|
|
|
|
|
by PaulHoule
1707 days ago
|
|
Many countries have reprocessed waste, but only France has really closed the fuel cycle. Doing that requires fabricating new fuel elements and with oxide fuels that means making ‘mixed oxide’ of plutonium and uranium oxides. The established process for that involves grinding the two oxides in a ‘high energy ball mill’ which makes nano particles. The HEBM can turn a harmless material like silica into deadly (wreck your lungs) dust and just imagine what it can do with plutonium. I think in France they have the workers wear respirators 100% of the time at the fuel fab, but in most countries that is not acceptable —- the dust is easy to detect so whatever real danger there is or isn’t people are going to worry about it. The factory that Karen Silkwood worked at had that problem, the U.S. recently failed to build a MOX plant, the U.K. built one that failed because the fuel was not homogenous enough to be usable. There are other ways you can make fuel, so as coprecipitation, metal fuel, molten salt fuel, but for most of the world it is not a solved problem. |
|
No. Fuel reprocessing close to the France's technological level is also performed routinely in Russia and Japan. And "closed fuel cycle" usually means using uranium-238 for energy generation at the level of not needing to mine new uranium and instead being able to use existing dumps of depleted uranium.
The closest country to properly closing fuel cycle is Russia with its BN [0] and BREST [1] reactors. But the biggest problem is economic feasibility. Cost of uranium is relatively low and ocean extraction puts relatively low cap on it. Unfortunately the ability to "burn" waste has low economic appeal in the economic system which hardly can think several decades ahead.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-800_reactor
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)