3 ms·
There's such a small amount of high-level waste that even a 30x increase isn't going to be that big of an issue, even if you don't count waste recycling.
by pitaj 3y ago
There's such a small amount of high-level waste that even a 30x increase isn't going to be that big of an issue, even if you don't count waste recycling.
- bradfa 3y agoRecycling or reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is not done in the USA currently. I'm curious if this will change in the near future with what appears to be renewed interest in nuclear power plants. Being able to renew what's currently considered a waste seems like a logical thing to do but obviously it's not financially worthwhile in the USA currently: https://www.nrc.gov/materials/reprocessing.html https://www.nrc.gov/materials/reprocessing.html
- pfdietz 3y agoAlmost certainly not, because with the nuclear industry shrinking uranium will remain cheap. And if uranium is cheap, reprocessing costs more than it's worth.
- pitaj 3y agoYou should compare not just the cost of new uranium but also disposal of the spent fuel.
- pfdietz 3y agoReprocessing doesn't reduce disposal cost. The cheapest way to dispose of spent fuel is simply sealing it in dry casks and letting the magic of nonzero interest rates and radioactive decay do their work. Even if you want to reprocess the fuel at some point, it's cheaper to wait rather than do it immediately.
- nine_k 3y agoThere are proliferation concerns because spent fuel has plutonium, and burning the waste in the breeder produces (and then burns) more plutonium. I personally find these concerns obsolete, but they still get mentioned.