Watching brief on advanced fuel cycles – 2019 update

However, the NWMO recommended keeping a watching brief on the status of the technology internationally, and the potential for change in the fuel cycle in Canada. [...] In particular: » In the United States, after the decision to stop the Yucca Mountain repository licence application, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) conducted in 2010 and 2011 an extensive review of available options and technologies for management of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States. [...] This is because the footprint is governed by the total thermal output of the waste, not by its total volume, and the thermal output of the wastes are primarily driven by how much power has been produced regardless of the fuel cycle. [...] » Although RP&T has the potential to reduce the volume of used nuclear fuel and high-level waste for placement in a deep geological repository, it also significantly increases the quantity of long-lived intermediate-level waste (which also requires a deep repository for long-term management) and does not significantly reduce the underground footprint of the repository. [...] » Based on the current cost of uranium, the life cycle cost of advanced fuel cycles is higher than once-through fuel cycle, due to the costs of developing and constructing the new generation reactors, reprocessing facilities and fuel fabrication plants.