>> No, the fuel cycle doesn't depend on Seversk + "Literally selling spent fuel" (instead of burying it) well, if you put it that way, then the fuel cycle does

>> No, the fuel cycle doesn't depend on Seversk + "Literally selling spent fuel" (instead of burying it) well, if you put it that way, then the fuel cycle doesn't even exist at all, france just imports fresh uranium from Russia, Nigeria, Kazhakstan and Australia and sells spent fuel to Russia. > and EDF says that nothing was sent yet under that new contract maybe, here is an article from 2009 in which EDF "told news agency AFP that it is only “recyclable uranium from fuel processing at EDF nuclear power stations that is transported to Russia to be enriched.” - rfi.fr/actuen/articles/118/article_5481.asp > No, you are lying once again. The uranium deposits are not worth exploiting that is literally what i said. They are not worth exploiting > So, no, your sources are Greenpeace and are lying. that is just low effort insults, here have an IAEA uranium deposit database: https://infcis.iaea.org/UDEPO/ https://infcis.iaea.org/UDEPO/ France largest "reserves" are the trace amounts in the rocks around a mine they closed 21 years ago. Even if the price rises to a point where exploitation of those trace amounts becomes worthwhile again, there are no large reserves in europa, we are talking a demand in the thousands of tons per year. The nuclear industry in europa depends on imports, stop peddling some makebelieve about large untapped reserves with which europa could theoretically become energy independent if they would just use them. It is nonsensical