To

Recycle

or

Not

to

Recycle

An

Intergenerational

Approach

to

Nuclear

Fuel

Cycles

This

paper

approaches

the

choice

between

the

open

and

closed

nuclear

fuel

cycles

as

a

matter

of

intergenerational

justice

by

revealing

the

value

conflicts

in

the

production

of

nuclear

energy

The

closed

fuel

cycle

improve

sustainability

in

terms

of

the

supply

certainty

of

uranium

and

involves

less

long-term

radiological

risks

and

proliferation

concerns

However

it

compromises

short-term

public

health

and

safety

and

security

due

to

the

separation

of

plutonium

The

trade-offs

in

nuclear

energy

are

reducible

to

a

chief

trade-off

between

the

present

and

the

future

To

what

extent

should

we

take

care

of

our

produced

nuclear

waste

and

to

what

extent

should

we

accept

additional

risks

to

the

present

generation

in

order

to

diminish

the

exposure

of

future

generation

to

those

risks

The

advocates

of

the

open

fuel

cycle

should

explain

why

they

are

willing

to

transfer

all

the

risks

for

a

very

long

period

of

time

-LRB-

years

-RRB-

to

future

generations

In

addition

supporters

of

the

closed

fuel

cycle

should

underpin

their

acceptance

of

additional

risks

to

the

present

generation

and

make

the

actual

reduction

of

risk

to

the

future

plausible

Introduction

The

worldwide

need

for

energy

is

growing

The

International

Energy

Agency

foresees

a

increase

in

energy

need

in

the

world

between

and

and

most

of

this

expansion

is

expected

to

be

met

by

fossil

fuel

-LSB-

-RSB-

Fossil

fuels

are

not

an

attractive

option

however

for

reasons

concerning

the

availability

of

resources

and

climate

change

An

increased

need

for

alternative

energy

sources

is

therefore

expected

in

the

upcoming

decades

e.g.

wind

energy

solar

energy

but

also

nuclear

energy

After

being

ruled

out

in

many

countries

following

the

Chernobyl

disaster

in

nuclear

energy

has

recently

made

a

serious

comeback

in

the

public

and

political

debates

about

the

future

of

energy

Many

people

consider

nuclear

energy

at

least

as

a

serious

alternative

for

the

transition

period

between

fossil

fuels

and

sustainable

energy

sources

According

to

the

World

Nuclear

Association

there

were

operative

nuclear

reactors

in

January

The

United

States

France

Japan

and

Russia

together

possess

the

vast

majority

of

the

operative

reactors

producing

GWe

As

a

whole

nuclear

energy

provides

almost

of

worldwide

energy

supply

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

main

advantage

of

nuclear

energy

compared

to

fossil

fuels

is

its

capability

of

producing

a

large

amount

of

energy

with

relatively

small

amounts

of

fuel

and

a

very

small

production

of

greenhouse

gases

However

nuclear

energy

has

serious

drawbacks

such

as

accident

risks

security

concerns

proliferation

threats

and

nuclear

waste

The

waste

problem

is

perhaps

the

Achilles

heel

of

nuclear

energy

as

it

remains

radiotoxic

for

thousands

of

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

Discussions

about

nuclear

waste

management

must

be

related

to

the

production

of

nuclear

energy

as

the

most

hazardous

waste

is

produced

during

energy

production

The

question

guiding

this

paper

is

whether

spent

is

to

be

disposed

of

directly

or

to

be

reused

in

the

fuel

cycle

referred

to

as

the

open

and

closed

fuel

cycle

respectively

-LSB-

-RSB-

This

issue

is

still

topical

after

more

than

four

decades

of

widely

deployment

of

nuclear

energy

In

an

open

fuel

cycle

uranium

is

irradiated

once

and

the

spent

fuel

is

considered

as

waste

to

be

disposed

of

directly

This

waste

remains

radiotoxic

for

approximately

years

the

period

in

which

the

radiotoxicity

of

spent

fuel

will

equal

that

of

the

amount

of

natural

uranium

used

to

produce

the

fuel

Radiotoxicity

is

defined

as

the

biological

impact

of

radioactive

nuclides

on

human

health

in

case

they

are

digested

or

inhaled

these

effects

are

indicated

in

sievert

-LRB-

Sv

-RRB-

or

millisieverts

-LRB-

mSv

-RRB-

The

closed

fuel

cycle

reuses

spent

fuel

after

irradiation

to

produce

energy

and

diminishes

its

toxicity

and

volume

substantially

This

fuel

cycle

has

many

long-term

benefits

but

it

also

creates

extra

short-term

risks

The

question

rises

here

how

to

deal

with

spent

fuel

in

a

proper

way

taking

the

needs

and

interests

of

this

generation

and

future

generations

into

account

We

should

not

foreclose

options

for

future

generations

and

should

manage

the

waste

in

a

such

way

that

will

not

impose

undue

burdens

on

future

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

this

paper

we

approach

undue

burdens

in

the

light

of

fuel

cycles

and

propose

intergenerational

justice

as

a

framework

in

order

to

choose

between

the

fuel

cycle

are

we

willing

to

transfer

all

risks

of

spent

fuel

to

future

generations

or

do

we

find

it

more

just

to

diminish

risks

and

hazards

of

our

waste

to

the

maximum

extent

and

accept

consequently

some

additional

risks

to

the

present

generation

We

discuss

the

idea

of

having

right

towards

future

generation

and

the

concept

of

intergenerational

justice

We

further

present

the

two

fuel

cycles

and

identify

the

associated

risks

with

these

fuel

cycles

In

the

following

chapter

we

focus

on

conflicting

values

in

choosing

between

them

and

reduce

all

trade-offs

to

a

chief

trade-off

between

the

present

and

future

generations

The

next

chapter

provides

a

few

underlying

assumptions

and

possible

counter-arguments

Whether

nuclear

energy

is

desirable

or

indispensable

as

an

energy

source

in

the

future

is

a

controversial

issue

which

is

beyond

the

scope

of

this

paper

At

the

same

time

applying

nuclear

energy

through

different

fuel

cycles

raises

a

number

of

ethical

concerns

and

moral

dilemmas

on

those

issues

we

focus

here

Moreover

the

existing

spent

fuel

all

around

the

world

is

an

urgent

problem

that

needs

to

be

dealt

with

tons

of

spent

fuel

had

been

discharged

globally

by

the

end

of

of

which

one-third

has

been

recycled

leaving

tons

of

spent

fuel

stored

the

growth

rate

is

estimated

on

tons

a

year

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

choice

between

the

open

and

closed

fuel

cycle

has

significant

influence

on

this

growth

These

intergenerational

discussions

are

also

crucial

for

the

future

of

research

investments

on

waste

management

issues

Partitioning

and

transmutation

-LRB-

P&T

-RRB-

is

a

new

technology

for

further

diminishing

the

waste

radiotoxicity

P&T

is

still

in

its

infancy

and

needs

serious

investments

to

be

further

developed

-LSB-

-RSB-

these

investment

are

justified

if

and

only

if

one

chooses

the

closed

fuel

cycle

of

which

the

P&T

could

be

considered

as

an

extension

Future

Rights

Present

Obligations

Intergenerational

Justice

Increasing

concerns

about

depleting

the

Earth

's

resources

and

damaging

the

environment

have

invoked

a

new

debate

on

justice

across

generations

or

intergenerational

justice

This

concept

of

justice

was

first

introduced

by

John

Rawls

in

as

intergenerational

distributive

justice

which

stands

for

an

equal

allocation

of

social

benefits

and

burdens

-LSB-

-RSB-

Justice

for

future

implies

that

today

's

people

have

obligations

towards

their

descendants

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

these

obligations

entail

certain

rights

for

the

future

-LSB-

-RSB-

These

assumed

rights

have

been

challenged

by

some

philosophers

the

ascription

of

rights

is

probably

to

be

made

to

actual

persons

not

possible

persons

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

non-existing

future

people

can

not

be

said

to

have

rights

as

our

action

and

inaction

define

their

composition

and

identity

-LSB-

-RSB-

this

is

referred

to

as

the

Derek

Parfit

's

non-identity-problem

Other

objections

against

these

alleged

rights

are

expressed

as

the

inability

to

predict

future

properly

the

ignorance

of

the

need

and

desire

for

future

as

well

as

the

contingent

nature

of

future

There

have

been

a

variety

of

arguments

provided

in

the

literature

to

these

-LSB-

-RSB-

William

Grey

has

proposed

impersonal

principles

subject

to

retroactive

person-affecting

constraints

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

Wilfred

Beckerman

has

argued

that

we

should

provide

future

people

with

the

minimum

opportunity

for

a

decent

and

civilised

society

-LSB-

-RSB-

Although

these

fundamental

discussions

about

right

and

obligation

towards

future

people

are

very

relevant

in

this

paper

we

will

focus

on

the

application

of

these

assumed

future

rights

to

environmental

policy

and

more

specifically

nuclear

waste

In

the

last

decades

the

climate

change

has

given

rise

to

serious

concerns

for

the

future

-LSB-

-RSB-

Do

we

have

a

duty

to

future

generations

-LSB-

chap

-RSB-

and

if

so

what

does

this

duty

entail

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

how

should

we

realize

it

-LSB-

-RSB-

Anticipating

technological

progress

in

a

rapidly

developing

world

and

being

concerned

about

future

generations

the

World

Commission

of

Environment

and

Development

introduced

the

concept

of

sustainable

development

in

This

moment

designates

the

introduction

of

intergenerational

concerns

in

environmental

policy

This

Brundtland

definition

named

after

commission

's

chairperson

states

that

the

key

to

sustainable

development

is

an

equitable

sharing

of

benefits

and

burdens

between

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

that

meets

the

needs

of

the

present

without

compromising

the

ability

of

future

generations

to

meet

their

own

needs

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

United

Nations

Conference

on

Environment

and

Development

in

Rio

de

Janeiro

in

-LRB-

Earth

Summit

-RRB-

not

only

endorsed

this

concept

of

sustainable

development

formally

among

national

governments

it

also

explicitly

included

the

concept

of

equity

in

its

principles

-LSB-

Principle

-RSB-

The

sustainability

principle

implies

that

there

is

a

conflict

of

interest

between

the

present

and

future

generations

In

an

anthology

edited

by

Andrew

Dobson

the

concept

of

sustainable

development

is

evaluated

in

the

light

of

intergenerational

justice

-LSB-

-RSB-

Wilfred

Beckerman

believes

that

the

problems

future

people

encounter

have

existed

for

millennia

and

states

that

our

main

obligation

towards

future

people

is

moving

towards

just

institution

and

a

decent

society

which

encompasses

future

generations

as

well

-LSB-

p.

-RSB-

Brian

Barry

investigates

whether

sustainability

is

a

necessary

or

a

sufficient

condition

of

intergenerational

distributive

justice

Barry

emphasizes

the

obligations

we

have

towards

future

generations

and

says

that

measures

intended

to

improve

the

prospects

of

future

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

do

not

represent

optional

benevolence

on

our

part

but

are

demanded

by

elementary

considerations

of

justice

-LSB-

-RSB-

Bryan

Norton

perceives

of

sustainability

as

an

obligation

not

to

diminish

the

opportunity

of

future

generations

to

achieve

well-being

at

least

equal

to

their

predecessors

He

further

presents

a

model

in

order

to

compare

well-being

across

time

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

contested

meaning

of

sustainability

in

technology

is

comprehensively

discussed

by

Aidan

Davison

-LSB-

-RSB-

What

does

the

forgoing

discussion

about

rights

and

obligations

entail

for

nuclear

fuel

cycles

considering

the

fact

that

spent

fuel

life-time

concerns

a

period

between

and

years

The

Nuclear

Energy

Agency

-LRB-

-RRB-

introduces

sustainability

in

one

of

its

studies

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

this

paper

we

adapt

this

definition

both

conceptually

and

practically

and

introduce

intergenerational

justice

as

a

framework

to

choose

between

the

fuel

cycles

Intergenerational

concerns

have

already

been

expressed

about

nuclear

waste

-LSB-

-RSB-

but

mainly

with

respect

to

the

choice

for

final

disposal

of

long

living

radioactive

waste

Nuclear

Fuel

Cycles

Open

and

Close

The

characteristic

difference

in

the

fuel

cycles

is

how

spent

fuel

is

dealt

with

after

irradiation

Two

main

approaches

to

spent

fuel

outline

the

main

dissimilarity

between

these

cycles

-LRB-

-RRB-

the

direct

isolation

of

the

material

from

the

environment

for

a

long

period

of

time

in

which

it

remains

radiotoxic

and

-LRB-

-RRB-

destroying

or

converting

the

very

long-lived

radionuclides

to

shorter

lived

material

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

first

approach

represents

the

open

fuel

cycle

in

the

production

of

energy

The

closed

fuel

cycle

is

in

accordance

with

the

second

approach

Here

below

we

will

elaborate

on

these

two

fuel

cycles

Open

Fuel

Cycle

-LRB-

OFC

-RRB-

Once-through

Option

In

the

OFC

the

lesser

isotope

of

uranium

-LRB-

-RRB-

is

fissioned

split

in

light

water

reactors

-LRB-

LWR

-RRB-

to

produce

energy

of

all

operative

nuclear

reactors

to

produce

energy

are

LWRs

Natural

uranium

contains

two

main

isotopes

which

constitute

and

Only

the

first

isotope

-LRB-

-RRB-

is

fissile

and

is

used

in

LWRs

as

fuel

but

it

only

constitutes

of

natural

uranium

This

low

concentration

is

not

sufficient

in

nuclear

reactors

the

concentration

of

is

therefore

deliberately

enhanced

to

a

minimum

of

through

a

process

called

uranium

enrichment

-LSB-

-RSB-

Irradiating

uranium

produces

other

materials

including

plutonium

-LRB-

-RRB-

which

is

a

very

long-lived

radioactive

isotope

Apart

from

other

fissile

and

non-fissile

plutonium

isotopes

as

well

as

minor

actinides

will

be

formed

during

irradiation

Actinides

are

elements

with

similar

chemical

properties

uranium

and

plutonium

are

the

major

constituents

in

spent

fuel

and

are

called

major

actinides

neptunium

-LRB-

Np

-RRB-

americium

-LRB-

Am

-RRB-

and

curium

-LRB-

Cm

-RRB-

are

produced

in

much

smaller

quantities

and

are

called

minor

actinides

The

presence

of

actinides

in

spent

fuel

defines

the

radiotoxicity

and

waste

life-time

The

OFC

is

also

called

the

once-through

strategy

as

the

spent

fuel

does

not

undergo

any

further

treatment

The

spent

nuclear

fuel

in

an

OFC

will

be

disposed

of

underground

for

years

This

waste

life-time

in

an

OFC

is

dominated

by

plutonium

Neither

minor

actinides

nor

fission

products

have

a

significant

influence

on

long-term

radiotoxicity

of

waste

in

an

OFC

Figure

illustrates

these

radiotoxicities

The

dashed

line

represents

spent

fuel

in

an

OFC

decaying

to

the

ore

level

in

approximately

years

Fission

products

are

a

mixture

of

various

radionuclides

that

will

decay

to

the

uranium

ore

level

after

approximately

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

indicated

by

the

dotted

line

in

Fig.

Fig.

of

spent

fuel

vitrified

waste

-LRB-

HLW

-RRB-

and

fission

products

compared

with

regard

to

the

radiotoxicity

of

uranium

ore

needed

to

manufacture

the

fuel

Closed

Fuel

Cycle

Recycling

Plutonium

and

Uranium

As

stated

above

less

than

of

the

uranium

ore

consists

of

the

fissile

isotope

The

major

isotope

of

uranium

-LRB-

-RRB-

is

non-fissile

and

needs

to

be

converted

to

a

fissile

material

for

energy

production

plutonium

-LRB-

-RRB-

Spent

fuel

could

undergo

a

chemical

treatment

to

separate

fissionable

elements

including

Pu

this

is

referred

to

as

reprocessing

During

reprocessing

uranium

and

plutonium

in

the

spent

fuel

are

isolated

and

recovered

Recycled

uranium

could

either

be

added

to

the

front-end

of

the

fuel

cycle

or

used

to

produce

mixed

oxide

fuel

-LRB-

MOX

-RRB-

a

mixture

of

uranium-oxide

and

plutonium-oxide

that

can

be

applied

in

nuclear

reactors

as

a

fuel

-LSB-

-RSB-

-LRB-

see

Fig.

-RRB-

Reprocessing

is

also

called

the

washing

machine

for

nuclear

fuel

The

irradiated

fuel

is

washed

and

cleaned

and

clean

materials

-LRB-

U

Pu

-RRB-

are

reinserted

into

the

fuel

cycle

to

produce

more

energy

while

the

dirt

is

left

behind

-LRB-

fission

products

and

minor

actinides

-RRB-

to

be

disposed

of

as

high

level

waste

-LRB-

HLW

-RRB-

-LSB-

-RSB-

HLW

contains

fission

products

and

minor

actinides

and

will

be

put

into

a

glass

matrix

in

order

to

immobilize

it

and

make

it

suitable

for

transportation

storage

and

disposal

This

process

is

called

conditioning

of

waste

and

results

in

so-called

vitrified

waste

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

ultimate

radiotoxicity

of

vitrified

waste

will

decrease

to

the

uranium

level

in

approximately

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

as

illustrated

by

the

dashed

dotted

line

in

Fig.

Fig.

overview

of

the

open

and

closed

nuclear

fuel

cycle

the

solid

lines

represent

the

OFC

the

dashed

lines

the

CFC

As

uranium

and

plutonium

are

separated

and

reused

this

fuel

cycle

is

called

the

closed

fuel

cycle

The

choice

for

a

CFC

is

rightly

associated

with

the

choice

to

recycle

spent

fuel

Figure

illustrates

various

steps

in

both

nuclear

fuel

cycles

and

their

different

interpretations

of

spent

fuel

As

can

be

seen

in

Fig.

the

solid

line

representing

the

OFC

is

a

once-through

line

The

CFC

on

the

contrary

is

illustrated

by

separating

plutonium

and

uranium

and

returning

them

to

the

fuel

cycle

represented

by

the

dashed

lines

Nowadays

the

main

objective

of

reprocessing

is

to

use

uranium

more

efficiently

and

to

reduce

the

waste

volume

and

its

toxicity

considerably

In

the

CFC

one

can

distinguish

between

two

options

with

respect

to

nuclear

reactors

In

the

first

option

conventional

LWRs

are

used

which

are

capable

of

using

MOX

as

fuel

Reprocessed

spent

fuel

is

returned

to

the

fuel

cycle

as

MOX

Spent

MOX

fuel

could

again

be

reprocessed

to

separate

uranium

and

plutonium

Further

recycling

of

plutonium

is

only

possible

in

another

type

of

reactor

capable

of

handling

non-fissile

plutonium

fast

reactors

which

constitute

the

second

option

In

the

second

option

the

latter

are

basically

used

as

energy

producing

reactors

in

which

MOX

is

the

fuel

Due

to

the

fast

neutrons

fast

reactors

are

capable

of

using

the

major

isotope

of

uranium

-LRB-

-RRB-

to

the

maximum

extent

via

conversion

to

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

Future

of

the

Closed

Fuel

Cycle

Maximal

Recycling

As

spent

fuel

is

conceived

of

as

the

Achilles

heel

of

nuclear

energy

there

have

been

serious

attempts

to

further

reduce

its

radiotoxicity

and

volume

A

new

method

is

partitioning

and

transmutation

-LRB-

P&T

-RRB-

which

could

be

considered

as

a

recent

supplementary

method

to

reprocessing

Spent

fuel

comprises

uranium

and

plutonium

minor

actinides

and

fission

products

Uranium

and

plutonium

are

separated

during

reprocessing

in

order

to

reuse

P&T

focuses

on

destroying

minor

actinides

in

spent

fuel

If

completely

successful

P&T

is

expected

to

reduce

the

volume

and

radiotoxicity

of

spent

fuel

one

hundred

times

-LRB-

compared

to

OFC

-RRB-

After

P&T

fuel

radiotoxicity

would

decay

to

a

non-hazardous

level

in

to

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

waste

stream

would

then

only

consist

of

relatively

short-lived

fission

products

and

curium

isotopes

The

latter

will

dominate

the

waste

life-time

and

are

considered

to

be

too

hazardous

to

be

recycled

at

reasonable

expenses

and

risks

P&T

is

merely

available

at

the

laboratory

level

at

the

moment

a

considerable

amount

of

R&D

efforts

is

needed

before

P&T

could

be

utilized

industrially

-LSB-

-RSB-

Waste

Management

Interim

Storage

Long-term

Storage

and

Repositories

Irrespective

of

the

fuel

cycle

choice

the

remaining

waste

in

a

nuclear

reactor

after

the

-LRB-

optional

-RRB-

treatments

needs

to

be

disposed

In

waste

management

a

distinction

is

made

between

storage

and

disposal

storage

means

keeping

the

waste

in

engineered

facilities

aboveground

or

at

some

ten

of

meters

depth

underground

while

disposal

is

the

isolation

and

emplacement

of

the

waste

at

significant

depth

-LRB-

a

few

hundreds

of

meters

-RRB-

underground

in

engineered

facilities

called

geological

repositories

Until

now

all

the

available

storage

facilities

for

spent

fuel

and

high

level

waste

have

typically

been

above

ground

or

at

very

shallow

depth

Spent

fuel

is

mostly

stored

under

water

for

at

least

years

after

removal

from

the

reactor

core

this

stage

is

called

interim

storage

Water

serves

as

radiation

shielding

and

cooling

fluid

-LSB-

-RSB-

Bunn

argued

that

interim

storage

for

a

period

of

years

has

become

an

implicit

consensus

as

the

world

's

reprocessing

capacity

is

much

less

than

globally

spent

fuel

generation

In

addition

there

are

no

final

repositories

at

our

disposal

yet

Interim

storage

of

waste

is

also

a

crucial

element

in

the

safe

management

of

radiotoxic

waste

since

waste

should

be

stored

to

allow

radioactive

decay

to

reduce

the

level

of

radiation

and

heat

generation

before

final

disposal

For

the

countries

that

favor

reprocessing

spent

fuel

remains

available

for

some

decades

to

be

reprocessed

and

there

is

no

need

to

build

up

vast

stockpiles

of

separated

plutonium

after

reprocessing

For

countries

supporting

direct

disposal

of

spent

fuel

interim

storage

allows

more

time

to

analyze

and

develop

geological

repositories

appropriately

-LSB-

-RSB-

A

commonly

proposed

alternative

to

geological

disposal

is

the

long

term

monitored

storage

on

the

surface

Spent

fuel

remains

in

this

case

retrievable

in

the

future

However

the

technical

community

appears

largely

to

disregard

this

option

and

considers

the

surface

storage

only

as

an

interim

measure

until

the

waste

can

be

disposed

of

in

geological

repositories

-LSB-

-RSB-

Deep

oceans

and

outer

space

are

mentioned

as

possible

locations

for

final

disposal

as

well

but

there

are

substantial

political

ethical

as

well

as

technical

impediments

mainly

related

to

the

safety

of

these

locations

-LSB-

-RSB-

Risks

and

Associated

Values

In

this

paper

we

distinguish

moral

values

at

play

in

the

production

of

nuclear

energy

Values

are

what

one

tries

to

achieve

and

strives

for

as

we

consider

them

valuable

moral

values

refer

to

a

good

life

and

a

good

society

However

we

should

not

confuse

them

with

people

's

personal

interest

moral

values

are

general

convictions

and

beliefs

that

people

consider

as

worth

striving

for

in

public

interest

-LSB-

-RSB-

We

further

identify

dilemmas

and

moral

problems

rising

from

conflicting

values

some

trade-offs

need

to

be

made

in

order

to

choose

a

fuel

cycle

The

three

main

values

we

distinguished

are

as

follows

sustainability

public

health

and

safety

and

security

In

the

following

sections

we

try

to

specify

these

values

and

for

the

sake

of

comparison

relate

them

to

risks

and

benefits

of

the

open

and

closed

fuel

cycle

We

here

distinguish

between

short-term

and

long-term

effects

in

which

we

consider

the

upcoming

years

as

short-term

and

after

that

as

long-term

This

period

is

chosen

in

view

of

comparisons

in

the

literature

between

the

fuel

cycles

strong

views

about

maintaining

the

OFC

are

mainly

about

the

coming

five

decades

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

in

economic

comparisons

short-term

is

defined

as

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

probably

based

on

estimations

of

reasonably

assured

uranium

sources

for

the

coming

five

to

six

decades

in

-LSB-

-RSB-

To

conclude

years

is

the

period

in

which

supply

certainty

of

the

OFC

is

assured

However

as

will

be

shown

later

on

this

period

can

be

extended

to

years

or

more

without

invalidating

the

arguments

and

conclusions

of

this

paper

Sustainability

Supply

Certainty

Environmental

Friendliness

and

Cost

Affordability

A

comparative

study

of

the

Nuclear

Energy

Agency

-LRB-

NEA

-RRB-

on

various

P&T

technologies

introduces

the

following

three

axes

in

order

to

assess

sustainability

-LRB-

-RRB-

resource

efficiency

-LRB-

-RRB-

environmental

friendliness

and

-LRB-

-RRB-

cost

effectiveness

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

this

paper

we

take

these

axes

as

a

guideline

for

understanding

sustainability

with

respect

to

nuclear

energy

and

follow

an

adapted

version

in

terms

of

concepts

and

terminology

with

regard

to

the

fuel

cycles

Supply

Certainty

On

the

first

axis

sustainability

refers

to

the

continued

availability

of

uranium

NEA

uses

the

term

resource

efficiency

for

this

In

this

paper

we

apply

the

term

supply

certainty

instead

Deploying

resources

efficiently

means

that

we

aspire

to

use

as

less

as

possible

resources

for

the

same

purpose

while

supply

certainty

refers

to

availability

of

resources

in

order

to

fulfill

the

needs

In

energy

discussion

certainty

is

a

more

significant

concept

than

efficiency

Although

this

difference

in

designation

has

no

consequences

for

the

factual

comparison

in

availability

of

uranium

we

prefer

the

conceptually

correct

term

As

there

are

years

of

reasonably

assured

uranium

resources

-LSB-

-RSB-

there

will

be

no

significant

short-term

influences

of

the

fuel

cycle

on

the

supply

certainty

Later

estimations

of

the

NEA

and

the

present

approximately

years

of

reasonably

assured

resources

-LRB-

RAR

-RRB-

uranium

are

available

for

a

once-through

option

in

a

LWR

These

institutions

estimate

that

this

amount

suffices

for

years

in

a

CFC

based

on

a

pure

fast

reactor

cycle

which

is

an

improvement

in

supply

certainty

with

a

factor

-LSB-

-RSB-

Two

later

reports

of

the

IAEA

in

adjust

this

period

to

years

assuming

that

fast

breeders

allow

essentially

all

non-fissile

to

be

bred

to

in

order

to

be

used

as

fuel

-LSB-

-RSB-

It

needs

to

be

mentioned

that

these

estimations

are

made

under

the

explicit

assumptions

that

fast

breeders

will

be

broadly

deployed

in

the

future

The

supply

certainty

benefits

of

the

CFC

will

be

relevant

in

the

long

run

Although

there

are

no

short-term

significant

differences

between

the

fuel

cycles

countries

without

natural

fossil

fuel

like

Japan

and

France

tend

to

opt

for

reprocessing

and

recycling

-LSB-

-RSB-

Environmental

Friendliness

Radiological

Risks

to

the

Environment

The

second

axis

of

the

OECD

approach

in

specifying

sustainability

concerns

environmental

friendliness

This

value

depends

on

the

accompanying

radiological

risks

to

the

environment

Radiological

risks

as

we

perceive

them

in

this

paper

express

the

possibility

or

rather

probability

that

spent

fuel

leaks

to

the

biosphere

and

can

harm

both

people

and

the

environment

The

NEA

proposes

three

stages

to

assess

radiological

risks

-LRB-

-RRB-

mining

and

milling

-LRB-

-RRB-

power

production

and

-LRB-

-RRB-

reprocessing

They

compare

the

radiological

risks

of

the

OFC

with

the

-LRB-

once

-RRB-

recycled

and

reused

MOX

fuel

In

the

power

production

phase

NEA

argues

there

is

no

difference

between

the

cycles

The

main

difference

lies

in

the

two

other

steps

mining

and

milling

and

reprocessing

They

further

argue

that

deployment

of

reprocessing

decreases

the

need

for

enriched

uranium

and

therefore

natural

uranium

of

which

the

mining

and

milling

involve

the

same

radiological

risks

as

reprocessing

and

reusing

plutonium

as

MOX

fuel

In

fact

NEA

argues

that

under

the

described

circumstances

there

are

equal

radiological

risks

for

both

fuel

cycles

-LSB-

-RSB-

This

argument

is

probably

sound

in

the

long

run

for

large

scale

reprocessing

enterprises

and

under

ideal

circumstances

but

one

can

wonder

whether

the

factual

short-term

consequences

are

such

that

radiological

risks

of

both

fuel

cycles

are

quite

similar

The

question

remains

whether

we

should

take

comparisons

under

ideal

circumstances

or

factual

consequences

into

consideration

-LRB-

in

moral

discussions

-RRB-

Furthermore

NEA

completely

neglects

the

distribution

of

benefits

and

burdens

building

a

reprocessing

plant

in

France

will

increase

local

risks

to

the

surrounding

area

and

will

diminish

the

burdens

in

a

uranium-exporting

country

such

as

Canada

NEA

further

neglects

the

risks

and

hazards

associated

with

the

transport

of

waste

in

case

of

reprocessing

-LSB-

R

-RSB-

adiological

impacts

of

transportation

are

small

compared

to

the

total

impact

and

to

the

dominant

stage

of

the

fuel

cycle

-LSB-

-RSB-

If

we

consider

different

aspects

of

public

perception

of

risk

we

can

not

retain

the

idea

that

radiological

risks

of

nuclear

waste

transportation

are

negligibly

small

-LSB-

-RSB-

Only

a

few

reprocessing

plants

are

currently

available

around

the

world

and

spent

fuel

needs

to

be

transported

to

those

plants

and

back

to

the

country

of

origin

In

Great-Britain

for

instance

a

serious

debate

is

currently

taking

place

about

the

possibilities

to

return

Japanese

reprocessed

spent

fuel

to

Japan

One

of

the

serious

counterarguments

against

reprocessing

is

the

large

investments

needed

to

build

the

plants

small

countries

with

a

few

nuclear

power

plants

and

in

favor

of

the

CFC

will

probably

not

build

a

reprocessing

plant

and

will

keep

transporting

spent

fuel

to

those

countries

capable

of

this

technology

To

illustrate

The

Netherlands

is

one

of

the

countries

with

favorable

reprocessing

policy

Dutch

spent

fuel

is

currently

transported

to

La

Hague

-LRB-

France

-RRB-

There

is

no

real

chance

that

The

Netherlands

will

build

its

own

reprocessing

plant

in

the

coming

years

To

conclude

we

assume

that

reprocessing

will

result

in

more

short-term

radiological

risks

both

to

the

environment

and

to

the

public

health

and

safety

as

illustrated

in

Fig.

Fig.

values

-LRB-

first

row

-RRB-

and

their

specification

-LRB-

second

row

-RRB-

related

to

the

OFC

and

CFC

A

plus

sign

represent

an

improvement

of

the

ethical

value

and

has

a

positive

connotation

a

minus

sign

is

a

drawback

of

the

value

The

short-term

and

long-term

effects

mentioned

above

also

pertain

to

environmental

friendliness

Using

the

fuel

to

the

maximum

extent

and

maximally

recycling

the

spent

fuel

could

be

considered

as

long-term

environmentally

friendly

as

the

environment

is

less

exposed

to

potential

radiological

risks

and

radiotoxicity

in

the

long

run

One

of

the

main

arguments

in

favor

of

reprocessing

along

with

enhanced

resource

efficiency

is

the

vast

reduction

of

waste

volume

and

its

toxicity

and

the

accompanying

advantages

from

a

sustainability

point

of

view

The

volume

of

each

ton

of

spent

fuel

containing

approximately

of

HLW

could

be

reduced

through

reprocessing

three

times

-LSB-

-RSB-

The

waste

toxicity

will

decrease

at

least

with

a

factor

three

-LSB-

-RSB-

Affordability

The

third

axis

the

NEA

proposes

in

its

comparison

is

cost

effectiveness

We

adapt

this

axis

here

into

affordability

We

acknowledge

the

relevance

of

economic

aspects

for

initiation

and

continuing

a

technological

activity

Sustainability

can

be

conceived

of

as

durability

to

that

purpose

However

economic

effectiveness

goes

much

further

than

the

question

whether

an

activity

is

reasonably

durable

or

affordable

Social

security

is

for

instance

mostly

ineffective

economically

but

we

consider

that

as

a

duty

of

the

state

with

respect

to

its

citizens

nevertheless

it

is

supposed

to

be

neither

economically

effective

nor

profitable

It

is

also

arguable

whether

durability

should

be

accepted

as

sustainability

This

is

an

ongoing

debate

about

different

interpretations

of

the

notion

of

sustainability

In

a

moral

discussion

it

is

probably

more

just

to

separate

economic

considerations

from

other

aspect

of

sustainability

However

for

the

sake

of

our

analysis

we

follow

here

NEA

's

analysis

and

accept

sustainability

conceived

as

durability

In

a

NEA

study

determined

a

slight

cost

difference

between

the

reprocessing

option

and

direct

disposal

Based

on

best

estimates

and

the

uranium

prices

of

that

time

the

cost

of

direct

disposal

was

approximately

lower

which

was

considered

to

be

insignificant

taking

the

cost

uncertainties

into

account

-LSB-

-RSB-

However

considering

later

uranium

prices

and

resource

estimations

there

is

a

strong

economic

preference

for

the

once-through

strategy

even

if

a

considerable

growth

of

nuclear

energy

production

is

anticipated

-LSB-

-RSB-

A

MIT

study

in

on

The

Future

of

Nuclear

power

upholds

the

same

view

on

economic

aspects

of

reprocessing

Deutch

et

al.

conclude

in

this

report

that

under

certain

assumptions

and

the

US

conditions

the

CFC

will

be

four

times

as

expensive

as

the

OFC

The

once-through

option

could

only

be

competitive

to

recycling

if

the

uranium

prices

increase

-LSB-

-RSB-

These

MIT

researchers

are

not

susceptible

to

the

counterarguments

that

disposing

of

reprocessed

HLW

will

be

less

expensive

They

furthermore

present

a

cost

model

in

which

reprocessing

remains

uneconomic

even

if

the

cost

of

reprocessed

HLW

were

zero

-LSB-

-RSB-

Another

international

study

compares

reprocessing

with

the

once-through

option

and

concludes

that

even

with

substantial

growth

in

nuclear

power

the

open

LWR

fuel

cycle

is

likely

to

remain

significantly

cheaper

than

recycling

in

either

LWRs

-LRB-

as

MOX

-RRB-

or

fast

breeders

for

at

least

the

next

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

the

previous

reasoning

we

considered

reprocessing

as

a

broadly

applied

technology

which

will

create

the

need

to

build

new

reprocessing

plants

Economic

affordability

appear

totally

different

if

we

base

our

analysis

on

the

existing

reprocessing

plants

as

many

small

consumers

of

nuclear

energy

reprocess

their

spent

fuel

in

France

or

Great-Britain

These

countries

do

not

have

excessive

initial

expenditures

for

their

CFC

Public

Health

and

Safety

Short-term

and

Long-term

Radiological

Risks

The

second

value

is

public

health

and

safety

We

again

distinguish

between

short-term

and

long-term

radiological

risks

which

cause

hazards

to

public

health

and

safety

Recycling

of

plutonium

as

MOX

diminishes

the

eventual

radiotoxicity

of

spent

fuel

with

a

factor

three

assuming

that

spent

MOX

fuel

is

disposed

of

after

one

use

-LRB-

also

called

once-through

-RRB-

Theoretically

multiple

recycling

of

plutonium

in

fast

reactors

can

decrease

the

long

term

radiotoxicity

of

disposed

waste

by

a

factor

These

scientific

achievements

could

be

brought

into

practice

in

several

decades

-LSB-

-RSB-

Recycling

spent

fuel

includes

the

separation

and

storage

of

plutonium

Along

with

security

arguments

which

will

be

discussed

later

plutonium

contains

serious

potential

risks

to

the

public

health

due

to

its

exceptional

toxic

nature

Plutonium

needs

especial

isolation

from

humans

as

it

contains

long-lived

alpha

emitters

which

are

very

radiotoxic

upon

inhalation

-LSB-

p.

-RRB-

-RSB-

We

included

these

risks

in

the

short-term

radiological

risk

for

waste

treatment

With

respect

to

long-term

radiological

risks

the

same

reasoning

as

for

the

previously

mentioned

sustainability

holds

true

the

short-term

radiological

risks

associated

with

the

CFC

are

significantly

higher

than

the

OFC

Security

and

Proliferation

Hazards

The

last

but

certainly

not

least

value

at

play

in

waste

management

is

security

as

a

result

of

production

of

plutonium

during

recycling

Concerns

regarding

nuclear

weapon

proliferation

are

extremely

relevant

given

the

current

state

of

world

security

Proliferation

threats

rise

either

by

the

use

of

enriched

uranium

-LRB-

up

to

-RRB-

or

by

the

production

or

separation

of

plutonium

To

illustrate

eight

kilograms

of

weapon

grade

plutonium

-LRB-

-RRB-

are

sufficient

to

produce

a

Nagasaki-type

bomb

-LSB-

-RSB-

Proliferation

is

also

a

potential

hazard

in

countries

capable

of

enriching

uranium

One

of

the

main

tasks

of

the

IAEA

is

to

annually

report

to

the

United

Nation

's

Security

Council

about

nuclear

energy

possessing

nations

Although

both

the

OFC

and

the

CFC

need

enriched

uranium

in

the

reactor

the

short-term

proliferation

concerns

of

the

CFC

are

considerably

higher

due

to

the

separation

of

plutonium

during

reprocessing

The

security

concerns

are

double-edged

reprocessing

increases

proliferation

concerns

for

the

contemporary

people

but

at

the

same

time

it

decreases

those

concerns

for

future

generations

since

the

spent

fuel

residuals

contain

no

plutonium

any

more

One

can

argue

that

the

potential

proliferation

concerns

of

direct

disposal

of

spent

fuel

in

the

OFC

are

negligible

compared

to

the

actual

security

concerns

in

case

of

reprocessing

disposed

spent

fuel

can

not

be

retrieved

unnoted

and

expensive

and

inaccessible

reprocessing

plants

are

needed

to

separate

plutonium

from

it

for

weapon

manufacturing

Some

scholars

argue

on

the

other

hand

that

spent

fuel

in

geological

repositories

becomes

a

better

weapon-grade

material

as

time

goes

by

due

to

the

natural

enrichment

of

-LSB-

-RSB-

However

this

effect

will

take

place

in

several

thousands

of

years

In

sum

the

CFC

involves

more

short-term

proliferation

and

security

concerns

but

decreases

those

concerns

in

the

long

run

as

illustrated

in

Fig.

Value

Conflicts

in

Fuel

Cycles

and

Future

Generations

In

the

preceding

analysis

we

formulated

a

number

of

values

and

aimed

to

translate

risks

and

benefits

of

the

fuel

cycles

into

these

values

In

decision-making

about

the

fuel

cycles

we

are

confronted

with

a

number

of

value

conflicts

It

should

be

mentioned

that

the

plus

and

minus

signs

in

Fig.

are

merely

approximations

which

enable

us

to

make

a

comparison

between

the

OFC

and

CFC

these

signs

are

neither

quantitative

measures

nor

absolute

entities

It

should

further

be

mentioned

that

plusses

represent

an

improvement

in

terms

of

the

three

basic

values

illustrated

in

squares

on

top

of

Fig.

minuses

are

drawbacks

of

these

values

Value

Conflicts

In

choosing

between

options

we

have

to

accept

certain

trade-offs

between

these

basic

values

The

CFC

enhances

sustainability

in

terms

of

supply

certainty

and

creates

less

radiological

risks

to

the

environment

It

also

diminishes

public

health

and

safety

concerns

as

well

as

security

concerns

in

the

long

run

At

the

same

time

however

the

CFC

involves

more

short-term

additional

risks

and

therefore

compromises

public

health

and

safety

as

well

as

security

of

contemporary

people

It

also

deteriorates

short-term

sustainability

perceived

as

environmental

friendliness

Trading

off

these

conflicting

values

in

a

certain

way

can

help

one

choose

one

of

the

fuel

cycles

To

illustrate

if

one

holds

the

cleanness

of

the

environment

we

bequeath

to

our

descendants

as

most

important

she

should

be

willing

to

accept

some

additional

risks

to

the

public

in

the

present

and

therefore

the

CFC

would

appear

the

obvious

choice

Short-term

risks

are

traded

off

against

the

long-term

benefits

in

the

CFC

Another

example

if

one

considers

proliferation

threats

in

the

current

security

state

of

the

world

highly

unacceptable

she

trades

off

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

against

the

short-term

benefits

of

the

OFC

the

latter

will

be

the

outcome

of

this

trade-off

In

the

literature

implicit

trade-offs

are

made

A

MIT

study

in

concluded

unambiguously

that

the

once-through

fuel

cycle

is

the

best

choice

for

the

US

for

at

least

years

MIT

researchers

asserted

that

the

reprocessing

plants

in

Europe

Russia

and

Japan

involve

unwarranted

proliferation

risks

and

did

not

believe

that

benefits

of

the

CFC

outweigh

the

safety

environmental

and

security

risks

as

well

as

economic

costs

-LSB-

-RSB-

Von

Hippel

upheld

the

same

view

on

reprocessing

proliferation

and

economic

costs

of

reprocessing

are

high

and

the

environmental

benefits

are

questionable

He

maintained

that

direct

storage

of

spent

fuel

after

irradiation

is

cheaper

safer

and

more

environmentally

benign

than

reprocessing

-LSB-

-RSB-

Proliferation

of

nuclear

weapons

is

one

of

the

main

concerns

in

the

discussions

about

recycling

nuclear

waste

IAEA

director

El-Baradei

noted

in

We

should

consider

limitations

on

the

production

of

new

nuclear

material

through

enrichment

and

reprocessing

possibly

by

agreeing

to

restrict

these

operations

to

being

exclusively

under

multinational

control

-LSB-

-RSB-

Proliferation

concerns

with

respect

to

reprocessing

are

the

main

reason

why

many

countries

prefer

the

OFC

The

US

Sweden

Finland

and

Canada

have

chosen

the

OFC

to

avoid

plutonium

separation

But

unlike

these

countries

reprocessing

occurs

in

many

European

countries

such

as

Great-Britain

and

France

as

well

as

smaller

nuclear

energy

consumers

like

The

Netherlands

that

reprocesses

its

nuclear

waste

in

the

French

plants

in

La

Hague

There

are

serious

attempts

to

make

reprocessing

proliferation-resistant

including

the

US

global

nuclear

energy

partnership

-LRB-

GNEP

-RRB-

and

the

Russian

Federation

's

global

nuclear

power

infrastructure

initiatives

-LSB-

-RSB-

Intergenerational

Justice

and

Nuclear

Waste

Management

One

of

the

key

principles

of

radioactive

waste

management

laid

down

by

the

IAEA

in

is

that

it

should

be

managed

in

such

a

way

that

it

will

not

impose

undue

burdens

on

future

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

This

principle

is

founded

on

ethical

consideration

that

the

generation

enjoying

the

benefits

of

an

undertaking

should

manage

the

resulting

waste

The

NEA

supported

this

definition

in

the

same

year

in

a

collective

opinion

-LSB-

-RSB-

As

illustrated

the

CFC

mostly

has

long-term

benefits

and

compromises

public

health

and

safety

as

well

as

security

of

the

contemporary

people

Does

the

aim

to

avoid

undue

burdens

on

future

generations

mean

that

we

are

supposed

to

diminish

waste

radiotoxicity

and

its

volume

as

much

as

possible

To

what

extent

should

we

accept

the

increased

risks

and

hazards

to

the

present

generation

in

order

to

accomplish

the

latter

The

questions

how

to

interpret

the

undue

burden

can

best

be

understood

within

the

framework

of

intergenerational

justice

Especially

in

fundamental

policy

decision-making

the

question

rises

how

one

generation

could

equitably

take

the

interest

of

future

generations

into

account

Serious

discussions

about

this

issue

started

in

the

US

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

are

still

ongoing

in

nuclear

communities

in

choosing

between

options

for

final

disposal

of

waste

-LSB-

-RSB-

Some

scholars

interpreted

the

NEA

collective

opinion

in

as

a

confirmation

for

the

once

and

for

all

sealed

underground

repositories

Uncertainty

in

long-term

safety

and

possible

future

needs

to

recover

plutonium

-LRB-

from

spent

fuel

-RRB-

for

its

potential

energy

value

are

two

serious

objections

to

permanently

closed

repositories

-LSB-

-RSB-

we

are

after

all

required

not

to

deprive

future

generations

of

any

significant

option

-LSB-

-RSB-

Inequity

of

risks

and

benefits

across

generations

are

two

other

reasons

opposing

permanent

disposal

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

other

words

scholars

argue

that

permanent

disposal

forecloses

options

to

future

generations

to

retrieve

and

reverse

waste

Alternatives

to

permanent

disposal

are

long-term

continued

surface

storage

or

phased

repositories

which

remain

open

for

an

extended

period

of

time

There

seems

to

be

consensus

among

nuclear

experts

that

disposal

in

repositories

should

be

given

preference

above

surface

storage

as

it

is

believed

to

be

a

passively

safe

solution

that

does

not

require

burden

of

care

by

future

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

In

a

recent

European

study

Schneider

et

al.

argue

that

the

main

concerns

in

risk

governance

are

the

transfer

of

a

whole

waste

management

system

including

a

safety

heritage

from

the

present

to

the

future

generations

-LSB-

-RSB-

They

approach

various

technical

and

societal

issues

such

as

long-term

responsibility

justice

and

democracy

from

the

perspective

of

generations

both

across

generations

and

within

one

generation

In

this

paper

we

propose

to

reduce

the

trade-offs

in

choosing

the

fuel

cycle

to

a

chief

trade-off

between

the

present

and

the

future

Is

it

legitimate

and

just

to

transfer

all

the

risks

and

hazards

of

nuclear

waste

to

future

generations

How

can

we

arrange

an

equitable

transfer

of

the

whole

waste

management

system

as

argued

by

Schneider

et

al.

to

the

future

Or

is

it

more

just

and

equitable

to

handle

our

waste

as

much

as

possible

in

order

to

diminish

its

risks

in

the

far

future

The

OFC

is

to

be

associated

with

short-term

benefits

and

the

CFC

primarily

has

long-term

In

this

reasoning

accepting

the

CFC

means

that

we

intend

to

diminish

the

risks

and

hazards

to

the

future

and

accept

some

additional

risks

for

the

present

generation

The

OFC

transfers

the

risks

as

much

as

possible

to

the

future

and

avoid

those

risks

in

the

present

Underlying

Assumptions

and

Possible

Counter-arguments

So

far

we

have

argued

that

decision-making

on

the

fuel

cycles

could

best

take

place

within

the

framework

of

intergenerational

justice

This

conclusion

is

based

on

the

analysis

in

the

foregoing

chapter

in

which

we

illustrated

the

choice

between

the

OFC

and

the

CFC

mainly

as

a

choice

between

the

present

and

future

generations

Obviously

there

are

a

few

assumptions

at

the

basis

of

this

analysis

Below

we

will

discuss

some

of

these

underlying

assumptions

and

provide

some

possible

counter-arguments

and

evaluate

their

validity

Defining

Short-term

as

years

In

our

analysis

we

defined

short-term

as

years

Beyond

half

a

century

we

considered

as

long-term

The

question

that

rises

here

is

whether

years

constitute

the

real

turning

point

in

comparing

the

specified

values

as

we

introduced

in

Fig.

And

more

importantly

will

other

distinctions

in

time

spans

between

short

and

long-term

change

our

conclusion

As

we

mentioned

earlier

the

period

of

years

was

taken

from

the

comparisons

we

found

in

the

literature

Most

scholars

preferring

the

OFC

pronounce

their

strong

opinion

for

the

coming

five

decades

and

economic

comparisons

are

made

for

this

period

of

time

-LSB-

-RSB-

Both

mentioned

studies

based

their

strong

opinion

on

estimations

of

reasonably

assured

uranium

resources

at

the

beginning

of

this

century

NEA

and

IAEA

considered

this

amount

in

enough

for

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

This

period

is

however

extended

to

years

in

the

estimations

-LRB-

of

IAEA

and

NEA

-RRB-

It

needs

to

be

mentioned

that

the

bulk

of

this

increase

is

not

due

to

discovering

more

resources

but

it

is

a

result

of

re-evaluation

of

previous

resources

in

the

light

of

the

effects

of

higher

uranium

prices

-LSB-

-RSB-

Looking

at

the

first

columns

in

Fig.

-LRB-

supply

certainty

-RRB-

the

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

will

not

change

if

we

take

years

as

a

turning

point

the

long-term

benefits

of

supply

certainty

in

the

CFC

will

come

into

practice

after

this

period

We

should

mention

here

that

we

founded

our

analysis

on

the

identified

resources

The

total

undiscovered

resources

of

uranium

are

expected

to

be

significantly

higher

-LSB-

-RSB-

If

we

base

our

analysis

on

the

latter

the

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

will

probably

vanish

entirely

even

for

a

much

longer

period

of

time

However

an

analysis

based

on

undiscovered

resources

comprises

such

an

amount

of

uncertainty

that

estimations

are

practically

meaningless

Whether

the

column

affordability

will

change

if

we

consider

short-term

as

being

years

is

not

clear

We

can

state

that

high

initial

investments

for

the

reprocessing

plant

might

perhaps

be

affordable

if

we

consider

a

longer

period

of

time

However

there

have

been

no

serious

estimations

based

on

the

announced

reasonably

assured

uranium

resources

in

All

Released

Pu

will

Eventually

be

Destroyed

Beneficial

long-term

radiological

risks

of

the

CFC

are

based

on

the

assumption

that

all

plutonium

is

separated

from

spent

fuel

and

destroyed

As

plutonium

is

the

dominant

element

in

indicating

the

waste

life-time

in

spent

fuel

its

extraction

from

waste

will

diminishes

waste

radiotoxicity

substantially

The

mentioned

period

of

radiotoxicity

of

vitrified

waste

after

reprocessing

of

years

-LSB-

-RSB-

includes

the

assumption

of

complete

consumption

of

plutonium

after

separation

Less

long-term

proliferation

hazards

in

the

CFC

are

also

based

on

the

same

assumption

extracted

plutonium

is

ultimately

fissioned

How

realistic

is

this

assumption

if

we

consider

the

millions

of

kilograms

weapon-grade

plutonium

and

highly

enriches

uranium

-LRB-

to

above

-RRB-

discharged

as

a

result

of

dismantlement

of

warheads

after

the

Cold

War

These

released

materials

could

also

either

be

considered

as

waste

to

be

disposed

of

directly

or

as

potential

fuel

for

the

production

of

energy

These

different

points

of

view

mark

the

divergent

approaches

between

the

two

superpowers

in

the

Cold

War

Americans

believe

that

excess

plutonium

has

no

economic

value

as

it

costs

more

to

use

as

energy

source

than

the

energy

is

worth

However

since

the

other

option

of

dealing

with

this

hazardous

material

i.e.

its

disposal

is

costly

as

well

some

plutonium

is

supposed

to

be

used

as

reactor

fuel

-LRB-

MOX

-RRB-

but

only

in

a

once-through

scenario

This

is

perfectly

in

line

with

the

American

concerns

about

-LRB-

civilian

-RRB-

plutonium

which

is

not

recycled

and

reused

either

Russians

hold

a

totally

different

view

on

this

issue

they

consider

excess

weapon

plutonium

as

fuel

having

significant

energy

potentials

Russia

also

acts

in

accordance

with

their

CFC

perspectives

However

they

believe

together

with

Americans

that

the

potential

value

of

these

plutonium

stockpiles

can

not

be

cashed

in

the

near

future

as

it

needs

substantial

additional

costs

-LSB-

-RSB-

Plutonium

has

already

proven

its

benefit

in

the

production

of

energy

Reprocessed

plutonium

from

civil

reactors

is

called

civilian

plutonium

a

name

that

could

mistakenly

be

understood

as

unfeasible

weapon

material

-LRB-

although

it

is

very

unfavorable

as

a

weapon

material

-RRB-

As

reprocessing

of

plutonium

has

outpaced

its

use

as

fuel

and

due

to

technical

and

regulatory

restrictions

no

more

than

of

produced

MOX

could

be

fissioned

in

a

reactor

which

creates

an

imbalance

between

separated

civil

plutonium

and

reused

MOX

in

the

beginning

of

this

century

an

estimated

amount

of

tons

of

civilian

plutonium

was

available

in

the

stockpiles

-LSB-

-RSB-

This

amount

is

vastly

growing

and

is

believed

to

surpass

the

total

amount

of

released

weapon

plutonium

soon

Referring

to

the

theft

concern

and

concerns

on

excessive

surpluses

of

plutonium

mainly

in

former

Soviet

Union

countries

Bunn

et

al.

argue

for

an

international

phased-in

moratorium

on

reprocessing

-LSB-

-RSB-

Irrespective

of

Bunn

's

reasoning

's

validity

regarding

nuclear

theft

we

can

easily

state

that

separated

plutonium

for

the

purpose

of

reprocessing

contains

more

proliferation

concerns

than

plutonium

embedded

in

spent

fuel

The

latter

needs

advanced

and

very

expensive

technology

to

separate

plutonium

which

is

not

accessible

outside

the

legal

authorized

and

controlled

way

of

the

IAEA

which

supports

the

argument

that

separated

plutonium

involves

more

security

and

proliferation

concerns

A

similar

reasoning

holds

true

for

the

toxic

properties

of

plutonium

If

we

extract

plutonium

from

spent

fuel

under

the

assumption

that

it

will

eventually

be

fissioned

and

consequently

prevent

it

of

being

disposed

of

underground

we

create

de

facto

more

risks

for

the

contemporary

people

These

risks

were

already

included

as

more

short-term

radiological

risks

in

Fig.

However

if

we

fail

to

make

it

plausible

that

extracted

plutonium

will

eventually

be

fissioned

in

reactors

as

MOX

we

merely

create

more

risks

both

short-term

and

long-term

and

that

will

substantially

change

our

analysis

Considering

the

fact

that

one-third

of

separated

plutonium

is

currently

fissioned

through

reprocessing

the

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

will

merely

be

meaningful

under

the

assumption

that

MOX

consumption

will

substantially

expand

The

latter

is

possible

under

two

scenarios

-LRB-

-RRB-

broader

deployment

of

MOX

fuel

and

-LRB-

-RRB-

less

reprocessing

as

produced

MOX

could

first

be

consumed

Less

deployment

of

reprocessing

conflicts

with

the

initial

assumption

We

were

trying

to

give

underpinnings

for

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

of

which

reprocessing

is

a

crucial

component

That

leaves

the

first

scenario

open

less

long-term

risks

of

the

CFC

are

plausible

if

and

only

if

we

take

a

wider

deployment

of

MOX

fuel

for

granted

either

as

a

result

of

adapting

existing

reactors

or

due

to

a

broader

application

of

MOX

in

the

planned

reactors

or

reactors

being

built

According

to

the

World

Nuclear

Association

there

are

new

reactors

being

built

and

are

ordered

or

planned

worldwide

Furthermore

there

are

reactors

proposed

and

waiting

for

funding

or

approval

-LSB-

-RSB-

These

developments

can

give

support

to

the

long-term

benefits

of

the

CFC

Still

the

protagonists

need

to

make

plausible

that

the

stockpiles

of

civilian

plutonium

extracted

through

reprocessing

will

eventually

be

fissioned

How

Long

does

the

Long-term

Last

in

Case

of

Radiological

Risks

Let

's

go

back

to

the

first

assumption

discussed

with

respect

to

defined

time

spans

in

order

to

distinguish

between

the

short-term

and

long-term

So

far

we

argued

that

the

CFC

has

less

long-term

radiological

risks

assuming

that

separated

plutonium

in

reprocessing

will

eventually

be

fissioned

However

these

radiological

benefits

will

be

noticeable

only

after

years

which

represents

the

waste

life-time

of

reprocessed

waste

-LRB-

vitrified

waste

-RRB-

After

years

the

CFC

creates

more

additional

risks

to

both

public

and

the

environment

-LRB-

at

that

moment

-RRB-

the

more

so

since

reprocessing

will

be

an

ongoing

business

in

the

CFC

The

question

raises

here

whether

this

challenges

our

analysis

The

trade-offs

needs

still

to

be

made

between

the

short-term

and

long-term

radiological

risks

The

CFC

is

rightly

associated

with

less

long-term

risks

perceived

from

now

or

after

years

there

will

be

less

long-term

risks

in

remote

future

The

analysis

is

still

valid

but

these

long-term

benefits

will

reveal

after

a

much

longer

period

of

time

than

the

proposed

years

for

supply

certainty

To

sum

up

years

is

not

applicable

to

all

comparisons

but

the

line

of

analysis

will

not

change

as

a

consequence

The

CFC

and

the

Transition

Period

Let

's

now

take

a

look

at

the

argument

of

nuclear

energy

being

used

in

a

transition

period

between

conventional

fuel

resources

-LRB-

fossil

fuel

-RRB-

and

sustainable

energy

from

the

perspective

of

the

CFC

As

we

stated

earlier

based

on

the

nuclear

energy

consumption

the

uranium

resources

are

available

for

a

period

of

approximately

years

for

a

once-through

option

in

a

LWR

-LSB-

-RSB-

There

is

also

no

economic

reason

for

deployment

of

the

CFC

in

the

upcoming

years

as

it

remains

uneconomic

for

this

short

period

of

time

and

the

high

initial

investments

can

not

be

recovered

even

if

a

considerable

growth

of

nuclear

energy

is

anticipated

-LSB-

-RSB-

So

far

we

argued

that

the

benefits

of

the

CFC

will

be

revealed

in

the

long

run

only

certainly

in

no

less

than

years

If

this

time

exceeds

the

transition

period

should

those

who

believe

in

nuclear

energy

to

bridge

the

transition

period

be

consequentially

in

favor

of

the

OFC

This

transition

period

is

not

accurately

defined

in

the

literature

it

concerns

the

transition

of

fossil

fuel

to

sustainable

energy

sources

Nuclear

energy

is

believed

to

play

a

significant

part

into

this

transition

until

due

to

its

assured

supply

certainty

and

low

emissions

-LSB-

-RSB-

Which

role

nuclear

energy

will

play

after

this

period

depends

on

developments

in

tackling

safety

waste

and

proliferation

issues

Most

advocates

of

the

transition-period

argument

do

not

exclude

nuclear

energy

they

believe

that

nuclear

energy

is

capable

of

being

sustainable

in

the

future

if

the

afore-mentioned

concerns

are

being

taken

care

of

-LSB-

-RSB-

If

we

agree

that

the

CFC

is

under

some

assumptions

more

environmentally

benign

in

the

long

run

and

if

the

latter

is

the

outcome

of

our

trade-offs

we

can

argue

that

we

should

use

the

CFC

for

the

transition

period

no

matter

how

short

or

how

long

this

period

is

The

long-term

burdens

as

a

result

of

nuclear

energy

deployment

will

be

there

anyway

the

CFC

enables

one

to

diminish

those

burdens

to

some

extent

There

are

also

no

technical

restrictions

to

deployment

of

the

CFC

in

short

periods

of

time

except

the

time

needed

to

build

a

reprocessing

plant

However

the

argument

we

presented

with

respect

to

actually

destroying

plutonium

holds

stronger

if

one

is

in

favor

of

applying

nuclear

energy

to

bridge

a

transition

period

within

that

same

period

all

plutonium

should

then

be

destroyed

Choosing

Between

OFC

and

CFC

Is

not

that

a

False

Dilemma

In

our

analysis

we

presented

two

different

methods

in

the

production

of

nuclear

energy

Prior

to

our

analysis

we

stated

that

the

questions

with

respect

to

desirability

of

nuclear

energy

will

be

beyond

the

scope

of

our

paper

We

also

listed

the

state-of-the-art

in

the

production

of

nuclear

energy

being

responsible

for

of

world

's

energy

production

and

focused

on

existing

moral

conflicts

Under

these

assumptions

there

are

two

methods

to

produce

nuclear

energy

namely

the

OFC

and

the

CFC

The

question

raises

here

whether

there

will

be

a

third

fundamentally

different

option

or

in

other

words

whether

the

choice

between

the

OFC

and

the

CFC

is

a

false

dilemma

Future

developments

of

nuclear

energy

mainly

concern

effort

to

reduce

radiotoxicity

of

waste

such

as

the

P&T

presented

in

this

paper

These

options

are

to

be

considered

as

an

extended

CFC

and

are

not

essentially

different

We

still

need

to

deal

with

the

trade-offs

as

we

described

in

this

paper

One

can

further

argue

that

the

framework

of

intergenerational

justice

can

give

rise

to

unacceptable

risks

in

both

scenarios

In

other

words

the

intergenerational

justice

framework

refutes

both

nuclear

fuel

cycles

Such

reasoning

challenge

the

assumptions

we

made

with

regard

to

nuclear

energy

rather

than

our

analysis

based

on

those

assumptions

Why

do

not

we

Talk

about

Justice

Among

Contemporaries

In

the

preceding

chapters

we

argued

that

the

choice

for

a

fuel

cycle

should

be

made

within

the

framework

of

intergenerational

justice

In

other

words

we

should

-LRB-

also

-RRB-

take

the

needs

and

interest

of

future

generations

into

consideration

and

make

a

trade-offs

between

the

latter

and

the

interest

of

contemporary

people

in

order

to

make

a

decision

on

the

fuel

cycle

The

question

rises

here

is

that

a

sufficient

condition

Especially

when

we

consider

that

the

majority

of

nuclear

plants

is

located

in

developed

countries

while

more

than

of

the

world

's

uranium

production

is

coming

from

developing

countries

-LSB-

-RSB-

Kazakhstan

Uzbekistan

Namibia

and

Niger

that

are

bearing

the

burdens

of

the

front-end

of

the

fuel

cycle

-LRB-

i.e.

milling

mining

etc.

-RRB-

do

not

have

a

power

plant

at

all

and

will

not

be

able

to

share

the

benefits

of

nuclear

energy

Is

not

this

a

relevant

question

perceived

from

distributive

justice

The

authors

fully

acknowledge

the

relevance

of

evaluating

justice

among

contemporaries

in

this

discussion

which

is

referred

to

in

the

literature

as

intragenerational

justice

However

intragenerational

considerations

are

not

decisive

in

the

choice

for

the

fuel

cycle

they

rather

follow

from

the

choice

one

makes

To

illustrate

when

a

country

decides

to

deploy

the

CFC

the

question

rises

where

the

country

is

going

to

reprocess

its

waste

is

it

just

that

Dutch

waste

for

instance

goes

to

La

Hague

in

France

to

be

reprocessed

These

intergenerational

justice

considerations

are

also

relevant

within

a

country

is

it

just

that

the

Nevadans

bear

the

burden

of

the

whole

American

waste

which

probably

will

be

disposed

off

under

the

Yucca

Mountains

in

Nevada

Similar

considerations

are

to

be

made

in

case

of

locating

a

nuclear

power

plant

people

in

the

direct

vicinity

bear

the

burdens

while

the

whole

nation

enjoys

the

benefits

As

we

briefly

showed

here

intragenerational

considerations

rather

challenge

the

assumption

we

made

in

the

beginning

of

this

paper

with

regard

to

the

deployment

of

nuclear

energy

than

to

help

us

to

make

a

choice

between

the

fuel

cycles

Intergenerational

justice

however

offers

a

suitable

framework

for

choosing

the

fuel

cycle

Once

this

choice

is

made

intragenerational

concerns

are

born

Conclusions

In

this

paper

we

evaluate

NEA

's

definition

for

sustainability

-LSB-

-RSB-

and

adapt

that

definition

both

conceptually

and

practically

it

is

questionable

from

a

moral

standpoint

whether

sustainability

can

be

related

to

economic

issues

and

it

is

more

correct

to

use

economic

affordability

instead

of

cost

effectiveness

We

further

argue

that

though

sustainability

as

defined

by

NEA

and

adapted

here

is

a

crucial

aspect

in

this

discussion

it

does

not

offer

a

proper

basis

to

choose

a

fuel

cycle

public

health

and

safety

as

well

as

security

concerns

are

at

least

as

important

to

be

included

By

adding

a

time

dimension

to

this

comparison

we

propose

a

new

framework

in

order

to

choose

the

nuclear

fuel

cycle

intergenerational

justice

and

specify

consequences

of

both

fuel

cycles

within

this

new

framework

To

that

purpose

we

identify

values

at

play

and

value

conflicts

one

encounters

in

choosing

between

the

fuel

cycles

the

CFC

improves

sustainability

in

terms

of

the

availability

of

fuel

and

involves

less

radiological

risks

to

the

public

and

the

environment

in

the

long

run

but

it

compromises

public

health

and

safety

in

the

present

The

CFC

also

poses

serious

security

threats

for

the

contemporary

people

due

to

the

production

and

the

separation

of

plutonium

However

at

the

same

time

it

diminishes

those

threats

for

future

generations

These

trade-offs

in

nuclear

energy

are

reducible

to

a

chief

trade-off

between

the

present

and

the

future

To

what

extent

should

we

recycle

our

produced

nuclear

waste

in

order

to

avoid

undue

burdens

on

the

future

and

to

what

extent

should

we

accept

additional

risks

for

the

present

generation

These

questions

can

be

answered

within

the

proposed

framework

of

intergenerational

justice

This

concept

of

justice

is

often

used

in

the

nuclear

discussions

mainly

to

tackle

issues

with

respect

to

final

waste

disposal

waste

retrievability

in

the

future

and

more

recently

risk

governance

with

regard

to

the

question

how

we

can

equitably

transfer

a

whole

waste

management

system

to

the

future

In

our

analysis

we

used

lots

of

estimations

with

regard

to

uranium

resources

waste

radiotoxicity

and

the

radiological

risks

of

the

waste

How

valid

are

these

estimations

if

we

include

the

uncertainties

encompassing

our

analysis

Estimations

and

predictions

are

the

key

problems

in

dealing

with

the

future

especially

when

we

talk

about

the

remote

future

These

uncertainties

need

to

be

further

investigated

in

future

studies

in

order

to

test

the

validity

of

provided

analysis

It

is

also

recommendable

to

quantify

the

probabilities

of

these

risks

in

order

to

compare

them

in

a

more

appropriate

way

Do

the

decreased

risks

to

the

public

and

the

environment

in

the

remote

future

equal

the

increased

risks

to

the

present

generation

In

this

paper

we

approach

the

choice

between

the

fuel

cycles

perceived

form

the

perspective

of

intergenerational

justice

Advocates

of

he

OFC

should

argue

why

they

are

willing

to

transfer

all

the

risks

for

a

very

long

period

of

time

-LRB-

years

-RRB-

to

future

generations

and

accept

all

the

accompanying

uncertainties

for

their

descendants

Supporters

of

the

CFC

should

underpin

their

acceptance

of

additional

risks

to

the

present

generation

More

importantly

they

should

make

it

plausible

that

separated

plutonium

during

reprocessing

is

eventually

destroyed

Proliferation

remains

the

leitmotiv

in

these

discussions

as

it

is

the

main

objection

against

the

CFC

intergenerational justice
nuclear waste management
reprocessing
recycling
future generations
value conflicts
sustainability