Re:U.S. Reenters the Nuclear Fuel Game
by cyberax on Tuesday November 14, 2023 @09:08PM
(#38272503)
> Isn't not 'burnt' by any reasonable interpretation of the word
It actually is. Spent nuclear fuel goes from 3-5% of U-235 at the start to 0.3% at the end of the fuel campaign. There will also be some fissile plutonium, but not much.
Having just 1/10-th of initial fuel left definitely qualifies as "burnt".
That's also why reprocessing isn't economical right now. You just won't get that much new fuel.
> If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell
That can't physically happen. Nuclear fuel is made of tablets of sintered oxide powders, and they are permeable to gases (helium is the main one produced as a result of fission).
It actually is. Spent nuclear fuel goes from 3-5% of U-235 at the start to 0.3% at the end of the fuel campaign. There will also be some fissile plutonium, but not much.
Having just 1/10-th of initial fuel left definitely qualifies as "burnt".
That's also why reprocessing isn't economical right now. You just won't get that much new fuel.
> If the fuel rods were left in the reactor, they'd probably swell
That can't physically happen. Nuclear fuel is made of tablets of sintered oxide powders, and they are permeable to gases (helium is the main one produced as a result of fission).