Dry Cask Storage • Hacker News Board

Re: Dry Cask Storage

#21

Post by throw0101c » Sat, Sep 21, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #2

It's a shame we don't do fuel reprocessing in the US. Generally those rods have quite a bit of usable fissile material left it's just fallen below the economic threshold where it's better to replace them than continue using them.

> It's a shame we don't do fuel reprocessing in the US.

Not economical currently: uranium is too cheap (even with the extra enrichment that BWR/PWR reactors need).

It'd have to be run at a loss/subsidized. (Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea: run (a few?) small scale plant(s) just to maintain a knowledge base in case it was suddenly needed.)

Re: Dry Cask Storage

#22

Post by throw0101c » Sat, Sep 21, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #6

cliftonpowell wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reprocessing is still an option in the future. But it generates a lot of waste streams and as you indicate is more expensive than just fabricating a new rod. Plus our nuclear fleet is in decline and we could see a wave of decommissioned plants in the next decade (if we don't pivot our national energy policy) so our usage of fuel will decline in turn.

I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material. What I meant is the rod produces less power than a fresh replacement so it's better for the operator to replace it with a new rod to keep the reactor at it's design output. The main reason the US is against it is because of old Cold War concerns about countries using it to harvest…

> I think reprocessing is actually cheaper than creating a new rod because you don't have to do as much enrichment of the uranium material.

It's not cheaper, at least not with current uranium prices:

* https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PURANUSDM

* https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uranium

* https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

Prices would need to about double before break-even AFAICT:

> Under the range of fuel cycle unit costs evaluated in this report, unit costs for uranium ore concentrates and PUREX reprocessing have the greatest impact on the overall fuel cycle costs for both fuel cycles. Assuming that other fuel cycle cost components are at the nominal values, the fuel cycle costs for a once-through fuel cycle will be lower than those for a plutonium recycle when the unit costs of uranium are $312/kgU ($120/lb U3O8) or lower, and PUREX reprocessing costs are $750/kgHM (kilogram heavy metal) or higher.

* https://www.epri.com/research/products/1018575

For another perspective, the French do it and claim it is economical enough:

* https://www.orano.group/en/unpacking-nuclear/recycled-uraniu...

Re: Dry Cask Storage

#23

Post by snapplebobapple » Sat, Sep 21, 2024, 5:42 PM UTC

cliftonpowell wrote: post #4

rtkwe wrote: post #2

It's a shame we don't do fuel reprocessing in the US. Generally those rods have quite a bit of usable fissile material left it's just fallen below the economic threshold where it's better to replace them than continue using them.

Reprocessing is still an option in the future. But it generates a lot of waste streams and as you indicate is more expensive than just fabricating a new rod. Plus our nuclear fleet is in decline and we could see a wave of decommissioned plants in the next decade (if we don't pivot our national energy policy) so our usage of fuel will decline in turn.

Isn't the problem that we are usimg rods at all? I thought if we spent a bit of time figuring out the last tiny bit to commercialize molten salt reactors you basically get perpetual reprocessing for free as a byproduct of the reactor design (it should lilely ne equally as safe or safer for dramatically less cost i would think as well)