Quick Question Regarding the cost of Nuclear Reprocessing

middlj

I personally advocate reprocessing, however I was wondering why UK and European companies do it even though it is admittedly not cost-effective.

Am I mistaken in believing that its not cost effective or do these companies reprocess for other reasons? Like a concern over the depletion of natural uranium resources?

Thanks

QuantumPion

Either it is required by law, it is government subsidized, or it is simply the most economic solution (i.e. other solutions are even more expensive)

zapperzero

The UK has just shut down their Sellafield plant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...?newsfeed=true

middlj

The magnox and thermal oxide reprocessing plant are still active. With THORP planning on continuing for the foreseeable future.

Astronuc

Most European nations do not have substantial indigenous deposits of Uranium. France lacks substantial energy resources. UK and Norway have the North Sea oil and gas, while Germany has substantial coal, and the Nordic countries have hydropower. Many nations are now looking at wind and solar power as alternatives to fossil fuel.

Recycling was developed as a way to recover unusued fuel material (U-238 and U-235) and recover fissile material, rather than disposing the resource in direct disposal repository.

Due to the nature of spent fuel (fission product and transuranics), reprocessing and fabrication of reprocessed fuel (usually MOX), must be done remotely. This greatly increases the cost.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html