29.03.2015 Views

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

PLENTIFUL ENERGY

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

uranium fuel fabrication), the economic incentive to recycle MOX fuel is weak. The<br />

MOX fuel cycle cost is compared with uranium fuel in a closed fuel cycle in Table<br />

13-6.<br />

Table 13-6. Comparison of MOX with UOX in Closed Fuel Cycles, $/kgHM<br />

UOX<br />

MOX<br />

Uranium 660 78<br />

Conversion 70 8<br />

Enrichment 770 0<br />

Fabrication 275 1500<br />

Reprocessing 610 610<br />

Disposal Fee 120 120<br />

Total 2505 2316<br />

If reprocessing and MOX fabrication and associated plutonium reprocessing<br />

facilities have been constructed and their capital costs have been amortized, then a<br />

closed fuel cycle is affordable, although there is still some economic penalty. On<br />

the other hand, if such infrastructure is not available, then there is no economic<br />

incentive to reprocess and recycle in LWRs. That is the present situation in the U.S.<br />

Another way of looking at the economic incentives for reprocessing and recycle<br />

is to consider current spent fuel disposition. If spent fuel is disposed directly to a<br />

repository, the 1 mill/kWh or $400/kg (at 50,000 MWD/T burnup) will be<br />

sufficient. If the uranium price escalates, what level would it have to reach in order<br />

to provide a serious incentive to recycle? As illustrated in Figure 13-5, assuming a<br />

reprocessing cost of $1,000/kg, the uranium price has to escalate to about $120/lb<br />

for recycle to be economically viable. Alternatively, if the reprocessing cost is<br />

reduced to $500/kg, recycling can be economic even at a uranium price of $40/lb.<br />

From an economic point of view only, LWR fuel cycle closure cannot be<br />

justified under today‘s economic parameters, nor is it expected to be in the<br />

foreseeable future. Nevertheless, in France and Japan, somewhat limited plutonium<br />

recycling is being carried out, suggested as an interim step toward a longer-term full<br />

fuel cycle closure with fast reactors.<br />

Another potential justification for LWR recycle could be for waste management<br />

purposes. But for any significant impact on waste management, the long-lived<br />

actinides must be removed from the waste stream and burned in the reactor. This<br />

isn‘t what‘s currently being done, and more importantly, the thermal spectrum of<br />

LWRs will not burn the actinides efficiently, as we have discussed previously.<br />

286

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!