Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

You can understand it, with the expense of keeping all that manufacturing equipment for one plant’s fuel, but still–the Russians? Couldn’t they get it from us?

One thing is certain: if the American nuclear industry doesn’t immediately forget any illusions that it is special and start acting like an industry, they’ll stagnate just like they have over the past 35 years.
The nuclear industry outside of Russia is the only industry in the world to respond to a great opportunity for growth by screaming “SLOW DOWN!” Well, guess what. You’re never going to have everything you need to be perfect, and your suppliers that you so often complain about move at the normal speed for private industry–meaning a complete turnaround in two years is not unheard of–instead of yours. Don’t worry about them. Get the orders, start innovating, and the workers will come as soon as there are jobs for them.

Remember: if not for Chernobyl–meaning, if they had banned the RBMK in 1950 like we did, and if the Soviet military hadn’t tried to build power plants out of their bomb factories–the Russian nuclear industry would have a perfect safety record. They do have much better financial and management performance. There are lessons to be learned from the Russians; they’re getting these orders for a reason.
And if you don’t get going, the Russians are going to come over here, get the VVER-1000 certified by the NRC, and build a fleet. Do you really want that?

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

They’ve hired some consultants to do a comparison of the major available reactor designs.

I disagree with the Society of Energy Professionals, however, and fully expect that McKinsey will rate AECL’s Canadian nuclear technology near the bottom. The current designs remove the CANDU’s traditional commercial advantages and are competitive only if there is a requirement to consume American-style reactors’ waste–which Canada doesn’t have. They could build a fleet down here, but in places without a lot of LWR waste, they might as well just build fast breeders.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 1 Comment »

As of May 31.

USEC has also committed to keeping Paducah open for another five years. The American Centrifuge Plant will not be fully operational until at least 2012; they say it will start enriching uranium in 2009.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, New Build

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They say it’s “incoherent.” And it is; that’s the sad part.

The report does not make any concrete proposals. It recommends that more committees be set up and the issue discussed, saying that the British government is moving too fast.
That’s right: telling the British government to slow down. It’s difficult to think of a recommendation that lacks initiative to a greater degree.

They also are fixed on geologic disposal and do not seem to be interested in processing beyond the existing PUREX-and-storage instead of recycling or beneficial use of fission products. That’s a terrible mistake; these materials can be useful and shouldn’t be dumped.

Filed under Applications, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

The Mars Science Laboratory will carry a device known as a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) that converts the heat given off when radiation is absorbed by metal into electricity, with no moving parts.
All that’s required is a piece of radioactive material, sealed up inside metal or ceramic, and a thermocouple. The result is a lot of electricity from a small device that takes care of itself, for as long as the material is radioactive (a slight problem being the fact that the longer the material is radioactive, the less radioactive it actually is–materials that are chosen are the best combinations of time and activity, like plutonium-238 or the “nuclear waste” substance strontium-90). See a post from July 2005 for more.

It apparently wasn’t discussed very loudly until recently for political reasons, given the Moon-hoax-theorist level of ignorance surrounding the last major RTG mission, Cassini.

Filed under Applications, Energy, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

$50 million has been approved by a House committee for an IAEA program to guarantee nuclear fuel to countries that waive their right to fuel cycle facilities. There are a number of things wrong with the concept, however:

1. There’s nothing wrong with fuel cycle facilties, and there are ways to determine whether a dual-use facility (one that can theoretically be used for civilian or military applications) is being used for peaceful purposes. The problem is not the presence of the facilities; it is excess capacity at those facilities. Giving them long-term customers–nuclear power plants–is the only reliable way to ensure that they aren’t used by the military. They can also be designed to not be able to handle weapons-grade material, or more advanced fuel cycles can be used that don’t require enrichment or plutonium recovery. This program codifies the idea that reprocessing is plutonium recovery, which it usually is, but doesn’t have to be. It does not in any way weaken nonproliferation efforts to draw a distinction between them, and actually strengthens them by removing an excuse to have a dual-use facility.
2. Taking existing military facilities and using them for peaceful purposes is a good thing. This program would ask countries to entirely dismantle them.
3. Countries opt for nuclear power largely for security reasons. Gas can be cut off and start causing blackouts within a few hours–but nuclear reactors can be run for up to two years without refueling, so there is no point to cutting off nuclear fuel shipments as a political negotiating tactic. Requiring countries to give up their “stash” of unused fuel and mandating that they maintain a “good record” with an international community dominated by radiophobe politicians or lose their fuel shipments erodes the independence provided by nuclear power. More here.

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, International, Iran, Proliferation, Security and Terrorism

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Swedish regulators (who are possibly even less rational than the NRC) ordered a work stoppage effective June 21 (?) for paperwork violations (”failure to provide sufficient evidence” and “insufficient methods”).

Notice how no actual problems are involved.

Link.

Filed under International, Nitpicking, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Diversification is good, eh?

Link.

Filed under Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance, International

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

An Australian indigenous group has volunteered a part of their land as a low- and intermediate-level waste repository (read: for rubber gloves and used reactor parts, respectively).

Do you think they’ll stop using the “environmental racism” argument? Don’t hold your breath.

Link.

Filed under Environment, International, Perception, Sustainability, Waste

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

The Department of Energy has 28,000 tons of uranium left over from enrichment, which, one would think, should be auctioned. Dumping it into the market could lower the price of uranium and affect the viability of new mines, more efficient reactors, and recycling technology.

USEC, however, wants it all for free. Anti-nuclear groups want it called “nuclear waste” and dumped in Yucca Mountain instead of used. Quite predictable.

Incidentally, this article is probably the first I’ve read by the New York Times’ resident nuclear illiterate that doesn’t contain major factual errors.

Link.

Filed under Economics, Fuel Cycle, Industry Performance

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »