Reusing nuclear fuel ‘could cut costs of new power stations’

Download document:

A low carbon nuclear future: Economic assessment of nuclear materials and spent nuclear fuel management in the UK - .PDF file.

Reusing Britain’s spent nuclear fuel could cut more than £5bn off the costs of new power stations, according to a new report.

Former chief scientific adviser Sir David King yesterday urged the government to treat used nuclear fuel stocks as a resource, because the net costs of recycling them would be much less than safely disposing of them and using new fuel.

Adopting a more holistic strategy to nuclear material would tackle concerns over the security of energy supply, rising oil prices and safety issues, according to the report by King and Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

‘The renaissance in new nuclear build creates an advantageous way of using these legacy materials as fuel for new nuclear power plants,’ said King.

‘Despite the terrible events in Japan, the economic, safety and carbon case for a new-build programme in the UK has never been stronger.

‘Our report evaluates scenarios that would reduce cost to the taxpayer and create billions of pounds of economic opportunity through new skills and jobs, as well as reducing carbon emissions and increasing energy security and safety.

‘The potential benefits of examining nuclear materials and spent fuel stocks as a potential asset and managing these alongside new-build reactors, through an all-encompassing UK nuclear power policy, are clarified through this investigation.’


The UK has a stock of separated plutonium that is expected to reach 100 tonnes in coming years, as well as uranium and 6,000 tonnes of heavy metal produced by advanced gas reactors (AGRs). Current policy is to store this fuel until it can be disposed of after 2075.

But last month, the government began a consultation on the management of plutonium stocks, and a Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) spokesperson told The Engineer that reusing spent fuel was one of the preferred options being considered.

‘There are currently no final plans for how the UK’s plutonium should be managed in the long term. That is why we are consulting to develop a coherent and comprehensive plan for dealing with the issue,’ said the spokesperson.

‘As part of this exercise, we are keen to assess all the options for affordability, deliverability, value for money, safety and security.’


Spent nuclear fuel has not been reused in the past because some elements of it are so difficult to deal with that the whole process has been considered uneconomical, said Paul Norman from Birmingham University’s Centre for Nuclear Education and Research.

‘It is typically better not to reuse some of the material in spent fuel, as it can be expensive to get it into the right state to reuse and… some of the waste arising from it… inhibits the chain reactions — making the reactor a bit less effective,’ he said.

Recycling the UK’s plutonium — the biggest civil stocks in the world — would make good sense and offer great potential savings, but would require a decision from high up in the government, added Norman.

The Smith School report looked at a number of scenarios, contrasting the high costs of storing and disposing of new and future waste against the higher costs of building and running recycling plants and the gains made from selling the fuel.

It found that recycling the plutonium and uranium and the continued reprocessing of spent AGR fuel from domestic and foreign sources would provide cumulative net costs that were more than £5bn less than treating the spent fuel as waste.

This scenario would involve building a new metal oxide (MOX) plant to treat the plutonium and refurbishing the UK’s existing thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) at Sellafield to reprocess the AGR fuel.

It would also have the greatest dependence on commercial arrangements and so carry the greatest commercial risk, as well as needing a strategic reason for contracting reprocessing services to UK and overseas companies.


While France has successfully manufactured MOX fuel, the UK’s experience has been much less positive, according to the government’s consultation document. The Sellafield MOX plant has produced less than three per cent of its target fuel amount.

‘However, any new MOX plant will be developed in light of the design and operational lessons drawn from these differing experiences overseas and in the UK,’ said the consultation document.

Despite criticisms of the Sellafield plant, there is positive feeling towards the technology and the report has been welcomed by organisations including the CBI and the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC).

Dr Brian Carter, environmental sciences programme manager at the RSC, said the report’s recommendations would go a long way to addressing the problems of security supply and waste disposal.

‘The technology outlined in the report will enable the UK to be self-sufficient in fuel for nuclear power for at least the next 60 years, leading to an improvement in the security of energy supply for the country,’ he added.

‘In addition, the recommendations in the report, if implemented, could lead to a £10bn boost in the economy of the north west of the UK, while creating around 45,000 new high-tech jobs over the next 20–30 years.’