DAVID HESS | OPINION


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


For reprocessing it is a different story. Not many


countries choose to reprocess their used nuclear fuel today and instead opt for the once through ‘open’ nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessors in-chief are of course Russia and France, home to the only commercial-scale reprocessing centres to offer services internationally. Then there is Japan, which eventually intends to restart its own reprocessing facility, but in the meantime uses the capacity of others. The UK was previously host to a reprocessing facility, but this ceased operations in 2022. China and India currently maintain small domestic demonstration programmes. As for customers – those without any intention to


reprocess but which use international providers – at the moment there is the Netherlands… and that seems to be it. A few decades ago, many more countries used reprocessing services including Belgium, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, but these all underwent policy shifts to interim storage and direct disposal. There are many reasons for this, not least of which being anti-nuclear politics in these countries, which saw them flirt with, or even complete nuclear phase outs. A country that intends to end nuclear energy production has no need to recycle fuel.


Another significant factor has surely been the persistently low and historically stable uranium price. While there have certainly been spikes in the uranium market, prices have typically returned towards a long-term minimum within a couple of years. The length of time it would take to change the national fuel cycle policy would probably take longer than the fuel price movement. It is a fact that for conventional reactors reprocessing adds substantial near-term cost to nuclear fuel, with any savings (if any) only realised nearer the point of disposal. This means that countries prioritising the affordability of nuclear energy over (theoretical) long-term security are likely to eschew it. Energy market deregulation has likely also contributed to the trend away from reprocessing. But if you were to take part in an international nuclear


waste conference today you will quickly learn that reprocessing is very much back in vogue. Most notably, it has reappeared on the US political agenda. The country which for many years frowned upon the practise internationally and which banned or otherwise refused to build its own national facility is now back on the reprocessing bandwagon. Several of Trump’s executive orders explicitly support the development of US reprocessing capacity and specifically via a commercial approach. Companies such as Oklo, Curio, and SHINE are pushing to make this a reality. These are


not pursuing the established PUREX process, but rather ‘advanced’ proprietary alternatives that have been either developed in-house or spun out of US national laboratories. Will reprocessing make the greatest comeback ever and


eventually dominate the global nuclear fuel cycle? We will have to wait and see. Despite the current advanced nuclear hype there are reasons to be sceptical, as this would defy the current global trend. Certain previous efforts to establish these facilities have encountered significant technical and economic hurdles, delayed by decades and costing billions more than expected. And, while receiving less attention, there are exciting developments taking place in enrichment too. Most exciting of course is the progress being made with laser enrichment, with recent news of GLE achieving TRL6 and initiating licensing at its Paducah facility. Laser enrichment offers the potential of yet another step change in the efficiency of a process that has levelled-up once already. Centrifuges also continue to see design improvement. While it doesn’t get much love, the humble centrifuge is a remarkable contraption that has done more to improve the efficiency and sustainability of nuclear energy than most people realise. Put in simple terms, there is nothing inevitable about a closed fuel cycle, plutonium economy future. While progress in recycling is exciting and bears watching, it should be compared alongside progress in enrichment and the front-end of the fuel cycle. This does not even touch upon uranium mining, where there is also intriguing potential for step-change improvements – for example through recovery from seawater. Complicating this narrative of competition between enrichment and reprocessing is that two of the major international nuclear fuel cycle companies own and operate both types of facilities. Orano and Rosatom probably do not perceive competition here. But on the enrichment side there are also some ‘pure plays’ – including URENCO, Centrus and GLE. These companies must stare at the reprocessors warily, secure for now but wondering what the future will bring. There is a strategic reason why Cameco, a pure play uranium miner is co-owner of a start-up laser enrichment undertaking While generally collegial, the nuclear industry


competes with itself as surely as it does with other energy technologies. The competition between the front end and the back end of the fuel cycle, and especially between enrichment and reprocessing is unknown to most industry outsiders but is what very well may end up determining the shape of the future nuclear energy landscape. ■


There is nothing inevitable about a closed fuel cycle, plutonium economy future. While progress in recycling is exciting and bears watching, it should be compared alongside progress in enrichment


www.neimagazine.com | November 2025 | 13


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