Quick Question Regarding the cost of Nuclear Reprocessing

  • Thread starter Thread starter middlj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
AI Thread Summary
Reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the UK and Europe, despite being cost-ineffective, is driven by several factors, including legal requirements, government subsidies, and the need to manage limited indigenous uranium resources. Many European countries lack substantial uranium deposits, prompting a focus on recycling to recover unused fuel materials. The reprocessing process, particularly for spent fuel, is complex and costly due to the need for remote handling of hazardous materials. The continued operation of facilities like THORP indicates a commitment to this practice, even as alternatives like wind and solar energy gain traction. Overall, reprocessing serves both resource management and regulatory compliance purposes in the nuclear industry.
middlj
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
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
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
middlj said:
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

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)
 
middlj said:
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
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
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top