[chimera]

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.

[epithermal]

Yes, the cost of uranium is on the way up already and I am afraid the speculators will drive it up further. There is a good article on it here:

http://oilprice.com/Metals/Commodities/Why-Uranium-Will-Make-Someone-Rich.html

"The cost "curve" for uranium is more like a hockey stick. We have a good deal of low-cost production in the world, which can be extracted for $10 to $15 per pound. Much of this comes from Saskatchewan, where high-grade ore makes for lower costs. But once demand pushes past what these mines can deliver, costs ramp up fast. The move from $20 to $50 uranium (and even higher) comes quickly. And we are pushing that curve right now. The World Nuclear Association estimates 2010 global uranium requirements at 81,000 tonnes. Putting us squarely on the far right side of the chart above.