Can you give any link to anything that is actually implemented?
Edit: regarding the answer below "French do it" it's a plant that existed as a military plant in sixties and is in a civil use since 1976, so it is more than 50 years old. It spends 1.4 GW of electricity per day to operate. Only a few years ago, after all these years, France achieved the possibility to have just 10% of its nuclear power production fueled by the products of the plant (as they fulfill cca 75% of all electricity needs from nuclear plants, that means that they can reach "whole" 7% of the France's electricity needs -- it was less before!). So I still ask, what it that has been "advanced" since long ago and is really implemented?
I think the key technology when looking at extending supplies is fissile breeding, so you probably want to look at fast neutron reactors, and since you quote the french wikipedia, I will follow suit: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix
If you are curious about these subjects and a french speaker, there's a series on energy with many aspects of Nuclear on the french speaking youtube channel "Le Réveilleur". Jean-Marc Jancovici has also written and talked a fair bit about Nuclear in the context of energy and climate.
My executive summary: construction began in 1976 and the plant was decomissioned in 1997. It never operated satisfactorily and had a couple of incidents. It produced electricity in the value of about 1,85 billion francs, at the expense of about 60 billion francs until today (producing even more costs until its ultimate deconstruction until 2027), leaving 650 fuel rods in temporary storage pools. It was the last reactor of this type (fissile breeding?) that was built in Europe.
I do not believe, this is the type of "reactor with advanced technology, that can actually reprocess tons of old fuel", that user "bifrost" mentioned above?
ITER will most likely be a big net negative, and the cost is much higher. Should we cancel it without trying then?
If you consider Superphenix as a prototype shut down prematurely for political and ideological reasons, the numbers aren’t that bad. Pretty sad that this wasn’t the last one built in Europe, long term thinking has gone out the window decades ago...
We are loosing the leitmotif in this subthread and I would like to bring us back on track. The logical structure of this discourse is:
1. "[...]We should have nuclear going at 120% of demand and use the exess power to support electricity based carbon capture devices."
2. "Can we mine enough uranium to produce this much electricity?"
3. "Yes. Reactor technologies have advanced, we just haven't built enough. We can actually reprocess the tons of old fuel we have for trillions of MWh."
4. "[...]Can you give any link to anything that is actually implemented?[...]"
In 3., user "bifrost" makes the factual claim, that there was an existing technology that could reprocess old fuel and produce trillions (sic!) of MWh, if built in sufficient quantity.
In the remainder of the thread, me and others ask user "bifrost" to provide some source for the claim, but user "bifrost" was unfortunately not elaborating. Other users stepped in and linked to
- the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at La Hague, which is, well, not a reactor
- the fast breeder Superphoenix, which was decommissioned (and with it the technology) 22 years ago
- an article of the Heritage Foundation, which refers to French nuclear fuel reprocessing (with false claims)
- and the ITER-technology, which is completely experimental and will use real fuel for experimental purposes not before 2035, being away from commercial usability at least 20 years from now. It will also not burn old fuel.
So none of this (well appreciated) contributions matches the description of the claim in 3.
I will admit at this point, that I am not interested in a public discourse of my opinions about the pros and cons of nuclear energy, as I have made up my mind and don't feel the wish to proselytize anyone.
I simply would like to have user "bifrost" substantiate his claim. Because, if true, this could potentially change my mind about nuclear energy. And because, if false, it would confirm my suspicion about fake exertion of influence by pro-nuclear lobbyists.
Well, the french reactors are not processing old fuel. Spent fuel is taken out, brought to some other place (La Hague), replenished and then transferred back to the nuclear plant. This stretches the effectiveness of the nuclear fuel by a few percent but does not at all solve the problem of final storage of nuclear waste.
If this is, what the original poster meant with - "Reactor technologies have advanced, we just haven't built enough. We can actually reprocess the tons of old fuel we have for trillions of MWh." - I am a little disappointed.
By the way:
La Hague had nuclear accidents, including exposure of Iodium-131 and Caesium-137, explosions, tritium contaminations of the ocean, leaks, a catastrophic fire in the storage facilities of graphite elements and uranium parts, continuous contamination with Strontium-90 and others from 1968 until 2013.
"Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions."
"The mission of The Heritage Foundation is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."
OK, now I get it. Sorry, my mistake. Didn't check that before and wondered about downvotes and how they could – completely wrongly – state "The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident".
Oh, this is so cool news! We actually have tons of old fuel here in Germany, as we are bailing out of nuclear power. Would you mind, if we send it to you? It would be free, including shipping!
They actually don't accept everything "sent" and they have a law to send back to the originating country all the remains of the whole process that aren't the newly replenished usable fuel.
Just out of curiosity, as I do not know much about nuclear power: could you give some example of an existing reactor with advanced technologies you just haven't built enough yet and which can reprocess old fuel?
I just googled a bit. The most modern nuclear plant, which is going into operation by the end of 2019, seems to be Olkiluoto 3 in finland. Building time (without planning and licensing procedure) was 14 years and that building time and the actual costs missed the forecasts by pretty exactly the factor pi. This plant is NOT processing old fuel. The current calculations says, if the plant runs for 60 years under full load without interruption, the price of the generated electric power will be equivalent to the price of offshore windpower as it is today. China hasn't started new nuclear power plants since 2016, as the produced electricity would be 20% more than solar and wind.
https://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Atomkraft-Die-letzten-ihrer-...
By the way: all of this calculations do not at all include costs for storing wasted fuel for a couple of thousands years (which is ok, because, as you say, there won't be any, as it can be reused in your reactors).
So any hints where I can find more information about the new reactors that burn old fuel??