China faces nuclear energy choice: reprocess or not?

January 14, 2016 byMatthew Pennington

China is coming to a crossroads as it hurriedly increases nuclear power production to cope with rising electricity demand and cut carbon emissions: Should it reprocess its nuclear waste or store it?

Nonproliferation advocates warn that recycling waste would generate weapons-usable plutonium, posing a security risk and potentially stirring a nuclear rivalry in East Asia. A new Harvard University study, co-authored by a senior Chinese nuclear engineer, gives another reason against reprocessing—that it doesn't make economic sense.

The study says China could save tens of billions of dollars by storing the spent fuel, and the savings could be spent on research and on building nuclear reactors. It recommends postponing major investments in reprocessing and so-called "breeder" reactors that produce more plutonium than they consume.

"China has the luxury of time, as it has access to plenty of uranium to fuel its nuclear growth for decades to come, and dry casks can provide a safe, secure, and cost-effective way of managing spent fuel for decades to come, leaving all options open for the future," the study says.

China has aimed for a "closed" nuclear cycle—recycling reactor fuel instead of using it just once and disposing of it—since the early 1980s. The State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense told The Associated Press that remained China's policy, to enhance its use of uranium resources and to cut production of nuclear waste.

But the numbers of countries that do reprocessing has dwindled, because of the high costs, technical difficulties involved and the growing availability of uranium on world markets. While reprocessing reduces the level of radioactivity in nuclear waste, The Union of Concerned Scientists—an advocacy group that was founded by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—says it does not reduce the need for storage and secure disposal of waste.

Some within China's own nuclear establishment are also questioning the merits of reprocessing as the nation mulls huge capital investments in the sector, U.S.-based experts say.

One of the three authors of the Harvard study is Li Kang, who works within the China National Nuclear Corporation that oversees civilian and military nuclear programs. The preface says Li's contribution was primarily in making cost estimates based on China's experience and that he should not be held responsible for arguments in other sections of the study—which, for example, highlight the costly experience of nations such as Japan in pursuing reprocessing. The other authors are Matthew Bunn, a former White House adviser and expert at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and Hui Zhang, who heads the school's research initiative on China's nuclear policies.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that Chinese nuclear experts who "care about making sure China's nuclear power program stays on schedule and safe are genuinely concerned about how financially, technically, and diplomatically risky recycling plutonium is." Sokolski, a former U.S. defense official, has written extensively on the risks of rising stocks of fissile material in East Asia.

China already has the world's fastest-growing nuclear energy program as it strives to double current atomic power output from the current level within five years—a key element of its commitment to produce 20 percent of its energy from low-carbon sources by 2030.

China has some experience with reprocessing. It previously produced plutonium for military uses, and in 2010 completed an experimental reprocessing facility for its civilian program at an adjacent site. The facility ran for just 10 days before shutting down because of technical problems.

According to Zhang, China has started site preparation for a new reprocessing facility using its own technology, and is considering a separate, much larger $21.7 billion reprocessing plant with the French state-run nuclear company Areva. China is also considering taking a minority stake in the company.

China is an important market for the world's nuclear industry giants, including the United States. The U.S. last year eased restrictions on its civilian nuclear cooperation with China to allow the reprocessing of fuel from U.S.-designed reactors for nonmilitary purposes—similar to the arrangement the U.S. has with its close ally Japan.

Some U.S. lawmakers say that could lead to spiraling quantities of fissile material in the region. China itself has strongly criticized Japan, which opposes nuclear weapons, for stockpiling enough separated plutonium in-country for more than 1,300 bombs. Japan has many tons more of plutonium stored overseas.

China may want to note Japan's experience with reprocessing. Its plant, built with Areva, has been more than 20 years in the making and has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

The Harvard study also notes that in the wake of the Fukushima Dai-ichi reactor meltdown in Japan in 2011, "Chinese citizens are increasingly in favor of renewable energy."

Japan's reactors have been offline since the accident. It recently postponed until 2018 the reprocessing plant's opening to allow for more safety upgrades and inspections.

Explore further: S. Korea, US ratify new civilian nuclear pact

More information: "The Cost of Reprocessing in China":

Related Stories

S. Korea, US ratify new civilian nuclear pact

November 25, 2015

South Korea and the United States on Wednesday formally ratified a new nuclear cooperation agreement that stops short of granting Seoul the permission it had sought to start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

Japan regulator wants plutonium reactor operator replaced

November 13, 2015

Japan's nuclear regulator issued a rare warning Friday to the science minister, telling him to disqualify the operator of a plutonium-fueled reactor plagued with a poor safety record, a step that could finally shut it down.

China says it knows how to reprocess nuclear fuel (Update 2)

January 3, 2011

Chinese scientists have mastered the technology for reprocessing fuel from nuclear power plants, potentially boosting the supplies of carbon-free electricity to keep the country's economy booming, state television reported ...

S. Korea, US strike new civil nuclear deal

April 22, 2015

South Korea and the United States agreed a new nuclear cooperation pact Wednesday that stopped short of granting Seoul the permission it had sought to start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

China makes nuclear power breakthrough

July 22, 2011

China said Friday it had hooked its first so-called "fourth generation" nuclear reactor to the grid, a breakthrough that could eventually reduce its reliance on uranium imports

Recommended for you

Microsoft aims at Apple with high-end PCs, 3D software

October 26, 2016

Microsoft launched a new consumer offensive Wednesday, unveiling a high-end computer that challenges the Apple iMac along with an updated Windows operating system that showcases three-dimensional content and "mixed reality."

Making it easier to collaborate on code

October 26, 2016

Git is an open-source system with a polarizing reputation among programmers. It's a powerful tool to help developers track changes to code, but many view it as prohibitively difficult to use.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2016
Well, they use a lot of resources on developing MSR and are planning on having one ready for commercial market soonest 2030, so why the hell should they reprocess it, when they literally just can add it to one of those reactors and make it to clean energy!?

Reprocessing are pretty much not needed when the world are working on MSR technology.
5 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2016
I just don't understand China. With so many people, there is sure to be lots of smart ones.

And they all work for cheap, even the most brilliant minds.

Safety isn't a top concern either.

So why aren't they researching fusion or thorium power? Surely with thousands of people having limitless access to research materials they could just... make it happen.
1 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2016
Fusion or Thorium? Haven't we pounded the dead body of nuclear power enough? The more we do, the more deadly waste we make, and we cannot even store the nasty stuff we have now.

We do not need a Magic Box or other deadlytechno0logy for power. We are now endowed with the smarts to stop killing ourselves, if we can only get over greed and short-sighted self-interest.
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2016
Who here trusts China with nuclear power?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2016
Who here trusts China with nuclear power?

Who here thinks that it matters if we "trusts China with nuclear power" or don't trust them either? Considering that they have had it for sixty years now I mean. If everybody votes "No I do not trust them even a tiny little bit." what you going to do? Go tell them it is not allowed anymore so just "Stop It! Right Now!"?

Sorry glam-Skippy, but your slogans and witty glibby technical discussion is just as silly today as it was the other days.
1 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2016
Ira just can't go by one of my comments without a nasty one in return. It illustrates the character of Ira more than the character of the one discussing the technology.

Fact is, I do not trust those with Absolute Truth guiding them, whether Chinese Commies or Tea Baggers or corporate managers with dollar signs in their eyes.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.