Disposition of Spent Fuel - Separation option

In summary, the cost of a rational storage and process-on-demand is more economical and probably safer than vitrification. However, the added step of removing actinides increases the cost.
  • #36
Jon Richfield said:
What the French are doing, as I understood it, was nearly exactly what I have been proposing in the first place, and I made a remark to that effect at that time (remember?): keep the spent fuel and look after it intelligently until they need it.

Wrong again. That's not what French are doing. They do not defer reprocessing.

They reprocess spent fuel as soon as it is practical - after only ~5 years of cool-down.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #37
nikkkom said:
Wrong again. That's not what French are doing. They do not defer reprocessing.

They reprocess spent fuel as soon as it is practical - after only ~5 years of cool-down.
Then that was my misunderstanding of what I read, justifiable or otherwise.

My assessment of what the French are doing if what you say here really is the case, degrades accordingly unless there are practical reasons for this practice, other than those so far asserted or discussed.
 
  • #38
Closed pending moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
888
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Nuclear Engineering
3
Replies
83
Views
13K
  • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top