The FuTure oF nuclear Fuel cycle - MIT Energy Initiative

Other values can be determined by interpolation.
Fuel cost is minimized at a tails composition given to a good approximation by:
where C F = cost of natural uranium (plus conversion to UF 6 ), $/kg
C S = cost of SWU, $/kg
Thus for C F /C S = 2.2, X W, OPT = 0.15%.
Comparing X W = 0.3 w/o and X W = 0.15 w/o for X P = 5 w/o gives F/P = 11.44 and 8.65,
respectively. Hence in this case reducing tails to their optimum value decreases U NAT consumption
by 24%. Or, for example, moving from 0.25 w/o to 0.10 w/o tails increases SWU,
hence separation costs, by 50%, and reduces ore requirements by 22%.
CitationS and noteS
1. K. Deffeyes, I. MacGregor, 1978, 1980, “Uranium Distribution in Mined Deposits and in the Earth’s Crust,” Final Report
to US DOE, Grand Junction Office, August 1978; also Scientific American, Vol. 242 (1980)
2. G. S. Koch Jr., R. F. Link, “Statistical Analysis of Geological Data,” Wiley, 1970
3. D. E. Shropshire et al., 2008, ”Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis”, INL/EXT-07-12107, Rev. 1, March 2008.
4. C. Starr and C. Braun, “Supply of Uranium and Enrichment Services,” Trans. Am. Nucl. Soc. Vol. 37, Nov. 1980
5. E. Schneider, W. Sailor, 2008, “Long-Term Uranium Supply Estimates,” Nuclear Technology, Vol. 162, June 2008
6. M. Taube, “Evolution of Matter and Energy on a Cosmic and Planetary Scale,” Springer-Verlag, 1985
7. M. S. Peters, K. D. Timmerhaus (1980), “Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers,” 3 rd Edition, McGraw-Hill
8. J. L. Simon, “The Ultimate Resource,” Princeton University Press, 1981
9. E. Schneider, W. Sailor, “Long-Term Uranium Supply Estimates,” Nuclear Technology, Vol. 162, June 2008. Also “The
Uranium Resource: A Comparative Analysis,” Global 2007, Sept. 2007
10. R. Duffey (2003), “Innovation in Nuclear Technology for the Least Product Price and Cost,” Nuclear Plant Journal, Sept.
– Oct. 2003
appendix to chapter 3: Formulation of cost/cumulative resource elasticity Model 153