3 ms·

> reprocessing is an economic loser at this point Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement o

by pdonis 3y ago

> reprocessing is an economic loser at this point Not on a time scale of 100 years or so, let alone the 100,000 years that are being imposed as a requirement on geologic storage. On that time scale recovering unburned fuel from reprocessing will be cheaper than mining and refining fuel. > France still does reprocessing because whatever is done with spent fuel is not that expensive Yes, particularly when you factor in that reprocessing gives you a source of additional fuel (most of the "spent" fuel removed from reactors is actually not spent, and reprocessing recovers it for future use) that, as noted above, is expected to be cheaper than mining it in the not too distant future. > the boondoggle It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. It's certainly much more rational than requiring spent fuel to be stored for 100,000 years as if that was the only possible thing that could be done with it.

pfdietz 3y ago
> Not on a time scale of 100 years or so AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out. > It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > it's a waste of money to do it right now If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Where does that requirement come from, though? If society is going to collapse in 100 years, I suggest the money be better spent preparing for the consequences of that, not worrying about whether the documentation on dry casks will satisfy some licensing requirement.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Where does that requirement come from, though? I've answered that already in another subthread we're having. > If society is going to collapse in 100 years Where was that kind of thinking involved in this at all?

by pdonis 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

> Not on a time scale of 100 years or so AT THIS MOMENT it's an economic loser. If you need reprocessed fuel in 100 years, by the miracle of nonzero interest rates you save money by doing it closer to then instead of right now. The cost of storing the fuel until then is low enough that this works out. > It's not a boondoggle at all, it's a rational way of anticipating future nuclear fuel requirements, as above. No, it's a waste of money to do it right now.

pdonis 3y ago
> it's a waste of money to do it right now If you're allowed to store the current waste in a facility that's only good for 100 years or so, then yes. But not if you're required to store any waste you don't reprocess for 100,000 years.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Where does that requirement come from, though? If society is going to collapse in 100 years, I suggest the money be better spent preparing for the consequences of that, not worrying about whether the documentation on dry casks will satisfy some licensing requirement.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Where does that requirement come from, though? I've answered that already in another subthread we're having. > If society is going to collapse in 100 years Where was that kind of thinking involved in this at all?