Comparing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options

The comparison of different nuclear fuel cycle options has become an integral element to any analysis of the future prospects for nuclear energy, in the United States and around the world. Concerns for supply security and price volatility of fossil fuels, combined with growing resolve to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, have caused a general shift in attitudes towards nuclear energy. However, there are lingering sustainability concerns for nuclear energy – long term uranium supply and environmental impact – as well as concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Advanced fuel cycles are often considered as a means to address these concerns. Although they can take on many forms, they generally involve the chemical separation of spent nuclear fuel into various constituents, some of which can be recycled into other nuclear reactors and the remainder destined for long term storage or disposal. Like recycling of any commodity, this is designed to reduce the consumption of primary resources, namely uranium, and reduce the quantity (mass, volume or both) and hazard of material destined for disposal in the biosphere. As such, different combinations of technologies are often combined to achieve some combination of these aims. However, as is also true of other commodities, the ability of a given strategy to achieve these aims is not always clear and choosing between different options becomes a matter of policy.