Skip to main content
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Is plutonium really necessary

Conference ·
OSTI ID:7320375
Not all activities associated with nuclear power contribute equally to proliferation potential, but some fuel-cycle activities (i.e., reprocessing) are considered too dangerous to be permitted in non-weapons countries. This paper assesses the feasibility of keeping Pu out of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is pointed out that there is no technical necessity of using Pu as nuclear fuel so long as /sup 235/U is available. Analysis of the economics of recycling spent fuel products in LWRs in the U.S. shows that the net economic benefit of recycle is uncertain and might even be negative; it will have an insignificant effect on the cost of nuclear power. It is argued that reprocessing of spent fuel be deferred until recycle in LWRs can be shown to yield economic benefits sufficiently large to compensate for the risks, or the viability of the breeder as an important commercial source of power has been demonstrated. According to the low estimate of U requirements, the world would have enough U resources well into the 21st century, although if the high estimate is used, the world would exhaust its reserves by the year 2000. Evidence indicates that nuclear power will grow more slowly than the forecasts of the nuclear advocates. Thus, there may be no need for an early decision to undertake recycling, and research on breeder development can proceed at a slower rate. (DLC)
Research Organization:
Pan Heuristics, Los Angeles, CA (USA)
OSTI ID:
7320375
Report Number(s):
CONF-7605150-1
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English