[ RadSafe ] Repository versus disposal facility

[Dan McCarn]

Dear Ed:

I agree.

The answer is that there is no profit to be made in reprocessing because of
the relative abundance and low cost of uranium reserves and resources
driving a once-through "fuel-cycle", if it can truly be called a "cycle".
 And there are several reasons that it is easier and cheaper to make new
fuel.

That said, the actual cost for the nuclear fuel for a reactor is not a
primary driving factor. Comparing the fuel cost with virtually any other
form of energy production e.f. coal, gas, etc. it's really pretty cheap.
Given that, additional costs for reprocessing & MOX fuel are
probably acceptable in the grand scheme of things, but there has to be an
incentive for a company to go that route.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Stroud - CDPHE, Ed
<ed.stroud at state.co.us>wrote:

> Jerry,
> The simple answer is profit. That is, with uranium prices where they are,
> it's simply cheaper to make new fuel instead of reprocessing. In Colorado,
> there's a new uranium extraction mill in the planning stages.
>
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
>
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Miller, Mark L <mmiller at sandia.gov>
> wrote:
>
> > .....Same problem with calling Yucca Mtn a "disposal facility" rather
> than
> > a "repository".
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted de Castro [mailto:tdc at xrayted.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 7:50 PM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Teller and Climate change
> >
> > I guess its our own fault for calling it "REPROCESSING" instead of
> > "RECYCLING" - in which case instead of being prohibited - it would be
> > required!
> >
> > On 3/6/2013 6:16 PM, Jerry Cohen wrote:
> > > It has been over 30 years ago that president Carter established the
> > > "no reprocessing" policy.
> > > Can anyone explain how, over this span on time, such an obviously
> > > stupid policy has not been rescinded.
> > > Jerry Cohen
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> >
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> >
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>