Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5741

Moosey - thanks for a reasoned response - I do agree that "innovation is the key" however I guess I am now too old (possibly the same for you) to think much beyond this decade and therefore accept lim itations as they are now or at least foreseeable. As we both know the Natrium is based up PRISM and that was also based upon the EBR-II - development appears to be underway. Sodium "fast" have a long history - even going back to the early days of nuclear subs (USS Seawolf (SSN-575 - launched 21 July 1955) and not exploited largely dues to the volatile nature of Sodium in water and it's small positive void coefficient (that was partly the cause of Chernobyl) - see HERE).

As you will be aware a primary advantage of a sodium reactor is that it uses "fast" neutron rather than thermal neutrons. Fast neutron can fission the higher actinides (and also 236U) and thus can use (as fuel) HL waste from thermal reactors - it does not need to be re-processed. They also burn HALEU a lot better than a "thermal" reactor and may also "breed" Pu from natural ²³⁸U (and also RepU) in certain configurations (but not as I understand it the Natrium). As I understand it the Natrium will use HALEU derived from natural uranium but in the first instance may uae refined (and down blended to HALEU) 70% spent HEU from the EBR-II - this is being done by Idaho NL - INL (see HERE) - as far as I am aware this spent HEU will be re-processed by the INL electrochemical process (see HERE) but they will not remove ²³⁶U - this will be diluted in the downblending, As I understand it INL has a special status in this regard Integrated Waste Treatment Unit but is NOT a commercial re-processor.

I guess my issue with re-processing is that it is not economic at foreseeable uranium prices, will face a lot of opposition in the USA and if it is used then reduction in HL waste volumes are likely to be the reason (as in France). The other problem is that due to the presence of ²³⁴U and ²³⁶U in re-processed uranium fuel (NOT MoX which uses Pu) and the impracticality of removing it (even with Silex) - it will be low quality fuel competing against (cheaper) fuel (including HALEU) derived from natural uranium. IMO I would not be putting my cash into such a venture (and I doubt if the US government will too at least until it addresses its HL waste issue - but that will not be to recycle fuel: just to reduce waste volumes. IMO the RepU will be turned into U₃O8 and buried in a medium/low level waste dump which can be potentially dug up in a few thousand years time (fusion will have taken over by then)