Editing Nuclear reprocessing (section)

== Economics ==
The relative economics of reprocessing-waste disposal and interim storage-direct disposal was the focus of much debate over the first decade of the 2000s. Studies<ref>{{cite web
 |url         = http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4536700.pdf
 |title       = Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis
 |publisher   = Idaho National Laboratory, United States Department of Energy
 |access-date  = 19 December 2010
|url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20111128060259/http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4536700.pdf
 |archive-date = 28 November 2011}}</ref>
have modeled the total fuel cycle costs of a reprocessing-recycling system based on one-time recycling of plutonium in existing [[thermal reactor]]s (as opposed to the proposed [[breeder reactor]] cycle) and compare this to the total costs of an open fuel cycle with direct disposal. The range of results produced by these studies is very wide, but all agreed that under then-current economic conditions the reprocessing-recycle option is the more costly one.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfccr.html|title=Recycled Nuclear Fuel Cost Calculator|website=www.wise-uranium.org|access-date=4 April 2018|archive-date=16 April 2013|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130416055108/http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfccr.html|url-status=live}}</ref> While the [[uranium market]] - particularly its short term fluctuations - has only a minor impact on the cost of electricity from nuclear power, long-term trends in the uranium market ''do'' significantly affect the economics of nuclear reprocessing.  If uranium prices were to rise and remain consistently high, "stretching the fuel supply" via MOX fuel, breeder reactors or even the [[thorium fuel cycle]] could become more attractive.  However, if uranium prices remain low, reprocessing will remain less attractive.{{citation needed|date=May 2022}}

If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40&nbsp;years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%,<ref>{{cite web
 | url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/how/wastemanag.html
 | title= Waste Management and Disposal
 | publisher= [[World Nuclear Association]]
 | access-date= 3 May 2008
 | archive-date= 27 February 2013
 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130227083958/http://world-nuclear.org/how/wastemanag.html
 | url-status= live
 }}</ref> though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html |publisher=World Nuclear Association |title=Radioactive Wastes: Myths and Realities |date=June 2006 |access-date=3 May 2008 |archive-date=2 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130302080054/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html |url-status=live }}</ref> However the level of [[transuranic element]]s, including [[plutonium-239]], remains high for over 100,000 years, so if not reused as nuclear fuel, then those elements need secure disposal because of [[nuclear proliferation]] reasons as well as radiation hazard.

On 25 October 2011 a commission of the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission revealed during a meeting calculations about the costs of recycling nuclear fuel for power generation. These costs could be twice the costs of direct geological disposal of spent fuel: the cost of extracting plutonium and handling spent fuel was estimated at 1.98 to 2.14 yen per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. Discarding the spent fuel as waste would cost only 1 to 1.35 yen per kilowatt-hour.<ref>NHK-world (26 October 2011) [http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_12.html Nuclear fuel recycling costs] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110810181931/http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/26_12.html |date=10 August 2011 }}</ref><ref>JAIF (26 October 2011) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130510210349/http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_images/pdf/ENGNEWS01_1319605053P.pdf Nuclear fuel recycling costs]</ref>

In July 2004 Japanese newspapers reported that the Japanese Government had estimated the costs of disposing radioactive waste, contradicting claims four months earlier that no such estimates had been made. The cost of non-reprocessing options was estimated to be between a quarter and a third ($5.5–7.9&nbsp;billion) of the cost of reprocessing ($24.7&nbsp;billion). At the end of the year 2011 it became clear that Masaya Yasui, who had been director of the Nuclear Power Policy Planning Division in 2004, had instructed his subordinate in April 2004 to conceal the data. The fact that the data were deliberately concealed obliged the ministry to re-investigate the case and to reconsider whether to punish the officials involved.<ref>{{cite news|title=Cover-up of estimated costs to dispose of radioactive waste raises serious questions|url=http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2012/01/japanese_mislead_about_sp.html|access-date=8 January 2012|newspaper=The Mainichi Daily News|date=2 January 2012|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227121506/http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2012/01/japanese_mislead_about_sp.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Mycle|first=Schneider|title=Japanese mislead about spent fuel reprocessing costs|date=2 January 2012|url=http://www.fissilematerials.org/blog/2012/01/japanese_mislead_about_sp.html|publisher=International Panel on Fissile Materials|access-date=8 January 2012|archive-date=27 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227121506/http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2012/01/japanese_mislead_about_sp.html|url-status=live}}</ref>