Nuclear Power

Introduction
Nuclear power is generated using Uranium, which is a metal mined in various parts of the world.
The first large-scale nuclear power station opened at Calder Hall in Cumbria, England, in 1956.
Some military ships and submarines have nuclear power plants for engines.
Nuclear power produces around 11% of the world's energy needs, and produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel, without the pollution that you'd get from burning fossil fuels.
How it works:
The main bit to remember:

Nuclear power stations work in pretty much the same way as fossil fuel-burning stations, except that a "chain reaction" inside a nuclear reactor makes the heat instead.
The reactor uses Uranium rods as fuel, and the heat is generated by nuclear fission: neutrons smash into the nucleus of the uranium atoms, which split roughly in half and release energy in the form of heat.
Carbon dioxide gas or water is pumped through the reactor to take the heat away, this then heats water to make steam.
The steam drives turbines which drive generators.
Video clip: Nuclear reactor
Modern nuclear power stations use the same type of turbines and generators as conventional power stations.
In Britain, nuclear power stations are often built on the coast, and use sea water for cooling the steam ready to be pumped round again. This means that they don't have the huge "cooling towers" seen at other power stations.
The reactor is controlled with "control rods", made of boron, which absorb neutrons. When the rods are lowered into the reactor, they absorb more neutrons and the fission process slows down. To generate more power, the rods are raised and more neutrons can crash into uranium atoms.

More:
Natural uranium is only 0.7% "uranium-235", which is the type of uranium that undergoes fission in this type of reactor.
The rest is U-238, which just sits there getting in the way. Modern reactors use "enriched" uranium fuel, which has a higher proportion of U-235.
The fuel arrives encased in metal tubes, which are lowered into the reactor whilst it's running, using a special crane sealed onto the top of the reactor.
With an AGR or Magnox station, carbon dioxide gas is blown through the reactor to carry the heat away. Carbon dioxide is chosen because it is a very good coolant, able to carry a great deal of heat energy. It also helps to reduce any fire risk in the reactor (it's around 600 degrees Celsius in there) and it doesn't turn into anything nasty (well, nothing long-lived and nasty) when it's bombarded with neutrons.
window.google_render_ad();
You have to be very careful about the materials you use to build reactors - some materials will turn into horrible things in that environment. If a piece of metal in the reactor pressure vessel turns brittle and snaps, you're probably in trouble - once the reactor has been built and started you can't go in there to fix anything..
Uranium itself isn't particularly radioactive, so when the fuel rods arrive at the power station they can be handled using thin plastic gloves. A rod can last for several years before it needs replacing.It's when the "spent" fuel rods are taken out of the reactor that you need the full remote-control robot arms and Homer Simpson equipment.

Should I worry about nuclear power?
Nuclear power stations are not atomic bombs waiting to go off, and are not prone to "meltdowns". There is a lot of U-238 in there slowing things down - you need a high concentration of U-235 to make a bomb. If the reactor gets too hot, the control rods are lowered in and it cools down.If that doesn't work, there are sets of emergency control rods that automatically drop in and shut the reactor down completely.
With reactors in the UK, the computers will shut the reactor down automatically if things get out of hand (unless engineers intervene within a set time). At Chernobyl, in Ukraine, they did not have such a sophisticated system, indeed they over-rode the automatic systems they did have. When they got it wrong, the reactor overheated, melted and the excessive pressure blew out the containment system before they could stop it. Then, with the coolant gone, there was a serious fire. Many people lost their lives trying to sort out the mess. A quick web search will tell you more about this, including companies who operate tours of the site.
If something does go wrong in a really big way, much of the world could be affected - some radioactive dust (called "fallout") from the Chernobyl accident landed in the UK. That's travelled a long way.
With AGR reactors (the most common type in Britain) there are additional safety systems, such as flooding the reactor with nitrogen and/or water to absorb all the neutrons - although the water option means that reactor can never be restarted.
So should I worry? I think the answer is "so long as things are being done properly, I don't need to worry too much. The bit that does worry me is the small amount of high-level nuclear waste from power stations. Although there's not much of it, it's very, very dangerous and we have no way to deal with it apart from bury it and wait for a few thousand years...

There are many different opinions about nuclear power, and it strikes me that most of the people who protest about it don't have any idea what they're talking about. But please make up your own mind, find out as much as you can, and if someone tries to get you to believe their opinion ask yourself "what's in it for them?"

Advantages

• Nuclear power costs about the same as coal, so it's not expensive to make.
• Does not produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.
• Produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel.
• Produces small amounts of waste.
• Nuclear power is reliable.

Disadvantages

• Although not much waste is produced, it is very, very dangerous. It must be sealed up and buried for many thousands of years to allow the radioactivity to die away. For all that time it must be kept safe from earthquakes, flooding, terrorists and everything else. This is difficult.
• Nuclear power is reliable, but a lot of money has to be spent on safety - if it does go wrong, a nuclear accident can be a major disaster. People are increasingly concerned about this - in the 1990's nuclear power was the fastest-growing source of power in much of the world. In 2005 it was the second slowest-growing.

Nuclear Power in the USA

1. The USA has over 100 nuclear reactors providing almost 20% of its electricity. These have a high level of performance.
   
2. With deregulation, both ownership and operation of these is becoming concentrated.
   
3. Extension of reactor lifetimes from 40 to 60 years is enhancing the economic competitiveness of plants.
   
4. The industry envisages substantial new nuclear capacity by 2020 and several regulatory initiatives are preparing the way for new orders.

The USA in 2006 generated 4260 billion kWh of electricity, half of it from coal-fired plant, 19% from nuclear, 19% from gas and 7% from hydro. Total capacity is 1076 GWe. Annual per capita electricity consumption is 12,300 kWh. In 2007 the 104 US nuclear power reactors generated a record 806.5 billion kWh and achieved an average 91.8% capacity factor.
US annual electricity demand is projected to increase from 4300 billion kWh today to 5000 billion kWh in 2030.

Background

The USA was a pioneer of nuclear power development*. Westinghouse designed the first fully commercial pressurised water reactor (PWR) of 250 MWe, Yankee Rowe, which started up in 1960 and operated to 1992. Meanwhile the boiling water reactor (BWR) was developed by the Argonne National Laboratory, and the first commercial plant, Dresden-1 of 250 MWe designed by General Electric, was started up in 1960. A prototype BWR, Vallecitos, ran from 1957 to 1963.
* The first nuclear reactor in the world to produce electricity (albeit a trivial amount) was the small Experimental Breeder reactor (EBR-1) in Idaho, which started up in December 1951. In 1953 President Eisenhower proposed his "Atoms for Peace" program, which reoriented significant research effort towards electricity generation and set the course for civil nuclear energy development in the USA. The Mark 1 naval reactor of 1953 led to the US Atomic Energy Commission building the 60 MWe Shippingport demonstration PWR reactor in Pennsylvania, which started up in 1957 and operated until 1982.
By the end of the 1960s, orders were being placed for PWR and BWR reactor units of more than 1000 MWe, and a major construction program got under way. These remain practically the only types built commercially in the USA*. Nuclear developments in USA suffered a major setback after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, though that actually validated the very conservative design principles of western reactors, and no-one was injured or exposed to harmful radiation. Many orders and projects were cancelled or suspended, and the nuclear construction industry went into the doldrums for two decades. Nevertheless, by 1990 over one hundred commercial power reactors had been commissioned.
* Fort St Vrain was a 300 MWe high-temperature gas-cooled reactor operating 1976-89.

Operationally, from the 1970s the US nuclear industry dramatically improved its safety and operational performance, and by the start of this decade it was among world leaders, with average net capacity factor over 90% and all safety indicators exceeding targets. Nuclear share of total electricity was 781 billion kWh in 2005, just under 20% of total.
This performance was achieved as the US industry continued deregulation, begun with passage of the Energy Policy Act in 1992. Changes accelerated after 1998, including mergers and acquisitions affecting the ownership and management of nuclear power plants. Further industry consolidation is likely.
Today the importance of nuclear power in USA is geopolitical as much as economic, reducing dependency on imported oil and gas. The operational cost of nuclear power - 1.66 c/kWh in 2006 - is slightly lower than that from coal and much lower than from gas.
From 1992 to 2005 some 270,000 MWe of new gas-fired plant was built, and only 14,000 MWe of new nuclear and coal-fired capacity came on line. But coal and nuclear supply 70% of US electricity and provide price stability. While investment in these two technologies almost disappeared, unsustainable demands were placed on gas supplies and prices quadrupled, forcing large industrial users of it offshore and pushing gas-fired electricity costs towards 10c/kWh.
The reason for investment being predominantly in gas-fired plant was that it offered the lowest investment risk. Several uncertainties inhibited investment in capital-intensive new coal and nuclear technologies. One third of US generating capacity is over 30 years old, and major investment is also required in transmission infrastructure. This creates an energy investment crisis which was recognised in Washington, along with an increasing bipartisan consensus on the strategic importance and clean air benefits of nuclear power in the energy mix.
The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to start about 2010, with operation in 2014.
In February 2007 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported that it saw a need for 64 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity in the USA by 2030 - 24 GWe of it by 2020, with nuclear representing some 25.5% of output by 2030.
After 20 years of steady decline, government R&D funding for nuclear energy is being revived with the objective of rebuilding US leadership in nuclear technology. In 1997 nuclear fission R&D was, at US$ 37 million, lower than in France, South Korea, or Canada - only 2% of total energy R&D, which compared pathetically with 68% (US$ 2537 million) of a much larger budget in Japan. From the 1999 budget, this situation has been turned around with various programs including the flagship Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and also Plant Optimisation. The first 45 NERI grants were awarded in 1999, signalling a reinvigoration of the federal role in nuclear research, following successful conclusion of the advanced reactor program in 1998.
For FY 2008 (from October 2007) the Department of Energy is seeking $875 million for its nuclear energy programs. . The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for closing the fuel cycle and supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would receive $395 million of this and Generation-IV R&D would get $36 million, chiefly for the very high temperature reactor. The Nuclear Power 2010 program aimed at early deployment of advanced reactors would get $114 million.
For US nuclear plant data, see Nuclear Energy Institute web site, nuclear statistics section.


Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)

In February 2006 the US government announced a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) through which it "will work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to produce more energy, reduce waste and minimise proliferation concerns. Additionally, these partner nations will develop a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of abundant sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost-effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities, also alleviating proliferation concerns." This is seen as a commercial and procedural complement to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1970, but which also addresses global warming concerns.
GNEP goals include reducing US dependence on imported fossil fuels, and building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the USA. Two significant new elements in the strategy are new reprocessing technologies which separate all transuranic elements together (and not plutonium on its own) Ð starting with the UREX+ process, and Advanced Burner (fast) Reactors to consume the result of this while generating power.
The US Department of Energy offered $20 million for siting studies for used fuel reprocessing facilities which will be built under GNEP and as of end of 2006 thirteen sites were under consideration.
In January 2007 the DOE announced a new strategic plan for GNEP initiatives, including preparation of an environmental impact statement. It will assess three facilities: a fuel recycling centre including reprocessing and fuel fabrication plants, a fast reactor which will burn the actinide-based fuel and transmute transuranic elements, and an advanced fuel cycle research facility. DOE envisages the first two being industry-led initiatives.
The international component of GNEP means that these first two facilities need to be operating by about 2020 so that fuel services can commence as an inducement for other countries not to build enrichment and reprocessing plants. There is a mid 2008 target for proceeding with these. GNEP involves fresh fuel supply and used fuel take-back by the USA, as well as by Japan and Russia. The plan also involves developing and deploying advanced proliferation-resistant reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries, together with enhanced safeguards.
Encouraged by the response to GNEP, DOE proposed a two phase development for fuel recycling. In the near term it will deploy Areva's COEX process on a commercial scale. Then, after further R&D, the Urex+ process which will collect all transuranic elements (including plutonium) together for burning in an advanced burner (fast neutron) reactor. Wastes from the latter process would comprise only fission products, and thus be shorter-lived and easier to accommodate in a repository. In particular, the Yucca Mountain repository could accommodate US high-level wastes for the rest of the century rather than filling up in a decade. (See also later section Reprocessing Used Fuel, and GNEP web site.
In October 2007 DOE awarded $16 million to four industry consortia for studies to progress GNEP. The largest share of this, $5.6 million, went to the International Nuclear Recycling Alliance (INRA) led by Areva and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), with Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd (JNFL), Battelle, BWX Technologies (now Babcock & Wilcox Company) and Washington Group International. INRA was contracted to provide three major studies: technology development roadmaps analyzing the technology needed to achieve GNEP goals, business plans for the development and commercialization of the advanced GNEP technologies and facilities, and conceptual design studies for the fuel recycling centre and advanced recycling reactor. Areva and JNFL will focus on the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Centre, a reprocessing plant (which will not separate pure plutonium), and MHI on the Advanced Recycling Reactor, a fast reactor which will burn actinides with uranium and plutonium. These are the two main technological innovations involved with GNEP. In this connection MHI has also set up Mitsubishi FBR Systems (MFBR). INRA appears to have materialized out of a September 2007 agreement between Areva and JNFL to collaborate on reprocessing. Its contract with DOE was extended in April 2008.
The nuclear power industry is keen to see a permanent geological repository in operation, but also supports complementary long-term interim storage of used fuel and also development of advanced fuel processing technologies to close the nuclear fuel cycle. The latter include commercial reprocessing using proliferation-resistant technologies and development of fast reactors to consume actinides arising from this.
Internationally, the countries identified by DOE as likely participants in GNEP at both enrichment and recycling ends are the USA, UK, France, Russia and Japan. The USA and Japan have agreed to develop by May 2007 a nuclear energy cooperation plan centered on GNEP and the construction of new nuclear power plants. (Japan also intends to participate in DOE's FutureGen clean coal project.) A US-French agreement centered on GNEP is being developed, and one with Russia is in place.

Uranium resources and mining

The USA ranks equal fourth in the world for known uranium resources in the category up to $130/kgU ($50/lb U3O8), with 342,000 tU (reasonably assured plus inferred resources, 2005). Exploration expenditure more than doubled in 2007 from 2006 to $50.3 million.
In the 1950s, the USA had a great deal of uranium mining, promoted by federal subsidies. Peak production since 1970 was 16,800 tU in 1980, when there were over 250 mines in operation. This number abruptly dropped to 50 in 1984 when 5700 tU was produced, and then there was steady decline to 2003, with most US uranium requirements being imported. By 2003 there were only two small operations producing a total of under 1000 tU/yr.
Most US production has been from New Mexico and Wyoming. Known resources are 167,000 t U3O8 in Wyoming, 155,000 t in New Mexico, 2000 t in Texas and around 50,000 t in Utah, Colorado and Arizona, all to $50/lb. Production potential is about 45% in situ leach (ISL), 55% conventional mining. Uranium from earth
Production from one mill (White Mesa, Utah) and five ISL operations totalled 1583 tU (1866 t U3O8) in 2006, and 1748 tU (2061 t U3O8) in 2007 (EIA May 2008).
Cameco's US subsidiary Power Resources Inc operates the Smith Ranch-Highland mine in Wyoming and the Crow Butte mine in Nebraska, both of them ISL operations, and producing 786 and 281 tonnes U respectively in 2006 from total reserves of 12,000 tU (15,000 t U3O8). The US company is now known as Cameco Resources and is aiming to increase production from these mines and adjacent properties to 1770 tU/yr by 2011.
Uranium Resources Inc commenced production from its Vasquez ISL mine in 2004 at about 50 tU/yr and from Kingsville Dome in 2006 at 150 tU/yr, both in south Texas. Vasquez peaked in 2006 and is now largely depleted (30 tU in 2007). Mestena Uranium's Alta Mesa ISL plant in southern Texas is also operational. Uranium Energy Corp has been granted preliminary approval to mine its Goliard ISL project in south Texas. It has 2100 tU measured and indicated resources which are NI 43-101 compliant.
Conventional (non-ISL) uranium mining in is set to resume after some years (though Cotter Corp. produced 38 tonnes U through its 400 t/day Canon City mill, Colorado in 2005). Denison Mines expects to produce up to 650 tU in 2008 through its 2000 t/day White Mesa mill in southeastern Utah, from its own and purchased ore, as well as doing some toll milling.
Denison is opening the first of its Uravan Mineral Belt mines on the Colorado Plateau containing 2100 tU in placer deposits plus vanadium co-product (Uravan = uranium + vanadium). Its Henry Mountains mines in Utah including Tony M and Bullfrog have 9250 tU. All these are within 160 km of White Mesa mill. It has begun production from Colorado Plateau and Tony M mines. It is spending $13 million on mill refurbishment, $10 million on old mines and then $35 million on the adjacent new Bullfrog mine preparing for a late 2009 start. It also plans to start reopening its four mines in the Arizona Strip in 2008, along with some new deposits there, though all these are some 500 km from White Mesa mill.
In 2007, Denison operated four mines in the Colorado Plateau area: Topaz, Pandora, West Sunday and Sunday/St. Jude. The last three are mature operating mines with extensive underground workings, while the Topaz mine is relatively new. Two further old mines are scheduled for reopening in 2008: Rim and Beaver, which require significant refurbishing to produce some 30 tU/yr. A third mine, Van 4, will be in production in early 2009.
Toronto-based Uranium One in 2007 bought US Energy's 1000 t/day Shootaring Canyon mill in southeast Utah and associated properties in four contiguous states for $50 million plus royalties. US Energy had been planning to bring the mill back into production at a cost of $31 million. Uranium One had also secured the right to buy Rio Tinto's 3000 t/day Sweetwater uranium mill and associated uranium properties in south-central Wyoming for $110 million, but in January 2007 Rio Tinto cancelled the deal.
Uranium One, through wholly-owned Energy Metals Corporation, is refurbishing the small Hobson plant in southern Texas which has been shut since 1991. It produced about 130 tU/yr for previous owner Energy Metals Corporation but will have 380 t/yr capacity from 2008, recovered from loaded resin trucked there from the La Palangana ISL mine.
In Wyoming the company has plans for 900 tU/yr production from three mines in the Powder River basin from 2009 (Moore Ranch, Peterson Ranch, Nine Mile) and 900 tU/yr from Antelope in the Great Divide basin from 2010. In 2007 it announced a toll "milling" arrangement with Cameco for recovery of up to 540 tU per year at Smith Ranch-Highland mill. This will be from loaded resin trucked to the plant, initially from Moore Ranch. It has some 4000 tU as measured resources (2235 t at Moore Ranch) and 23,000 tU as indicated resources in the state.
Energy Fuels Resources Corp (subsidiary of Energy Fuels Inc of Toronto) has applied to reopen former uranium-vanadium mines in the Uravan mineral belt in western Colorado. It lists Whirlwind (including Packrat, Bonanza and La Sal) as a near-term project with NI 43-101 indicated and inferred resource of 1390 tU. Tenderfoot Mesa is adjacent. EFRC's nearby Energy Queen mine in Utah is being refurbished for 2008 reopening.
Areva's Cogema Mining Inc has applied to reopen the Christensen Ranch ISL mine in Wyoming, which will have 250 tU/yr capacity from about 2008.
American Uranium Co in joint venture with Strathmore Minerals based in Canada has announced a NI 43-101 measured and indicated resource of 2865 tU @ 0.065% for Reno Creek and 1360 tU @ 0.068% for Southwest Reno Creek in Wyoming, suitable for ISL. This is 30 km southeast of Christiansen Ranch and 50 km north of Cameco's Smith Ranch.
Uranium Energy Corp in 2007 bought the New River Uranium Project in Arizona with a historic resource estimate of 5000 tU in shallow low-grade ore.
Uranium Resources Inc in 2007 sought to buy Rio Algom Mining, with uranium properties and a licensed mill site at Ambrosia Lake in New Mexico, where it planned to construct a new mill to serve the Grants mineral belt. However, the deal was aborted in mid 2008. URI subsidiary Hydro Resources Inc was licensed in 1994 to mine the Crownpoint and Church Rock ISL deposits in New Mexico, and after years of opposition the licence was validated by NRC in 2006.
Yellowcake Mining Corp reports 5000 tU reserves at its planned Beck mine in the Uravan area of Colorado and agreed in May 2008 to sell a 50% stake in it to Korea Electric Power Corp (KEPCO). The company also has joint ventures with Strathmore Minerals for Juniper Ridge and a Gas Hills prospect in Wyoming.
Strathmore Minerals is working towards bringing its Gas Hills properties in Wyoming into production, though it has only historical resource figures for most of these. It also has projects in the Grants mineral district in New Mexico, including another Church Rock prospect with 4570 tU as NI 43-101 compliant measured and indicated resources.
Powertech Uranium Corp is proposing to develop two ISL mines: Centennial in northern Colorado, and Dewey Burdock in South Dakota - in each case very close to the Wyoming border. Centennial has 3750 tU and Dewey Burdock almost 3000 tU, both as NI 43-101 compliant inferred resources.
Bluerock Resources has shipped the first ore from development of the J-Bird mine in Colorado to Denison's White Mesa mill in Utah.

Fuel Cycle

There is now 14,000 tU/yr conversion capacity at the Honeywell-ConverDyn Metropolis plant.
For enrichment, the USA's 104 operating reactors require 12.7 million SWU per year, almost half of which currently comes from Russian high-enriched uranium. There is 8 million SWU/yr capacity at USEC's Paducah, Kentucky plant - the remaining one of two large diffusion plants commissioned in the mid 1950s. These represented the major US government involvement in the nuclear industry until USEC's privatisation in 1998. The Paducah plant has an electricity supply contract with TVA to 2012, and is likely to close then if its replacement at Piketon, Ohio is on schedule.
The National Enrichment Facility is a major centrifuge enrichment plant under construction at Eunice, New Mexico. This $1.5 billion plant uses 6th generation Urenco technology from Europe, and was planned by the Louisiana Energy Services partnership - comprising Urenco, Exelon, Duke Power, Entergy, and Westinghouse. Construction was licensed by NRC in mid 2006 and as agreed the three utilities then passed their share to Urenco which now wholly owns LES. Utility support for the venture - now amounting to $3.15 billion in orders - has been crucial in persuading NRC that further US enrichment capacity is required beyond that provided and envisaged by USEC.
First production is expected in 2008, with full capacity of 3 million SWU/yr being reached in 2013. The new plant will be a major step forward in underwriting new US nuclear generating capacity and in ensuring security of fuel supply, with flexibility of operation enabling more energy input to produce more fuel from the same natural uranium feed if required.
Then in April 2007 the NRC licensed construction and operation of USEC's American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio. It is now expected to cost around $3.5 billion, utilising existing infrastructure, though a firmer cost figure will be confirmed by mid 2008. The American Centrifuge technology has been developed over many years by USEC, based on earlier work by the Department of Energy. The plant will be on the same Portsmouth site where the DOE's experimental plant operated in the 1980s, involving 1300 centrifuges as the culmination of a very major R&D program. It is also the site of USEC's large Portsmouth diffusion plant which is now closed. The Lead Cascade producing uranium of the desired specification started operation in September 2007 and the test program with it will refine the design of the AC100 centrifuge machines (which are much larger than the Urenco centrifuges). By the end of 2008 USEC hopes to have a cascade with 30-40 machines installed, and begin testing them in 2009.
The full plant was expected to commence commercial operation by the end of 2009 and ramp up to 3.8 million SWU annual capacity in 2012, but this schedule has evidently slipped considerably. It will use only 5% of the power of the old diffusion plant it replaces. The licence authorises 7 million SWU/yr enrichment up to 10% U-235, though normal levels today are only up to 5%, which is becoming a serious constraint as reactor fuel burnup increases.
In mid 2007 Areva Inc told the NRC that it was also proposing to build a new 3 million SWU/yr $2 billion centrifuge plant in the USA to supply domestic enrichment services. It expects to submit a licence application during 2008 with a view to operation in 2014, ramping up to full capacity in 2019. It is to be a smaller version of Areva's new French plant and built at Idaho Falls, near DOE's Idaho National Laboratory.
In 2006 Silex Systems in Australia and GE Energy received US government approval for development in the USA of the SILEX uranium enrichment process using laser technology. This approval clears the way for development and eventual full commercial production under a licence agreement signed in May. GE (now GE-Hitachi, GEH) will fund the development and has already paid US$ 20 million as the first of a series of payments. It will then pay a royalty on revenues from commercial production. GE said that "commercialisation of the SILEX enrichment technology is a crucial part of GE's long-term growth strategy for the nuclear business." SILEX has been rebadged as Global Laser Enrichment (GLE).
In October 2007 the two largest US nuclear utilities, Exelon and Entergy, signed letters of intent to contract for uranium enrichment services from GEH. The utilities may also provide GEH with facility licensing and public acceptance support if needed for development of a commercial-scale GLE plant, for which the NRC expects a licence application in FY08, ie by October 2008. GEH has begun preparing a GLE test loop at Global Nuclear Fuel's Wilmington, North Carolina fuel fabrication facility - GNF is a partnership of GE, Toshiba, and Hitachi. Before moving ahead with full-scale production plans, GEH will first evaluate results of the testing, select a location for the proposed commercial plant and obtain a license to build and operate it. Preparations for commercial licensing at Wilmington, North Carolina, are now under way with a view to start-up date of 2012, with capacity of 3.5 to 6 million separative work units (SWU).
Fuel fabrication occurs at six plants operated by Westinghouse, Areva NC and GEH, with total capacity over 4000 t/yr.
In December 2007 the USA and Russia agreed to relax US import restrictions to the extent of specified quantities of low-enriched uranium. These are trivial initially but jump to 485 tonnes enriched U in 2014 after the program importing blended-down Russian military material expires. This is enough to refuel nearly one fifth of present US nuclear plants. By defining uranium enrichment as a service, not a good, a US court in 2006 opened the way to ending years of protection from Russian and EU imports.
Military surplus
The US government earlier declared 174 tonnes of military high-enriched uranium (HEU) to be surplus and available for civil power generation. A start has been made on downblending this by Nuclear Fuel Services in Tennessee, and the first fuel fabricated from it has been shipped to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) power plants.
In 2008 DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA )was negotiating with TVA to release a further 21 tonnes of HEU under the program, which would yield about 250 tonnes of LEU, some of which might be sold to other utilities.
In June 2007 the NNSA awarded contracts to Wesdyne International and Nuclear Fuel Services to downblend 17.4 tonnes of HEU from dismantled warheads to be part of a new international Reliable Fuel Supply program. NFS will dilute the material in Tennessee to yield some 290 tonnes of low-enriched uranium (4.95% U-235) by 2010. Wesdyne, the prime contractor, will then store the LEU at the Westinghouse fuel fabrication plant in South Carolina to be available for the Reliable Fuel Supply program - an international fuel reserve. It will be available for use in civilian reactors by nations in good standing with the International Atomic Energy Agency that have good nonproliferation credentials and are not pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies. The fuel - worth some $1 billion at current prices - would be sold at the current market price. To cover the cost of the project, Wesdyne will sell a small part of the LEU on the market over a three to four year period. (The scheme is consistent with international concerns to limit the spread of enrichment technology to countries without well established nuclear fuel cycles. Russia has agreed to join the initiative.)
NNSA in 2005 announced that it was committing about 40 tonnes of off-specification HEU to the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium (BLEU) program. This material would be used by TVA.