursting disc, which then breaks at the bottom of the steam generator. Most of the sodium now flows through the ruptured disc into a collecting tank with inert gas.19 However, the part that came into contact with the vapour burns off. The more serious problem, however, is that this produces a lot of hydrogen, which forms explosive oxyhydrogen in combination with atmospheric oxygen. This is why the explosive gas is automatically removed by a hydrogen separator in the event of an accident.
BUND is not giving up that easily: "The sodium coolant causes major safety problems because it becomes highly radioactive."18 In principle, yes: the BN-800 consists of a reactor core filled with sodium and a separate cooling circuit which, as already mentioned, also works with sodium and transfers the heat to a steam-driven turbine. Radioactive sodium-24 cannot be produced in the coolant, as has been suggested, but only in the reactor core. However, with a half-life of just under 15 hours, it is hardly worth mentioning. In nature,24 Na is formed from argon by cosmic radiation. It always decays to ordinary magnesium.20
Bomb atmosphere
The way in which "environmental" organisations conduct their "education" is admirably brazen: "The breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor for power generation and plutonium production that uses plutonium as a fissile material, which is split with fast neutrons."18 Aha, so plutonium is fissioned to produce plutonium? The bogus sentence, which contains the scary word "plutonium" twice, probably means the following: During nuclear fission, plutonium atoms can be produced from uranium-238. However, the fast breeder reactor chops up any plutonium. If it is operated with thorium, no plutonium is produced.
BUND goes even further: With a "plutonium reactor" of the "fast breeder" type, even "nuclear explosions" are possible.18 Is this because the fast breeder also destroys plutonium from nuclear weapons? Could it be that everything would explode? Nuclear bombs made of plutonium-239 are detonated with high-explosive explosives, which are arranged in several layers with a special geometry. If the material is to be burnt in the reactor, it is first broken down and processed into fuel rods, for example. Even if dynamite were thrown at the reactor, there would be no "nuclear explosion".
Since 2017, Russia has been building its latest reactor model BREST-300 in Seversk, which is due to go into operation in two years. It is no longer cooled with sodium, but with a liquid lead alloy that can no longer burn.21 In view of the effective and safe operation of the Russian reactors, the Chinese have built a fast breeder reactor in Xiapu. This has already been fuelled with fuel from Russia and is due to be connected to the grid soon.22
Why isn't there a fast breeder reactor here yet?
It was already there! West Germany used to be a leader in this technology. In 1977, a reactor in Karlsruhe was converted into a fast breeder reactor. It remained in operation until 1991. The results were so good that it was decided to build a large fast breeder reactor. This was completed in Kalkar in 1985, but never went into operation due to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. It was finally shut down in 1991 for "political" reasons and later converted into a leisure park.
In France, the Phénix fast breeder reactor ran from 1973 to 2010, converting nuclear waste into fuel for the 58 French reactors for 30 years.23 The results here were also so convincing that the construction of a large fast breeder reactor, the so-called Superphénix, was started. Here too, the political resistance on the streets was enormous. Protesters even fired five Russian anti-tank missiles (RPG-7) at the plant in 1982.24 Last but not least, it also had "technical problems": Parts of the roof of the engine house once collapsed under the weight of the snow.19
The Superphénix ultimately also became a victim of politics, this time "in order to secure an election victory for French President Mitterand in 1997", according to Manfred Haferburg.23 This dashed all hopes of finally utilising and dismantling the inexorably accumulating nuclear waste in Europe to generate energy. Now the waste was even more politically explosive.
There is speculation that the USSR had a great interest in preventing nuclear energy from becoming too strong in Europe as a competitor, especially in Germany, and therefore influenced political opinion in West Germany through its GDR services and student organisations. This enabled the USSR to continue selling its gas and oil to the West and, on the other hand, to gain a lead in nuclear technology by eliminating the competition.
Experts suspected that the attacks on the Superphénix served the interests of the USA. After all, France nationalised many banks and companies in 1981/1982, it had already left Nato in 1966, built its own nuclear weapons and was therefore no longer a reliable vassal of the USA, but was drifting towards the USSR with "French socialism".25
Sooner or later, the fast breeders would have made Germany and France independent of imports of energy sources such as coal, oil or natural gas. Many countries would have been interested in the expertise in order to become self-sufficient in terms of energy policy. No global player among the oil companies and no superpower could and can by any means tolerate this.
We must not forget that the anti-nuclear movement developed into a strong social force that found its ideological foundation in the fear of eternally radiating nuclear waste. But what would happen if this justification became obsolete due to technological progress?
Then those forces that want to thwart the economic success of Central Europe by stirring up the public would also lose their political clout. In order to maintain its power, the anti-nuclear scene is trying to prevent all available solutions by using pretexts and scare tactics. Whatever forces may be financing these activists, such concerted propaganda, carried out over decades, costs money. But the expected profits from solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, electric cars and hydrogen refuelling stations, including the CO2 tax, will compensate the string-pullers.
References
01) Montrone L et al: Investment in new coal-fired power plants after the COVID-19 pandemic: experts expect 170–270 GW of new coal. Environmental Research Letters 2023; 18: e0540
02) Ashley VB et al: The accelerator-driven thorium reactor power station. Energy 2011; 164 (Issue EN3): 127–135
03) Bourquin M: Das Risiko einer auf Thorium basierenden Kernenergie wäre akzeptabel. SCNAT – Akademie der Naturwissenschaften Schweiz vom 10. Sept. 2018
04) Norris RS, Arkin WM: World Plutonium Inventories. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 1999; 55, Iss. 5: 71
05) Ashley SF et al: Thorium fuel has risks. Nature 2012; 492: 31-33
06) International Panel on Fissile Materials: Countries: Russia. Princeton University 13. April 2024 https://fissilematerials.org/countries/russia.html ; abgerufen am 20. April 2024
07) Murray VSG et al: Depleted uranium: a new battlefield hazard. Lancet 2002; 360 Suppl: s31-s32
08) Faa A et al: Depleted Uranium and Human Health. Current Medicinal Chemistry 2018; 25: 49-64
09) Lind OC et al: Nanometer-micrometer sized depleted uranium (DU) particles in the environment. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 2020; 211: e106077
10) Diehl P: Abgereichertes Uran - Abfall der Kerntechnik. Vortrag zur Tagung "Uranwaffen im Kosovo - Fakten und Konsequenzen" in der Evangelischen Akademie Mülheim/Ruhr am 21.-23.1.2000
11) Jiang GCT, Aschner M: Depleted uranium. In: Gupta MC (Ed): Handbook of Toxicology of Chemical Warfare Agents. Academic Press, London 2015: 447-460
12) Gozzi L: Ukraine war: UK defends sending depleted uranium shells after Putin warning. BBC News 2023, 21. March
13) Anon: Radioaktyvus debesis uždengė Lenkijos Liublino vaivadiją ir toliau juda į vakarus? bukimevieningi.lt/ 2023, 17. Mai
14) Nuclear Energy Agency: Kernenergie heute. OECD-Publications, Paris 2006
15) Anon: Beloyarsk BN-800 fast reactor running on MOX. World Nuclear News vom 13. Sept 2022
16) Anon: Russland: experimentelle Brennelemente mit Anteilen an radioaktiven Abfällen hergestellt. Nuklearforum Schweiz, Meldung vom 3. Jan. 2024
17) Klute R: Strom aus Atommüll: Schneller Reaktor BN-800 im kommerziellen Leistungsbetrieb. Nuklearia 9. Dez. 2016
18) BUND Regionalverband Südlicher Oberrhein: Schneller Brüter / Brutreaktor & Plutonium: Gefahren und Risiken. Zuletzt geändert am 14. Jan. 2022
19) Anon: Superphénix. Nucleopedia.org, abgerufen am 30. März 2024
20) Rödel W: Sodium-24 produced by Cosmic Radiation. Nature 1963; 200: 999–1000
21) Samokhin D, Khorasanov G: Reactor with metallic fuel and leas-208 coolant. Procedia Computer Science 2020; 169: 807-812
22) Zhang H: China started operation of its first CFR-600 breeder reactor. International Panel on Fissile Materials 2023, 15. Dec 15
23) Haferburg M: Bericht aus Belojarsk: Energie ohne Ende – und ohne uns. Achgut.com 26. Juni 2019
24) Prial FJ: Antitank rockets are fired at French nuclear reactor. New York Times 20. Jan 1982
25) Záboji N: Frankreich 1982: Der kostspielige Sozialismus à la française. FAZ, aktualisiert am 13.02.2022
English Editor: Josef Hueber
