In the public debate, transmutation is often presented as a solution for the waste problem. What is SKB’s opinion about this?
“Transmutation does not resolve the waste issue. The technology demands several steps of complicated chemical separation processes to separate the fissionable material in the fuel. This creates waste problems other than the ones we face today. While the fuel’s danger diminishes, it could leave us with larger volumes of low and intermediate-level waste, which might be difficult to manage. There will still be long-lasting residual waste that has to be deposited in a final repository.”
Transmutation doesn’t yet function on an industrial scale, but research is moving forward. Wouldn’t it be better to wait for the technology to be developed instead of burying the spent fuel?
“Those of us who are alive today have a moral responsibility to our children and grandchildren. The generations that have benefited from nuclear power are also responsible for resolving the waste issue. Many difficult problems remain to be resolved with transmutation technology. If the technology ever becomes a reality, then future generations can dig up the fuel again. Transmutation is not a final solution to the waste issue. A final repository will still be needed to manage the long-lasting substances that remain.”
Up until last year, SKB was the largest funder of transmutation research in Sweden. Why is SKB investing funds in transmutation at all when the main focus is a final repository in rock?
“Our task is to manage spent nuclear fuel in a safe manner and within the framework of existing laws, international agreements and other current policy decisions. This will be achieved with technology that we know works in reality, not just in a laboratory setting. Thus, direct deposits in a final repository are the obvious solution. According to the Swedish Nuclear Technology Act, our research programme is to be general, which is why support for transmutation research is included. Our strategy is to offer selected universities and colleges the opportunity to take part and follow international research. This is also important for future supply of competency in the field of nuclear technology.”
What is needed for transmutation to be a realistic alternative for Sweden?
“A whole-hearted investment in nuclear power, both in Sweden and internationally. It is very expensive to develop transmutation technology. In order to achieve financial profitability in Sweden, we would need a political decision to base our energy supply on nuclear power for at least another century. The current nuclear power programme is too small and not long enough to motivate an investment in transmutation.”
Does transmutation increase the risk of nuclear proliferation?
“Definitely. In the beginning, reprocessing was developed to produce nuclear weapons. The plutonium that can be extracted from spent nuclear fuel through reprocessing is not weapons-grade plutonium, but a reactor-grade plutonium with another distribution of plutonium isotopes. It is, however, entirely possible to produce nuclear charges from reactor-grade plutonium. The charge is more difficult to produce and the explosive strength is not optimal, but it is still sufficiently powerful to cause a great deal of damage. The risk of proliferation is radically diminished by directly depositing spent nuclear fuel into a final repository.”