Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5732

I think your issue is not the cost of fuel (where mined fuel is cheaper) but the production of MOX fuels (taking Pu rather than re-enriching the RepU) which use the Pu along with RepU or mined Uranium. The other issue is to reduce the amount of HL waste (not fuel production). The problem with reducing the HL waste is the US$100Bn clean up (as at Hanford - see HERE - current estimate US$100Bn) due to medium level waste which are the reagents used in processing. I realize that you will respond by saying the electrochemical (like the ARC) will fix that problem but as i understand it that does not isolate the Pu and further more if you have another process to isolate the Pu to get ²⁴⁰Pu and ²⁴²Pu this reduces the quality of MOX (i.e you want ²³⁹Pu). As I understand it in France to use of MOX has not been a success; the Le Hague plant is there mainly to reduce the HL waste but the MOX product (using Pu) is not economically viable and only constitutes about 10% of nuclear generation. I understand spent MOX fuel are not reprocessed.

My understanding is the electro-metallurgical plant (e.g ARC) are very similar in operation to an aluminum smelter - the problem is that you then get radio active salts as a waste rather the radioactive HNO (nitric acid) like Hanford. I also understand that Na coolant became contaminated in the EBR-II and caused clean up issues (see HERE)

The point I was trying to make was that a fast reactor (like Natrium) is not a vehicle for burning re-processed fuels; the advantage od a fast reactor is that it can fission the higher actinides (and ²³⁶U), thus achieving a higher burn up and shorter half life HL waste (this is not reprocessing). As you may be aware a fast reactor CAN be a breeder (for Pu again) but as far as I am aware the Natrium is not designed to be breeder and thus still produces HL waste (but with less higher actinides and thus less long half life elements).

To me the issue is not to re-process or not it's to remove the ban on re-processing (a bit like in Australia removing legal bans on nuclear reactors and enrichment). One the US legal ban is removed (the will need the NRC to be prepared to licence) then reprocessing can stand on its own two feet - if it's economic then private funds can finance it (possibly with a government guarantee) if it's viable - it does not mean that re-proceesing is viable but as far as I can see it's about reducing HL waste (but also creating more medium level waste) and recovering ²³⁹Pu for MOX (this fuel product is still much more expensive than mined U leading to enriched LEU (or HALEU). The is probable one exception to this in reprocessing the EBR- II fuel which was 70% metallic uranium (not 4.8% LEU which as spent fuel only has about 1% ²³⁵U left but also has about the same amount of ²³⁶U which cannot be removed - even with our LIS - the v3 frequency bands overlap even at -150C. Reprocessing is about reducing HL waste not spent fuel re-use unless U₃O₈ fuel prices go through the roof. (i.e US$200+/lb) - that would be nice!