IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v101y2017icp303-309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Plutonium management policy in the United Kingdom: The need for a dual track strategy

Author

Listed:
  • Hyatt, Neil C.

Abstract

The United Kingdom holds the largest stockpile of separated civil plutonium in the world, projected to reach 140t, at the end of this decade, when reprocessing operations are complete. UK Government policy is that this material should be reused as MOX fuel in Light Water Reactors. This policy is re-examined in the light of recent experience of the US plutonium disposition programme, in which the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility is now considered to be potentially unaffordable. Problematic aspects of US programme, relevant to the UK scenario, are reviewed, to understand the possible impact on UK policy. Based on the US experience and inherent uncertainty regarding the capital and operational costs of MOX fuel fabrication and plutonium immobilisation facilities, and the associated technical risks, it is concluded that the UK policy should explicitly adopt a dual track strategy to plutonium management, with commitment that: any remaining plutonium which is not converted into MOX fuel, or otherwise reused, will be immobilised and treated as waste for disposal. This will also ensure that the UK is positioned and prepared to take forward an immobilisation and disposal programme for the plutonium stockpile, should reuse as MOX fuel not prove an economic or viable option.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyatt, Neil C., 2017. "Plutonium management policy in the United Kingdom: The need for a dual track strategy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 303-309.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:101:y:2017:i:c:p:303-309
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151630458X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank von Hippel & Rodney Ewing & Richard Garwin & Allison Macfarlane, 2012. "Time to bury plutonium," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 167-168, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bruno Merk & Anna Detkina & Dzianis Litskevich & Omid Noori-kalkhoran & Lakshay Jain & Gregory Cartland-Glover, 2022. "A HELIOS-Based Dynamic Salt Clean-Up Study Analysing the Effects of a Plutonium-Based Initial Core for iMAGINE," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Ben Wealer & Christian von Hirschhausen, 2020. "Nuclear Power as a System Good: Organizational Models for Production along the Value-Added Chain," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1883, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    3. Pablo Fernández-Arias & Diego Vergara & Álvaro Antón-Sancho, 2023. "Global Review of International Nuclear Waste Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Robin Taylor & William Bodel & Laurence Stamford & Gregg Butler, 2022. "A Review of Environmental and Economic Implications of Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle—Part One: Wastes and Environmental Impacts," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-35, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bates, E.A. & Driscoll, M.J. & Lester, R.K. & Arnold, B.W., 2014. "Can deep boreholes solve America׳s nuclear waste problem?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 186-189.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Plutonium; MOX; Immobilisation;
    All these keywords.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:101:y:2017:i:c:p:303-309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.