The Energy Blog

An Update on Uranium Reprocessing

A March 22 article "Recycling uranium and plutonium: where's it heading?" on the Nuclear Engineering International website explores the status of uranium recycling and its future.

Programs for the recycling of plutonium were developed in the 1970s when it appeared that uranium would be in scarce supply and would become increasingly expensive. It was originally proposed that plutonium would be recycled through fast breeder reactors, that is, reactors with a uranium ‘blanket’ but which would produce slightly more plutonium than they consume. Thus it was envisaged that the world’s ‘low cost’ uranium resources, then estimated to be sufficient for only 50 years’ consumption, could be extended for hundreds of years.  . . .

As things transpired, the pressure on uranium resources was very much less than expected and prices remained low in the period up to 2003.  . . .

Revived interest in nuclear power in the 21st Century, as a clean air solution which contributes to world sustainable development, is encouraging the development of new materials and technologies. In addition, the substantial rise in uranium prices since 2003 and the difficulties with commissioning waste repositories have prompted the beginning of a revaluation of recycling.  . . .

Nuclear Power: A Change for the Better

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush shared his opinions on nuclear power in the Ocala, Fl  Star Banner:

"Change" seems to be the operative word this election season. It's on the lips of political contenders and on the minds of the voters. But politics isn't the only arena where change is in the air. Change is happening in the world of energy as well, specifically when it comes to nuclear energy.

Against the backdrop of a larger discussion about how we will meet our future energy demand while keeping our environment clean, nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance. Americans are beginning to shed the emotional debate about nuclear energy and are taking a practical look at why it is essential to meeting our future energy demand.

They like what they see. The support for nuclear energy is diverse. It's one of the few issues in Washington, D.C., these days that feels bipartisan. Even former naysayers are coming around to the merits of nuclear.

There are now 104 nuclear power reactors in the United States that are safely producing 20 percent of the nation's electricity - notably, without producing any of the harmful greenhouse gases some believe to be a major factor in climate change. Americans are beginning to recognize that nuclear energy caters to both our lifestyle and our greening mentality. And it offers the most proven means for our country to achieve much needed energy security.

EPRI, INL Announce Plan Focused on Near-Term Increase in Nuclear Energy Production

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory (INL) today announced the public release of a joint INL/Nuclear Power Industry Strategic Plan for Light Water Reactor (LWR) Research and Development.

More evidence that the nuclear energy renaissance is coming is indicated in this announcement. What I thought was a discrepancy between two statements in the press release, one stating that the first strategy is to efficiently construct and operate dozens of new nuclear power plants, starting in the next several years and that to do this (these) strategies will require significant investment in research and development. The Plan actually states:

"A consensus has emerged (between DOE and NRC) that we are probably adequately prepared for modest growth in nuclear energy, but poorly prepared for large scale expansion."

which clarifies there actual stance. This announcement appears to be nothing more than a continuation of R&D on LWRs which the government had nearly dropped and now feels necessary to continue, and makes the case that the nuclear industry

requires the active engagement and leadership of the Federal Government in a number of strategic areas where industry cannot succeed on its own.

This amounts to another subsidy of the nuclear industry, which may or may not be justified (see pages 3-6 of the Plan for their justification). Their justification relies highly on the fact that only the government has the facilities to conduct the research. But is it fair for the government to pay for the research? The governmenent needs to maintain its role of watchdog over the industry, but to this extent? In any event, I remain convinced that nuclear energy will play a major role in development of a reduced CO2 emissions power industry.

Do We Need Yucca Mountain?

The referenced post, by the World Nuclear Association, presents one view on the need for Yucca Mountain and nuclear fuel recycling as stated by NEG.

Would Yucca Mountain, the nation’s planned repository 90 miles outside Las Vegas, be expected to store the nuclear waste?

Not necessarily, came the answer.

The chief executive of the firm submitting the first nuclear power application in nearly 30 years for a pair of plants in south Texas said that as far as he’s concerned, the waste can stay on the company’s 12,200-acre site for the next century.

“There’s plenty of room to store our own waste,” said David Crane, president and chiefs.executive of NEG Energy Inc.

Later he told reporters: “Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation.”

. . . more

This scenario could not be applied to everyone, but it is in effect what is happening to U.S. waste now. What do you think the answer is? and I don't mean to stop building nuclear plants or too use more conservation efforts. In my opinion they are the best solution, in the interim, until renewable power can provide all the incremental power needed to meet our incremental power needs and to replace aging coal plants. Disposal of waste is by far the greatest question facing nuclear plants.

Shell CEO Presents Two Scenarios For the Future of Energy

The chief executive of Shell has posted this article on Shell's new energy scenarios. I was made aware of it by The Oil Drum, who first posted it at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3548 and I thought it was worth repeating for your comments. They had a large number, 153, of mostly very insightful comments at the time of this posting. 

The article supports the peak oil theory, as I envision it. They defined it as the time that easy accessible oil will no longer be able to keep up with demand, their estimate being 2015.  I interpret that as meaning that heavy oil, as in the tar sands of Canada and the heavy oil in Venezuela, and oil shale are not significant sources of oil by 2015 and that their addition will cause significant increases in the price of oil which will have an effect on demand. The exact date is not that important, but it is meaningful that they predict a relatively near date, within the next 10 years.

They also predict that A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen.  I think they underemphasize this important factor in reducing our consumption of oil, and believe that hydrogen will not play that important a role. I think a very aggressive development of PHEVs, EVs and biofuels combined with North Americas' (USA, Mexico and Canada) remaining reserves of oil should be able to supply all our needs to power our vehicles and have some expensive oil left over to export to other countries before 2100, hopefully by 2050.

The statements that more nuclear power will be required and that carbon capture and sequesteration (CCS) must be required on coal powered power plants in all developed countries are right in line with my thinking.  In the interim period, until renewable power can replace all aging nuclear and coal powered plants, these power sources will be required, no matter how much power is saved by increased efficiency in the home and in industry. From the economic point of view nuclear power has the clear advantage over coal when CCS is required on coal plants. However there is opposition to nuclear in some quarters and will be as long as the threats of proliferation and problems with waste disposal remain issues.  To me the ideal situation would be thorium fueled plants with fuel recycling.  However it will be a very long time before there is any consensus on that.

The complete text of the article, as appears on the Shell website, is given below. The bold facing is mine.

Two Energy Futures

* By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place. Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Construction on First Westinghouse AP1000 to Begin in China in March

It has been announced that construction is to start on China's first Westinghouse AP1000 reactor in March. The first of four similar units, it could be online in 2013.

in July 2007 the Chinese ordered four AP1000's, two to be built at Sanmen and two at Haiyang. These are the first orders ever placed for Generation III+ reactors, with the potential to take China into a nuclear technology leadership role over the coming years.

Under a subcontract with Westinghouse, Doosan of Korea will supply reactor vessels, steam generators and integrated head assemblies for the four reactors.

The AP1000 technology is an "advanced passive" pressurized water reactor approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but it has never been actually used in any operating power plant.

Noted in Passing: Supply Hitches, Demand to Power Uranium Prices

Uranium, a silvery white metallic element used as the basic fuel for nuclear power, is trading at $93 per pound on the spot market this week, compared with just $7 in 2000.  . . .

Nuclear now accounts for 16 percent of the world's energy consumption electricity generated and this share is likely to increase if reactor building firms such as Westinghouse meet their order books.  . . .

A total of 439 reactors are now operating, while another 33 are under construction, 94 are planned (mostly expected to be in operation within eight years) and 222 more are proposed, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA) web site.  . . . more

EPR, Euopean's First Generation III+ Nuclear Reactor

According to AFP, Agence France-Presse, site preparation is already underway and in two months, workers in Flamanville, France will pour the first concrete for the EPR, or European Pressurized Reactor, the first generation III+ reactor currently under construction touted as the safest and cleanest addition to France's network of 58 nuclear reactors.

It is a PWR (pressurized water reactor) in the 1,600 MW class. PWR technology represents 56% of the world’s operational nuclear capacity (205 million kW out of a total of 368 - as of Dec. 31 2005).

The EPR is based on the most recent technologies: the French N4 reactors in operation at Chooz and Civaux Nuclear Power Plants and the Konvoi reactors in operation in Germany. It benefits from over thirty years' operating feedback from nuclear power plants. AREVA has built around 100 nuclear reactors in 11 countries, representing almost 30% of the total installed nuclear power capacity worldwide.

The first EPR already under construction in Olkiluoto, Finland is scheduled to start commercial operation in 2009.

Contract Awarded to Study Recycling of Nuclear Waste

From an AREVA press release:

The International Nuclear Recycling Alliance (INRA) – led by AREVA (Paris, EPA:CEI) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and including Japan Nuclear Fuel Limited; Washington Group International; BWX Technologies, Inc.; and Battelle -- has been awarded a contract with the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate closing the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S., through the development of a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. The contract was awarded within the framework of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

GNEP seeks to close the nuclear fuel cycle by recycling used fuel in ways that both minimize proliferation risks and reduce the volume and toxicity of final waste residues. Closing the fuel cycle would conserve uranium resources and enhance energy security.

Under the terms of the contract, INRA will provide three major studies:

• Technology development roadmaps analyzing the technology needed to achieve GNEP goals;
• Business plans showing methods for the development and commercialization of advanced GNEP technologies and facilities;
• Conceptual design studies for the nuclear fuel recycling center and the advanced recycling reactor.

The nuclear fuel recycling center would have two functions: the treatment of used fuel to separate it into recyclable, energy-producing components and final waste materials, and the manufacture of nuclear fuel from the recyclable components of the used fuel. The advanced recycling reactor will be fueled with materials recovered from used reactor fuel. The reactor will transform some of these radioactive materials into a more easily manageable waste form while producing energy.

In my mind it is inevitable that nuclear power will play an ever increasing role in meeting our electrical energy needs. As indicated in a previous post, NRG is leading the way with the first application to build a plant in 30 years, with a construction time almost as short as for a clean coal plant. Recycling of nuclear waste, rather than storage which is the current proposal seems to offer the advantage of recycling the waste as well as being a safer method that minimizes the risk of proliferation. Yucca mountain seems to be locked up in endless battles for approval, not that any method will not have its difficulties. No method will meet the approval of everyone, but we must have a viable method for treating our nuclear waste and recycling is my choice.

NRG to Build First Nuclear Plants in Thirty Years

On Monday NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG) and South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) filed the first application for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COLA) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)in nearly 30 years. NRG proposes to build and operate two new nuclear units at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear power station site. The total rated capacity of the new units, STP 3 and 4, will equal or exceed 2,700 megawatts (MWs).

NRG has chosen Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) technology for the new units to be built at the STP site. The 12,220-acre site and 7,000-acre cooling reservoir were originally designed for four units. The two new units will be built adjacent to the currently operating STP units 1 and 2. ABWR technology is certified by the NRC and has an impressive construction and operational track record. This includes setting world records for construction time and bringing the units in on budget.

Four ABWR units have been successfully commissioned in Japan, with another three units under construction in Taiwan and Japan. The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Inc. has more than a decade of experience in ABWR operations and has provided their expertise to supporting STP’s planned two-unit expansion.