Analysis of the Reuse of Uranium Recovered from the Reprocessing of Commercial LWR Spent Fuel
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report provides an analysis of the factors involved in the reuse of uranium recovered from commercial light-water-reactor (LWR) spent fuels (1) by reenrichment and recycling as fuel to LWRs and/or (2) by recycling directly as fuel to heavy-water-reactors (HWRs), such as the CANDU (registered trade name for the Canadian Deuterium Uranium Reactor). Reuse is an attractive alternative to the current Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) baseline plan, which stores the reprocessed uranium (RU) for an uncertain future or attempts to dispose of it as 'greater-than-Class C' waste. Considering that the open fuel cycle currently deployed in the United States already creates a huge excess quantity of depleted uranium, the closed fuel cycle should enable the recycle of the major components of spent fuel, such as the uranium and the hazardous, long-lived transuranic (TRU) actinides, as well as the managed disposal of fission product wastes. Compared with the GNEP baseline scenario, the reuse of RU in the uranium fuel cycle has a number of potential advantages: (1) avoidance of purchase costs of 11-20% of the natural uranium feed; (2) avoidance of disposal costs for a large majority of the volume of spent fuel that is reprocessed; (3) avoidance of disposal costs for a portion of the depleted uranium from the enrichment step; (4) depending on the {sup 235}U assay of the RU, possible avoidance of separative work costs; and (5) a significant increase in the production of {sup 238}Pu due to the presence of {sup 236}U, which benefits somewhat the transmutation value of the plutonium and also provides some proliferation resistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it