Quick Question Regarding the cost of Nuclear Reprocessing

  • Thread starter Thread starter middlj
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cost-effectiveness of nuclear reprocessing in the UK and Europe, exploring the reasons behind its continued practice despite claims of high costs. Participants consider various factors influencing the decision to reprocess, including resource concerns and regulatory frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants advocate for reprocessing but question its cost-effectiveness, suggesting that companies may have other motivations for reprocessing.
  • One participant proposes that reprocessing might be required by law, government-subsidized, or the most economical option compared to alternatives.
  • Another participant notes the shutdown of the Sellafield plant while mentioning that other reprocessing facilities remain operational.
  • Concerns are raised about the depletion of natural uranium resources, with some participants highlighting that many European nations lack substantial indigenous uranium deposits.
  • Participants discuss the development of recycling as a means to recover unused fuel materials and fissile material, rather than direct disposal, while acknowledging that the nature of spent fuel increases reprocessing costs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the cost-effectiveness of reprocessing and the motivations behind it, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention various factors such as regulatory requirements, economic comparisons with other energy solutions, and the technical challenges associated with reprocessing spent fuel, which may influence the overall discussion but remain unresolved.

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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 131 ·
5
Replies
131
Views
30K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
9K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
17
Views
9K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K