[ RadSafe ] Reprocessing and Fast Reactors

George Stanford gstanford at aya.yale.edu
Tue Jul 6 16:30:19 CDT 2010

      For the record, the current French fuel cycle is
very far from being closed.  Their reprocessing
makes use of scarcely 1% of the used fuel.  They
use the PUREX reprocessing plant at La Hague
(inherited from the military), to extract some of the
plutonium and recycle it in MOX.

      Today's thermal reactors use only about 0.6%
of the energy in the mined uranium.  With LWRs,
about  85% of the energy is left behind in the DU,
and only 3%-5% of the energy that makes it into
the fuel is used.  MOX recycling brings that
fraction up to 4%-6%.

      The French are well aware of this, of course,
which is why they anticipate using fast reactors,
which can access most of the remaining 99+%
of the ore's energy.  And the Chinese, Indians,
Russians, Japanese, South Koreans  . . . are
well aware of it also, which is why they too have
fast-reactor programs.

      The United States is being left in the dust,
having abdicated its technological leadership
when the IFR program was aborted in 1994.
We are now without influence in the evolution
and safe management of nuclear technology.

George S. Stanford
Reactor physicist, retired


At 01:55 PM 7/6/2010, Geo>K0FF wrote:
Why bury good fuel? Reprocess it like France does.The science is ready.

George Dowell

----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Young" <Robert.Young at tn.gov>
To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pseudoscientist & Propagandist Chris Busby - 
anti-DUactivist --WAS Re: Uranium, gene

Nuclear Today, Nuclear Tomorrow, Nuclear Forever. Yes Fusion will be a
far better mode of making energy, but Fission is here right NOW and not
a Pie in the Sky idea! If we want the USA to go Green, we must include
Nuclear because neither Solar nor Wind Power (outside of the US Congress
and the Bureaucrats in Washington DC)  will replace Coal in the
foreseeable future. Nothing I know of can replace coal except Nuclear.

I do agree we need to solve the High level waste issues, but the US was
somewhat on track @ Yucca Mtn until we got derailed by Environmental
Whackos. I have been to Yucca Mtn in the past and I cannot think of a
better place to put High Level Waste. I would have no problem living
next door nor even being a Resident Farmer (RESRAD terminology) next
door to Yucca Mtn. If we want to entertain a terrestrial High Level
Waste site but not Yucca Mtn, then we will never solve the RAM Waste
Issue(s) on any level.

Robert Young

My comments are mine alone and not those of my employer.  

More information about the RadSafe mailing list