3 ms·

Reprocessing is still an option in the future. But it generates a lot of waste streams and as you indicate is more expensive than just fabricating a new rod. Pl

Reprocessing is still an option in the future. But it generates a lot of waste streams and as you indicate is more expensive than just fabricating a new rod. Plus our nuclear fleet is in decline and we could see a wave of decommissioned plants in the next decade (if we don't pivot our national energy policy) so our usage of fuel will decline in turn.

rtkwe 2y ago
I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. What I meant is the rod produces less power than a fresh replacement so it's better for the operator to replace it with a new rod to keep the reactor at it's design output. The main reason the US is against it is because of old Cold War concerns about countries using it to harvest plutonium which is created in small amounts in regular reactors so there's a small concern that reprocessing would allow secretive creation of plutonium for nuclear weapons while appearing to be a purely peaceful civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing system.
- Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
  >I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. What I meant is the rod produces less power than a fresh replacement so it's better for the operator to replace it with a new rod to keep the reactor at it's design output. At best, reprocessing produces MOX fuel at a similar price to fuel from natural uranium. It is only when the cost of waste treatment is reduced that it becomes economically viable. Uranium from a fuel assembly is completely depleted, containing almost no fissile isotopes. The neutron poisons have to be removed and it has to be mixed with uranium and plutonium oxides so that it reaches a sufficient level of enrichment to be used in a pressurised water reactor. They produce as much power as a new assembly. It's quite difficult to run a reactor at anything other than 100% nominal power. > The main reason the US is against it is because of old Cold War concerns about countries using it to harvest plutonium which is created in small amounts in regular reactors so there's a small concern that reprocessing would allow secretive creation of plutonium for nuclear weapons while appearing to be a purely peaceful civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing system. Plutonium from a pressurised water reactor is too impure for military use. It is polluted with actinides, which are neutron poisons. It is the techniques for separating plutonium and actinides that are problematic. It was possible to use civilian reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium with graphite-gas reactors. It was possible to load and unload fuel during operation. This allowed the fuel to be ‘cooked’ just to the right point to produce plutonium and little other element. These reactors are obsolete (intense gaze in the direction of the UK).
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    > Plutonium from a pressurised water reactor is too impure for military use. It is polluted with actinides, which are neutron poisons. It is the techniques for separating plutonium and actinides that are problematic. That's just what I was able to find as part of the reasoning behind the anti-reprocessing stance the US started back then and continues to follow today. Even a dirty source of plutonium would be a risk for diversion into a more secretive refining program.
    - Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
      Not really. Countries able to reprocess spent fuel generally have a large stock of weapons-grade plutonium from disarmament and warhead upgrades. For a non-nuclear-weapon nation, there are simpler and cheaper ways of producing higher-quality plutonium than building a fleet of PWR power stations and a reprocessing plant. The real problem with reprocessing is that it is not very profitable if the cost of disposing of the waste is low.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. It's not cheaper, at least not with current uranium prices: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PURANUSDM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PURANUSDM * https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium * https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... Prices would need to about double before break-even AFAICT: > Under the range of fuel cycle unit costs evaluated in this report, unit costs for uranium ore concentrates and PUREX reprocessing have the greatest impact on the overall fuel cycle costs for both fuel cycles. Assuming that other fuel cycle cost components are at the nominal values, the fuel cycle costs for a once-through fuel cycle will be lower than those for a plutonium recycle when the unit costs of uranium are $312/kgU ($120/lb U3O8) or lower, and PUREX reprocessing costs are $750/kgHM (kilogram heavy metal) or higher. * https://www.epri.com/research/products/1018575 https://www.epri.com/research/products/1018575 For another perspective, the French do it and claim it is economical enough: * https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/recycled-uranium-an-energy-source-for-low-carbon-electricity https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/recycled-uraniu...
snapplebobapple 2y ago
Isn't the problem that we are usimg rods at all? I thought if we spent a bit of time figuring out the last tiny bit to commercialize molten salt reactors you basically get perpetual reprocessing for free as a byproduct of the reactor design (it should lilely ne equally as safe or safer for dramatically less cost i would think as well)

rtkwe 2y ago

I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. What I meant is the rod produces less power than a fresh replacement so it's better for the operator to replace it with a new rod to keep the reactor at it's design output. The main reason the US is against it is because of old Cold War concerns about countries using it to harvest plutonium which is created in small amounts in regular reactors so there's a small concern that reprocessing would allow secretive creation of plutonium for nuclear weapons while appearing to be a purely peaceful civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing system.

Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
>I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. What I meant is the rod produces less power than a fresh replacement so it's better for the operator to replace it with a new rod to keep the reactor at it's design output. At best, reprocessing produces MOX fuel at a similar price to fuel from natural uranium. It is only when the cost of waste treatment is reduced that it becomes economically viable. Uranium from a fuel assembly is completely depleted, containing almost no fissile isotopes. The neutron poisons have to be removed and it has to be mixed with uranium and plutonium oxides so that it reaches a sufficient level of enrichment to be used in a pressurised water reactor. They produce as much power as a new assembly. It's quite difficult to run a reactor at anything other than 100% nominal power. > The main reason the US is against it is because of old Cold War concerns about countries using it to harvest plutonium which is created in small amounts in regular reactors so there's a small concern that reprocessing would allow secretive creation of plutonium for nuclear weapons while appearing to be a purely peaceful civilian nuclear fuel reprocessing system. Plutonium from a pressurised water reactor is too impure for military use. It is polluted with actinides, which are neutron poisons. It is the techniques for separating plutonium and actinides that are problematic. It was possible to use civilian reactors to produce weapons-grade plutonium with graphite-gas reactors. It was possible to load and unload fuel during operation. This allowed the fuel to be ‘cooked’ just to the right point to produce plutonium and little other element. These reactors are obsolete (intense gaze in the direction of the UK).
- rtkwe 2y ago
  > Plutonium from a pressurised water reactor is too impure for military use. It is polluted with actinides, which are neutron poisons. It is the techniques for separating plutonium and actinides that are problematic. That's just what I was able to find as part of the reasoning behind the anti-reprocessing stance the US started back then and continues to follow today. Even a dirty source of plutonium would be a risk for diversion into a more secretive refining program.
  - Beretta_Vexee 2y ago
    Not really. Countries able to reprocess spent fuel generally have a large stock of weapons-grade plutonium from disarmament and warhead upgrades. For a non-nuclear-weapon nation, there are simpler and cheaper ways of producing higher-quality plutonium than building a fleet of PWR power stations and a reprocessing plant. The real problem with reprocessing is that it is not very profitable if the cost of disposing of the waste is low.
throw0101c 2y ago
> I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. It's not cheaper, at least not with current uranium prices: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PURANUSDM https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PURANUSDM * https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium * https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/uranium-markets https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... Prices would need to about double before break-even AFAICT: > Under the range of fuel cycle unit costs evaluated in this report, unit costs for uranium ore concentrates and PUREX reprocessing have the greatest impact on the overall fuel cycle costs for both fuel cycles. Assuming that other fuel cycle cost components are at the nominal values, the fuel cycle costs for a once-through fuel cycle will be lower than those for a plutonium recycle when the unit costs of uranium are $312/kgU ($120/lb U3O8) or lower, and PUREX reprocessing costs are $750/kgHM (kilogram heavy metal) or higher. * https://www.epri.com/research/products/1018575 https://www.epri.com/research/products/1018575 For another perspective, the French do it and claim it is economical enough: * https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/recycled-uranium-an-energy-source-for-low-carbon-electricity https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/recycled-uraniu...

snapplebobapple 2y ago

Isn't the problem that we are usimg rods at all? I thought if we spent a bit of time figuring out the last tiny bit to commercialize molten salt reactors you basically get perpetual reprocessing for free as a byproduct of the reactor design (it should lilely ne equally as safe or safer for dramatically less cost i would think as well)