OPINION | DAVID HESS
Enrichment Vs reprocessing
There is a secret battle taking place between enrichment and reprocessing. It may very well determine the shape of tomorrow’s nuclear sector.
David Hess, Senior VP DeepGeo
O MOST PEOPLE IT MUST appear that the nuclear industry is primarily driven by reactors, and that the future nuclear energy landscape will ultimately be shaped by the ongoing competition unfolding between reactor technologies today. This seems to be
the understanding behind much of the investor interest we see in the sector at the moment, with companies such as Oklo enjoying sky-high valuations, despite not currently generating any sales revenue. More fundamental than reactor technology, however, it is developments in the nuclear fuel cycle that will arguably determine which advanced reactor designs ever see the light of day and, if so, by when. This is perhaps most evident in the scramble for HALEU and TRISO, which many of the advanced designs require, but it extends far beyond this.
©Alexy Kovynev
Known to comparatively few, there is competition in the fuel cycle as well, with the two ends – the front end and the back end – essentially vying for dominance. Two parts stand out, in particular, as rivals, with evolutions in one influencing the demand for the other. These rivals are enrichment and reprocessing. Enrichment and reprocessing facilities occupy similar niches in the front and back end respectively. Both are considered proliferation sensitive and therefore ‘accepted’ by the powers-that-be to operate in only a limited number of countries. Both are long-lived, capital-intensive industrial assets with high production capability – meaning that even one facility can potentially supply a significant fraction of global demand. This leads naturally to heavily centralised production and fuel security considerations. Furthermore, both introduce much needed flexibility into the fuel cycle and can help to prevent runaway movements in the price of fuel. In the case of enrichment there is the ability to ‘underfeed’ and ‘overfeed’ fresh uranium input, and the possibility to re-enrich depleted uranium tails. Reprocessing, on the other hand, unlocks the potential to recover un-fissioned uranium and plutonium, and to recycle this into MOX or other fuel types. It also allows for the co- recovery of valuable exotic radioisotopes that may find uses in industry or medicine. Economically these facilities compete, so that if
reprocessing and plutonium-based fuels were to become more widely established, then the demand for uranium enrichment would, all things being equal, reduce. This reduction could become very significant in a world dominated by fast reactors – the so-called plutonium economy. In this world, reprocessing facilities would in fact become the single most important part of the nuclear fuel cycle, capturing most of its value. At the moment, enrichment has the upper hand in this
“We will get you rich and we will get you sustainable!” 12 | November 2025 |
www.neimagazine.com
tussle, as basically all countries need it for their reactors or largely choose to use it (for the PHWRs out there). Ever since the last gaseous diffusion enrichment plant was shut down and centrifuges took over this market segment, enrichment has arguably become cost-effective and highly reliable.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
