Korean Reprocessing

jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » May 09, 2013 11:33 pm

http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/04/14 ... d-sla/fzha
Korean are keen to take the reprocessing route to disposal of SNF but the US is dragging the heels. It is to be seen that the North stub of Korea could not be stopped from going the weapons nuclear way, why is the nuclear power big player being hindered from harmless spent fuel reprocessing. The US should, in fact outsource the dirty work till it is mature and they can use it themselves. Unlike China, the South Korea could share the IP rights with the US. If the uranium and TRU's could be recycled and taken out of storage problem NOW, it would help everyone including the US.

Speedy
Posts: 14
Joined: Jul 08, 2011 4:38 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by Speedy » May 11, 2013 3:11 am

IMO, whether or not they want to reprocess is a 100% domestic issue, so the US should keep their nose out of Korea's business.

KitemanSA
Posts: 1336
Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Location: NoOPWA

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by KitemanSA » May 11, 2013 7:56 pm

You now know why many countries DON'T want US reactors. We attach too many strings.
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » Jul 02, 2014 1:43 am

Reflects the urgency of a right decision. Koreans may take one ultimately without consulting the US.
In case of India-US agreement, some reasonableness was agreed to. India agreed to IAEA inspections to ensure that imported uranium fuel was not diverted to weapons program. Now India has started importing fuel for reactors agreed to be put under inspections. Advanced development, including for power, is free from hindrances subjected to non-weapon states.

SteveK9
Posts: 187
Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by SteveK9 » Jul 03, 2014 4:46 pm

jagdish wrote:
Reflects the urgency of a right decision. Koreans may take one ultimately without consulting the US.
In case of India-US agreement, some reasonableness was agreed to. India agreed to IAEA inspections to ensure that imported uranium fuel was not diverted to weapons program. Now India has started importing fuel for reactors agreed to be put under inspections. Advanced development, including for power, is free from hindrances subjected to non-weapon states.
That looks to me like a 100% made-up 'emergency'. Put it in dry casks and store it ... like everyone else. I don't have any objection to them recycling. But, wouldn't it be better just to store it and burn later in fast reactors?

jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » Jul 05, 2014 12:45 am

Sleeping over used fuel is what has stalled the nuclear development. A lot of people are worried over the stocks of used fuel. If the recycling was in practice, further addition to used fuel will come down. People outside NATO are keen on recycling.

E Ireland
Posts: 1565
Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by E Ireland » Jul 05, 2014 12:58 pm

Because those people [outside NATO] have never quite grasped how absurdly expensive it is, especially for relatively low burnup LWR fuel.
Once you show people a picture of what dry fuel storage looks like for a gigawatt-year then a lot go "Oh....." and stop complaining about it.
Not even Greenpeace campaigns on that issue in Britain any more.

jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » Jul 06, 2014 3:33 am

NATO-Japan designs of reactors are 2-3 times those of their neighbors. Koreans beat the French hands down in the UAE. It could be same for reprocessing. Development will further reduce cost as in general engineering. Opposite is happening in US/France/Japan designs due to mental baggage.
US designs have to be proved in China before they are introduced at home. Let Koreans compete with the Chinese even if they are not in the initial N-5.

NickL
Posts: 27
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by NickL » Jul 06, 2014 9:46 am

E Ireland wrote:Because those people [outside NATO] have never quite grasped how absurdly expensive it is, especially for relatively low burnup LWR fuel.
Once you show people a picture of what dry fuel storage looks like for a gigawatt-year then a lot go "Oh....." and stop complaining about it.
Not even Greenpeace campaigns on that issue in Britain any more.
Agree. With current U prices, reprocessing does not make economic sense, as I understand it. Makes more sense just to store it for now.

Cthorm
Posts: 219
Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by Cthorm » Jul 07, 2014 12:58 pm

NickL wrote:
E Ireland wrote:Because those people [outside NATO] have never quite grasped how absurdly expensive it is, especially for relatively low burnup LWR fuel.
Once you show people a picture of what dry fuel storage looks like for a gigawatt-year then a lot go "Oh....." and stop complaining about it.
Not even Greenpeace campaigns on that issue in Britain any more.
Agree. With current U prices, reprocessing does not make economic sense, as I understand it. Makes more sense just to store it for now.

Waste an fuel utilization are political & perception issues, not technical problems. Because here we're all highly numerate and engaged we tend to dismiss the political issues as irrational, but that is a mistake we make at our peril. In many cases what makes "economic sense" is driven by political issues: it makes economic sense today to extensively use fossil fuels; it makes economic sense today to store spent fuel in fuel ponds and dry casks. Today political issues are driving changes in what makes economic sense for fossil fuel use (in 60s and 70s the political driver was air pollution, since the late 80s it's been climate change). High taxes on certain fuels and regulatory changes, along with technical innovation in shale drilling, are changing the economic landscape. Political concerns may soon put a "price" on nuclear fuel storage and waste streams. The regulatory environment Western Nuclear power operates in requires much longer term planning than applies for fossil fuel power generation; underestimating concerns for waste streams and fuel storage could significantly impact power station development time lines given the regulatory burden of plan change approvals.

Today's U prices make reprocessing (or alternatives like DMSR or Fast MSR) unattractive only in the short term. Future U prices, or waste taxes, could easily change that dynamic.

jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » Jul 08, 2014 3:03 am

Russia, China and India have closed cycle as their part of nuclear philosophy. Why should not the Koreans be permitted the same? Japan may or may not have given it up due to Fukushima accident. Closed nuclear cycle equals energy security.

NickL
Posts: 27
Joined: Aug 31, 2011 12:41 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by NickL » Jul 09, 2014 9:51 pm

NickL wrote:Today's U prices make reprocessing (or alternatives like DMSR or Fast MSR) unattractive only in the short term. Future U prices, or waste taxes, could easily change that dynamic.
OK. So store it until the dynamic changes, whenever that is.

E Ireland
Posts: 1565
Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by E Ireland » Jul 10, 2014 7:35 am

Dry cask storage does not preclude recycling at some point in the future.

But the longer you store it the cheaper the recycling becomes.

jagdish
Posts: 2304
Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Korean Reprocessing

Post by jagdish » Jul 13, 2014 7:15 pm

An additional stage of long term storage may or may not reduce costs.
A new technology like the fluorex might.
http://www.nr.titech.ac.jp/coe21/eng/ev ... sahira.pdf
There could be chloride volatility in place of fluoride processing. UCl6 and even UCl4 are volatile.

Post Reply