An energy company in New Brunswick says it has developed technology that can recycle dangerous nuclear waste to generate new energy.
Moltex Clean Energy says the technology, called Waste to Stable Salt (WATSS), reduces nuclear power plant waste by extracting usable energy from spent fuel.
If fully developed, this technology could provide Canada with 8,000 MW of power for 60 years using existing nuclear waste stockpiles and reduce the need for long-term nuclear waste storage at the same time.
Canada currently has 3.3 million used nuclear fuel bundles stored at reactor sites in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and a laboratory in Manitoba, according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO). By 2100, when all existing nuclear plants are expected to shut down, this number is projected to reach 5.6 million bundles.
Each used nuclear fuel bundle remains radioactive for up to 400,000 years after being removed from a reactor and requires safe storage or potential recycling.
Each bundle is a stable ceramic, sealed in a special container and shaped like a fireplace log, weighing 53 lbs.
Canada has proposed a $26-billion deep geological repository (DGR) in northwestern Ontario, set to open in the 2040s.
Although burying the waste is safe, said Rory O'Sullivan, CEO of Moltex Energy, adding that recycling can be a more palatable option in regions where it lacks public acceptance.
Moltex’s recycling system removes the most long-lived, hazardous waste, converting 95 per cent of the remaining waste to low- or intermediate-level radioactive material, O’Sullivan said. Lower level waste is easier and safer to dispose of and can potentially be further recycled since it’s already been purified, he added.
“The remaining small percentage of long-lived waste can be used as fuel in our reactor, generating more energy in the process.”
But some experts remain skeptical about Moltex’s technology, its effectiveness, and its economic feasibility.
Allison Macfarlane, director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia and former chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, argues that reprocessing nuclear waste does not eliminate the need for disposal and will still generate waste that must go into a deep geological repository. “It’s not going to be a solution,” Macfarlane said.
Recycling or reprocessing nuclear fuel is simply a management strategy, not a way to make waste disappear, she said.
When it comes to long-term nuclear waste management, Macfarlane insists there is only one proven solution: a deep geological repository. “This is not an opinion. This is a fact,” she said. “If we want to protect future generations, we have one solution — it is to put it in a deep geological repository.”
Recycling a long-promised solution
O'Sullivan says the technology has already moved beyond the concept stage. Moltex has successfully tested the process in labs using simulated fuel and real spent fuel at Chalk River, Canada’s only facility for handling used nuclear fuel, he added.
While nuclear waste recycling exists globally, it is a costly and complex process that produces purified plutonium, O’Sullivan said, which presents its own risks for security.
France has been using nuclear waste recycling technology for decades to manage the 1,150 tonnes of spent fuel it produces annually. This process extracts uranium and plutonium for reuse, converting them into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel that can generate more electricity while reducing high-level waste. By reprocessing spent fuel, France also cuts down its reliance on fresh uranium.
Macfarlane pointed out that cost has historically become a burden with recycling technology. “We always find out that it’s way too expensive,” she said, noting that when France offered reprocessing services to Germany and Japan, both countries ended their contracts due to the expense.
Moltex’s approach, the first of its kind in Canada, offers a simpler, more cost-effective method that avoids plutonium separation and even destroys it in the reactor, making the process both efficient and secure, O'Sullivan added.
Warren Mabee, director of the School of Policy Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s University, said WATSS technology shows promise in managing high-level nuclear waste.
“The demonstration of this technology by Moltex is a great step forward and moves the technology closer to reality,” Mabee said, adding that it could lead to breakthroughs in nuclear waste treatment.
As a major uranium supplier, Canada could benefit from nuclear fuel recycling, he noted. Extracting more energy from existing uranium could reduce the need for new mining and imports, making nuclear energy more sustainable while addressing waste storage challenges.
However, Mabee cautions that technical challenges, such as corrosion, must be addressed before the recycling technology is widely installed. According to Mabee, molten salts, essential to this process, are naturally corrosive and can degrade metal and concrete, especially at high reactor temperatures. While research is ongoing, it remains uncertain whether these reactors can operate for decades without structural issues, he added.
Apart from technology, there are also geopolitical concerns. In 2023, a dozen nuclear energy experts called for a formal risk assessment of Moltex's nuclear waste technologies, warning that if the company succeeded, its process could be adopted by other countries to produce nuclear weapons.
Mabee said concerns about the potential production of weapons-grade materials through this technology are valid, but added he does not believe Moltex is pursuing this. Agencies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Canada’s Nuclear Safety Commission are closely monitoring this technology, he said.
Moltex insists its technology is “proliferation-resistant.”
Finding a long-term solution
Mabee said it’s important to find a long-term solution for nuclear waste, especially as Canada, France, and the U.S. increase their reliance on nuclear power to combat climate change.
O'Sullivan said as demand for nuclear energy grows, the ability to manage and recycle used fuel from nuclear power plants must keep up. WATSS is a simple, cost-effective, and secure solution for recycling the used fuel, making it an attractive option for utilities, governments, and investors in the evolving nuclear industry, he added.
By using nuclear waste to generate energy, O’Sullivan said Canada could reduce its reliance on uranium imports and domestic mining. “Instead of importing enriched uranium from Russia or mining new uranium, we could repurpose the waste already sitting at existing sites across Canada — enhancing both energy security and environmental sustainability,” he added.
An estimated $40 million to $50 million has been invested in the development of this recycling technology, with $10 million dedicated to testing. About half of the funding has come from the Canadian government, supported by programs such as the Strategic Innovation Fund and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA).
O’Sullivan said the next step is to scale up the technology and expand its services to utilities and governments worldwide. The company plans to work with international partners, including in the U.S., France, and the U.K., to assess nuclear waste stockpiles and develop customized solutions for waste reduction.
Abdul Matin Sarfraz / Canada’s National Observer / Local Journalism Initiative
The story has been updated to allow Rory O'Sullivan to clarify his remarks on waste burial and recycling.
Comments
Moltex has been pitching its "solution" to nuclear waste since entering New Brunswick seven years ago from the U.K. and applying for public funds in Canada. So far the start-up company has received more than $60M from federal and provincial governments and has not been able to raise matching $$ from the private sector after 7 years. Private investors are not interested because the only documented research on this technology, from a national lab in the U.S. has shown how massively expensive it is, with no guarantee that it will reduce the eventual cost of radioactive waste management. The Moltex company's last "ask" was $500 million from the federal government to do the technology design. No thanks!
Thanks for this. Seems there's a private company stepping up every other day to tell us how they can solve all the problems created by fossil fuels and nuclear waste......but as long as they need government hand outs to ramp up the technology, we, the voting public should try to elect representatives smart enough to know this: IF THE DARN TECHNOLOGY WORKS......THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL INVEST IN IT.....until then, not a penny should flow away from our essential public services to these grifters.
Before former New Brunswick energy minister Mike Holland resigned his seat last June and joined the nuclear industry (specifically AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin), I participated on a Zoom call with him and Moltex CEO Rory O'Sullivan. The chat function was enabled, so I sent a chat message to Holland saying "you're being scammed." Moltex claims that plutonium can be used as a reactor fuel without increasing nuclear weapons proliferation risks. This has been a nuclear industry fantasy since 1947 when the NRX reactor at Chalk River Laboratories began producing plutonium for the U.S. weapons program. This has been tried, over and over, by every country with nuclear weapons, and even by one that doesn't have them (Japan). It's horrendously expensive and dangerous (many accidents in plutonium extraction facilities). Why should Canada waste more money and risk lives on this?
For the obvious reason......big start ups want to make a few billion before their continued negative results send them into receivership.
The fantasy of clean nuclear power dies hard. As does the companion fantasy that nuclear weapons are what keep us safe.
Aye lads, whee Rory is at it again. The facts about SMRs have been well-represented almost as long as Rory has been championing the fictions. Though politically dated, the facts and fictions of SMRs are mostly here: https://gaia-tree.ca/PRM_SMR/SMR_PRM.html.
The missing bit is the deeply obfuscated connection between SMRs and aging breeder reactors which are in desperate need of replacement ('breeder' because their plutonium output is more than the input: plutonium has only one use: bombs).
I've been a nuke proponent for 50 years, my copy of "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" is that dog-eared. And, here, I will always say yay to spending tens of millions on research. Even a few hundred million on a pilot.
But by the time the R&D is done in, say, 5 years, solar and batteries will have stolen two more marches on nuclear. The real question (which this story can't really get into yet) is how much it will cost. If it costs too much, nobody will build one.
Those same engineering concerns that led me to champion nuclear all that time, now have me very skeptical, because engineering in the end is about getting the results at lowest cost. Formerly, the nuclear argument was about the "triple bottom line" - consider the environmental costs balancing out the financial win - but now the 3rd bottom line, just the financial alone, is nuclear's real enemy.
True, that. Solar is having a zen moment on the hype around fossil fuels, and nuclear. It's all about the cost-benefit analyses. Add today's fast emerging battery tech and the world will change regardless how many vested interests are against it.
MOX may have some advantages about recycling existing nuclear waste, but these advantages do not apply to affordability or eliminating the disposal of waste products altogether, albeit much less toxic.
Renewables are capable of 100% recyclability.
Which is what the planet needs. The problem with solar, from the capitalist view point, is it doesn't make billionaires.......it makes a distrubuted affordable grid for all of us.
We need to review SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL....and someone needs to write the real companion piece, WHY SOME TECHNOLOGIES ARE TOO BIG, TOO EXPENSIVE, AND TOO POLLUTING NOT TO FAIL. A long title I know, but if we don't stop these pseudo wealth creators...it's starting to look like we might not have a future.
In which case, I guess all that plutonium left lying around, here, there and everywhere, won't matter.
This article reads somewhat like an advertorial. Or perhaps one written for a travel magazine. I wonder how the author came up with the idea for writing it?
I'm curious, also, how Warren Mabee, the Queen's prof, came to be quoted in the article. How did the author make the connection?
Better quality journalism, please.