Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Cost of HALEU
Executive Summary
The available analyses present a consistent picture: HALEU adds measurable front-end fuel costs compared with conventional LEU, but can deliver operational savings that may offset those costs in advanced reactors and SMRs. A detailed December 2023 production-cost model quantifies HALEU at roughly $23,725/kgU (oxide) and $25,725/kgU (metal) under baseline assumptions, while DOE technical work from mid‑2023 shows variable Levelized Cost of Fuel outcomes depending on fuel cycle and burnup assumptions [1] [2] [3]. Recent deployment studies also highlight system-level pathways to reduce overall reactor project costs that interact with HALEU economics without directly pricing HALEU [4].
1. Why the headline HALEU price numbers matter — and where they come from
A December 2023 cost-model provides the clearest proximate price estimates for HALEU: $23,725 per kilogram of uranium for oxide HALEU and $25,725 per kilogram for metallic HALEU under the report’s baseline economics, with roughly 65% of the HALEU production cost attributed to existing commercial LEU fuel-cycle activities. Those figures are presented as expected production costs rather than market prices and reflect modeling assumptions about enrichment pathways, conversion, and fabrication [1]. The report’s attribution of much cost to LEU-related activities signals that HALEU pricing is tightly tied to the broader uranium fuel market and its existing industrial base [1].
2. DOE technical analysis shows tradeoffs, not a single answer
A mid‑2023 DOE “Pros and Cons” study evaluates HALEU across three example fuel cycles—once‑through, limited recycle, and continuous recycle—and calculates Levelized Cost of Fuel (LCF) for those scenarios. The study finds HALEU can increase front‑end LCF due to security and fabrication complexities but can reduce waste mass and disposal volume and enable higher burnups, making net economics dependent on how much additional burnup is achieved and on R&D that extends burnup or reduces TRISO fabrication costs [2] [3]. The DOE work provides context: HALEU’s economic case is technology‑ and fuel‑cycle‑specific, not a universal cost win or loss [2] [3].
3. SMR analyses argue operational savings can offset HALEU costs
A 2020 case study of NuScale’s SMR concept models the effect of higher enrichment on cycle length and operating economics, finding that extending cycle time via HALEU can reduce plant-level costs. The study reported a $1.23/MWh LCOE reduction from doubling cycle time (24 to 48 months) and estimated roughly $5.84 million in annual savings for a 12‑module SMR if HALEU enables longer cycles [5]. That analysis suggests HALEU’s higher front‑end cost may be recuperated through lower operations and maintenance, fewer refueling outages, and higher capacity factors, but the magnitude depends on reactor design and realistic burnup improvements [5].
4. Recent deployment experience changes the broader cost conversation
A 2024/2025 deployment-focused systems analysis references AP1000 and Vogtle experience to argue supply-chain development can lower costs of new nuclear projects, though it does not price HALEU directly. The completion of large projects despite cost and schedule overruns illustrates that building supply chains and institutional learning can change capital and operating dynamics over time, which in turn affects whether HALEU’s incremental fuel costs are decisive for project economics [4]. This framing flags that HALEU cost must be viewed alongside capital, construction, and regulatory trends rather than in isolation [4].
5. Divergent assumptions drive different conclusions — watch the burnup and fabrication inputs
Across the documents, the principal variables that change conclusions are assumed burnup gains from HALEU, TRISO fabrication costs, security and regulatory add-ons, and whether fuel is oxide or metallic. DOE scenario work and the production-cost model each emphasize these levers: higher burnup reduces waste and fuel mass, but fabrication and security can raise front‑end LCF; oxide versus metal processing changes per‑kg cost [2] [3] [1]. The literature therefore frames HALEU economics as sensitive to technical R&D progress and to policy decisions regarding domestic production incentives and fuel fabrication scale [2] [1].
6. Conflicting agendas and omitted considerations to note
Different reports carry implicit agendas: the December 2023 production model focuses on manufacturing cost drivers and may understate future market price volatility or policy subsidies [1]. DOE technical work aims to inform policy choices and therefore emphasizes both pros and cons, including waste-volume benefits that appeal to waste‑management priorities [2] [3]. The SMR economic study highlights project-level operator savings, which can make HALEU appealing to vendors and utilities even if fuel costs rise [5]. These emphases mean readers should check for omitted topics like availability timelines, transport/security costs, and the potential effects of domestic subsidies or guaranteed purchases.
7. Bottom line for decisionmakers and next steps for clarity
For procurement or policy choices, the combined evidence means expect HALEU to cost materially more per kilogram than typical LEU, but not necessarily to raise electricity costs if reactors achieve meaningful operational gains; the decisive factors are burnup improvements, fabrication economies of scale, and broader supply‑chain learning. Policymakers and project financiers should therefore demand transparent, scenario‑based LCF and system LCOE analyses that explicitly vary HALEU per‑kg prices, burnup, and fabrication cost trajectories to see when HALEU yields net economic benefit [1] [2] [5].