This PDF on Reprocessed Uranium is very Interesting, page-7

"I'm (not clearly?) saying it isn't a part of ARC"

to me that sounds like a double negative?

I will state for you clearly, it isn't part of the ARC!
If the Silex technology is ever used? it will be an add on to it.

I will ask this one last question, do you think GEH are going to build a PRISM reactor along with the Recycling Center?
If so, where will they get the natural Uranium required as part of the fuel, or where in the future will they get the U238 when they convert the PRISM to a fast breeder reactor?

But before that, assuming that you do believe that the PRISM reactor is coming and it will have an Advanced Recycling Center attached, from which they will get the Plutonium plus other actinides bundle from the UNF to help run the PRISM, what do you think they will do with the recovered Uranium, will they use it in a CANDU reactor, where they getv to do that once only and to boot get only half of the Plutonium than what they would get from UNF?
Or do you think that recycling the UNF is the way to go?

When you said "My understanding is that Silex has demonstrated that commercial direct separation of 235U is possible?" if you believe that? then which direction would be the best way to go with RepU?

This is from page 13 of http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1411_web.pdf

The report reviews the experience of loading RepU into reactors and its in-reactor behaviour. It concludes that for almost all reactor operators the experience has been overwhelmingly positive from a technical standpoint.
The particular issue of over-enrichment required to compensate for the presence of 236U is
highlighted and the significant implications of the widely applied 5% 235U limit for reactor operation are discussed.
The management of spent enriched reprocessed uranium (ERU) fuel is also considered, and it is concluded that there are no significant problems.

This was from page 14 of the same document-:
The report considers the factors that characterize the market for RepU and concludes that it lacks maturity.
RepU should fill between 10 and 20% of annual uranium needs (depending on the burnup of the spent fuel reprocessed).
In 2006, however, RepU loaded into reactors was 2.3% of world reactor needs, and current
forecasts up to 2015 show no significant increase in the RepU share.
The report considers how an economic comparison can be undertaken between fuel produced from RepU and fuel produced from natural uranium.
The report provides some suggestions on initiatives that might allow increasing maturity of the RepU market, including:
—Defining a standardized RepU product;
—Investigation of ways to lift the 5% limit of 235U enrichment;
—Use of RepU in first cores of new reactors;
—Maintaining and encouraging competition among suppliers;
—Better sharing of RepU experience;
—Reassessment of the specifications of fabrication plants.
An interesting proposal made during the preparation of this report concerned the creation of an international forum to promote the necessary conditions in which a RepU market might develop and become self-sustaining.

You will note that the document above is only talking about RepU it isn't considering what happens to Plutonium in UNF, to me that is the driver, the recovered Uranium is a real plus, but runs a a second to the Plutonium and the other actinides disposal in the PRISM, but why waste something that is already there, I reckon that 10 to 20% annual use of RepU will be on the low side in the future!


OK that was more than one question!