Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MediaMole

Possibly, if the economics warrant it. I say this because there is still plenty of uranium left in the ground since the uranium mining industry folded in the USA. I assume at some point in time when mines become depleted or uneconomic we will need to reprocess.

Regarding reprocessing, while you may store the waste in a repository you can still pull it out again to reprocess it. The advantage, presumably, of having it in a centralized repository is to protect it from terrorists as well as the environment. It would take many years to fill a repository and the disposal would not be finalized by sealing it, I assume, until a decision was made to reprocess or not. But, if the government and envirowackos are in the loop, I have small hope it will be a decision based on science.


16 posted on 10/12/2010 10:18:25 AM PDT by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: epithermal
At the present time the economics favor once-through fuel use. Low fuel costs are what makes nuclear-generated electricity the most economical method. If fuel costs or waste storage costs rise, reprocessing may become economically viable, but until fossil generation cost fully reflects its true cost across the board, I am afraid we will erode the nuclear cost advantage if fuel costs rise significantly.
29 posted on 10/13/2010 6:39:39 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson