Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry.
Showing posts with label Nuclear fuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear fuel. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Mitsubishi to produce nuclear fuel in US with AREVA




http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Mitsubishi_to_produce_nuclear_fuel_in_US_with_AREVA_999.html Tokyo (AFP) Dec 14, 2010 Japan's Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Co. said Tuesday it had established a 50-50 venture in the United States with French industrial group AREVA to produce nuclear fuel for pressurised water reactors. The new company, named US Nuclear Fuel and located in AREVA's plant in Richland, Washington state, aims to start production in the second half of this decade, Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel said in a press release.
Seventy percent of Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel is owned by the Mitsubishi group and 30 percent by AREVA.
US Nuclear Fuel will produce fuel for advanced pressurised water reactors to be supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to nuclear power plants in the United States, the statement said.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Mitsubishi to produce nuclear fuel in US with AREVA




http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Mitsubishi_to_produce_nuclear_fuel_in_US_with_AREVA_999.html Tokyo (AFP) Dec 14, 2010 Japan's Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Co. said Tuesday it had established a 50-50 venture in the United States with French industrial group AREVA to produce nuclear fuel for pressurised water reactors. The new company, named US Nuclear Fuel and located in AREVA's plant in Richland, Washington state, aims to start production in the second half of this decade, Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel said in a press release.
Seventy percent of Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel is owned by the Mitsubishi group and 30 percent by AREVA.
US Nuclear Fuel will produce fuel for advanced pressurised water reactors to be supplied by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to nuclear power plants in the United States, the statement said.
earlier related report
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, November 19, 2010

Analysis: China's nuclear program boosts uranium producers

(Reuters) - After weathering a tough third quarter, Canada's uranium producers are looking at much brighter prospects as their shares surge, spot uranium prices jump and growing demand for nuclear fuel pushes expansion into overdrive.
Not surprisingly, China is driving the underlying trend. Its ambitious program of building nuclear power plants promises double-digit growth in demand for uranium, a trend that should benefit Canada's established producers and juniors alike.
In addition, the Asian superpower could prompt a round of mergers and acquisitions as it looks for ways to control the supply of uranium needed to feed its fleet of reactors.
Global uranium demand is expected to grow 32 percent by 2015, according to RBC Capital Markets, a forecast that already has share prices climbing. More at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AH5ZK20101118
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Iran says nuclear swap must be based on Brazil-Turkey deal



http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=247854211242866212 Tehran (AFP) Nov 3, 2010 Iran said on Wednesday that any nuclear fuel swap with the major powers must be based on an agreement it signed with Brazil and Turkey, dismissing reports a revised proposal was on the table. "If the Vienna group is ready for negotiation over the fuel swap... it would be based only on the framework defined in the Tehran Declaration," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state news agency IRNA.
Mottaki was reacting to reports that the six major powers which have been seeking to allay international concerns over Iran's nuclear programme have been drawing up a new fuel swap deal to replace one proposed last year.
Under the deal drafted in October last year by the UN nuclear watchdog, Iran would have received fuel for a medical research reactor in Tehran from France and Russia in return for shipping out most of its stockpiles of low enriched uranium.
After a prolonged stalemate over the proposal, Brazil and Turkey brokered a modified agreement in May but the United States rejected it, arguing it failed to take into account additional uranium enriched in the meantime and led the Security Council in imposing a fourth package of UN sanctions.
Last month, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said any new fuel swap deal would be more onerous than the one on the table last year as Iran needed to be accountable for its persistent defiance of Security Council ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment.
"In order to live up to the responsibilities that they have made and to lift any sanctions, they would have great responsibilities," Gibbs said on October 28.
"The responsibilities get greater each and every day even as the sanctions impact their economy more and more."
Gibbs spoke after the New York Times reported that Washington and its European allies were preparing a new, more onerous offer for Iran than the one proposed last year.
The new offer would require Iran to send more than 4,400 pounds (1,995 kilogrammes) of low enriched uranium out of the country, an increase of more than two-thirds from the amount required under the deal proposed last year.
Iran and the major powers are set to hold fresh nuclear talks later this month after a year-long hiatus. The world powers want the talks to focus on Iran's overall nuclear programme.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

TVEL signs package of Chinese fuel contracts

TVEL signs package of Chinese fuel contractshttp://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-TVEL_signs_package_of_Chinese_fuel_contracts-0211108.html

Signing ceremony (Image: TVEL)Russian nuclear fuel company TVEL has signed a package of contracts which will see it supply nuclear fuel, fuel production technology and zirconium fuel components to China. The contracts relate to the Tianwan nuclear power plant.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, October 29, 2010

Russia joins list of countries keen to supply nuclear plants to SA

Russia’s State atomic energy corporation, Rosatom, is providing South Africa’s Department of Energy with briefings on the latest generation of Russian nuclear power plants. The first such briefing took place in August, in Moscow, and the second should occur in Pretoria, probably before the end of this year.
The intention is that the second briefing will take place after the finalisation of South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan 2010 (IRP 2010), which was issued in draft form earlier this month. Although the period for comment on the IRP2010 is likely to be extended, government still wants it to be finalised before the end of the year.
The IRP2010 identifies the country’s power generation options for the next 20 years. One of these is nuclear, and Russia wants to be one of the bidders for South Africa’s next nuclear power plant.
The Russian nuclear industry learned a great deal from the Chernobyl catastrophe in the Ukraine in the then Soviet Union, in 1986. As a result, modern Russian nuclear power reactors have multiple protection systems.
Since then, the Russians have focused their attention, like France and the US, on pressurised water reactors (PWRs) – abbreviated as VVER in Russian. According to the US Energy Information Administration, an American government agency, today’s VVER designs “conform to international standards”.
Russia is offering South Africa the latest generation of its VVER-1000 reactor in the AES-91/99 nuclear power plant design. (The Russians have separate designations for reactors and for the nuclear power plants). In 2003, the AES-91/99 design (including the reactor) was certified as complying with European Union standards by Finnish experts. The AES-91/99 uses the latest version – V-466 – of the VVER-1000 reactor (VVER-1000/466 for short). But other options are available. More at:


http://www.pimagazine-asia.com/index.php?page=shownews&news=2828
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

State panel to debate nuclear power

State lawmakers are set Tuesday to discuss whether nuclear power should play a larger part in California's future, but the issue is already creating political fission at the Capitol.
The state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday morning to hear from experts. Others scheduled to testify include representatives of Southern California Edison, co-owner of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and PG&E, operator of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), chairman of the committee, noted that California already gets 15% of its electricity from nuclear power, although tough restrictions mean no nuclear power plant has been constructed in more than three decades in California.
"Nuclear energy has seemed to have had a resurgence in terms of conversation," Padilla said. "I'm not shy about having that conversation."
Padilla said he is neutral on the issue of whether new nuclear plants should be allowed in California, adding that "a hearing is a first step in responsibly considering that."
However, David Weisman of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility complained that the hearing lineup appeared stacked in favor of those who support expanded nuclear power in California and that opposition groups like his own are not on the agenda.
"Essentially what they are doing here is re-creating a private nuclear-industry promotional forum that was held in La Jolla last year," Weisman said of the senate hearing. "It's entirely one-sided." More at:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/10/state-panel-to-debate-nuclear-power.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Argentina to join small group of uranium-enriching countries

CIVIL NUCLEAR
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Argentina_to_join_small_group_of_uranium-enriching_countries_999.html


Buenos Aires (AFP) Oct 25, 2010 Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner Monday rededicated a uranium enrichment plant in southern province of Rio Negro, saying that next year Argentina would join the group of 10 countries producing the fuel for peaceful use. "In November 11, a first sample of enriched uranium will be obtained, at which point, Argentina will join the group of 10 countries producing enriched uranium" for peaceful ends, Kirchner said.
The same plant was used to produce enriched uranium from 1982 to 1983 but then closed because of lower international prices, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 and unfavorable public opinion, officials said.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Iran has 30 kg of high level uranium: atomic chief

ran said on Wednesday it has produced around 30 kilogrammes of 20 percent-enriched uranium, in defiance of UN sanctions imposed on Tehran to suspend the contentious nuclear work. "We have produced nearly 30 kilogrammes (66 pounds) of 20 percent enriched uranium so far," Iran's atomic chief Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted as saying by ISNA news agency.
World powers led by Washington want Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment activity, which is at the centre of fears that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons.
Enriched uranium can be used as fuel to power nuclear reactors as well as to make the fissile core of an atom bomb.
World powers backed new UN sanctions against Iran on June 9 after they were infuriated by Tehran's decision to enrich uranium to 20 percent, which theoretically brings it closer to the 90 percent purity used to make a nuclear weapon. Iran denies its atomic programme is aimed at making weapons.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered Iran's atomic body in February to start refining uranium to 20 percent after a nuclear fuel swap deal drafted by the UN atomic watchdog and aimed at providing fuel for a Tehran research reactor hit a deadlock.
Iran claims that by September 2011 it will domestically produce the required fuel and the actual fuel plates to power the reactor.
Western powers say that the Islamic republic does not possess the technology to make the plates.
Meanwhile, Iran and the group of six world powers -- Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States -- are to hold talks on Tehran's overall nuclear programme in mid-November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 11, 2010

SKB Ready To Apply For Permits To Build Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository

SKB Ready To Apply For Permits To Build Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository

Aerial photo of the site investigation area in Forsmark.

Stockholm, Sweden (SPX) Oct 08, 2010 The Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKB) has submitted its latest RD and D programme to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Based on the programme SKB now has the knowledge to submit the applications to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark. SKB plans to submit the applications in March 2011. According to the Swedish Nuclear Activities Act, SKB and its owners are required to present the knowledge and research status within the nuclear fuel area every third year.
"We are pleased to say that, after more than 30 years of research and development, SKB will now complete the applications for permits to build a final repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, north of Stockholm," says Claes Thegerstrom, CEO, SKB.
The research programme involves a systematic review of the present situation and future plans within all areas where SKB is conducting research and technical development.
The now developed methodology for safety analysis allows SKB to demonstrate that we can fulfill the authorities highly set safety requirements. The programme is currently focusing on getting a deeper understanding of the natural changes that may occur in a geological repository in the long-term.
The plans for management and disposal of the low- and intermediate level waste are being developed and detailed in the Fud-programme 2010, which was requested in the authorities' review of the Fud-programme in 2007.
Among other activities SKB is planning to submit the applications to expand the capacity of the existing final repository for short-lived radioactive waste, SFR, by 2013. The extended facility is expected to become operational in 2020.
"Based on all the scientific and technical work that has been compiled over the years, we can now take the next step in the Swedish nuclear waste programme. SKB will, however, continue its work on research and development. The management of spent nuclear fuel will continue to be conducted with the best knowledge even in the future," Claes Thegerstrom finishes.
SKB is planning to submit its applications to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and the Environmental Court in March 2011. Dependant upon a positive outcome from the review of the applications the construction of the nuclear fuel repository can be started in 2015, with an estimated start of disposal operations by 2025.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Belgian consortium announces nuclear fuel deal with China

Belgian consortium announces nuclear fuel deal with China
Brussels (AFP) Oct 7, 2010 - A Belgian consortium said on Thursday that it had signed an outline agreement to make nuclear fuel in China for civil power generation. The deal concerns construction of "a pilot installation for MOX fuel fabrication in China and for the use of MOX fuel in Chinese nuclear reactors." It said that the agreement could lead quite quickly to "a commercial agreement including technology transf ... morehttp://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/Belgian_consortium_announces_nuclear_fuel_deal_with_China_999.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

New Kind of Uranium Could Power Your Car Nuclear power may go portable with this new form of uranium.

Study: New uranium compound holds nuclear, petroleum breakthroughs
A form of uranium discovered by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory may be utilized as a safer and less expensive nuclear fuel. The new molecule also draws a greater amount of energy from fossil fuels. "Actinide nitrides are candidate nuclear fuels of the future. But they can also break carbon-hydrogen bonds, which are very strong," said Jaqueline Kiplinger, one of the scientists involved in the study. Discover
yhttp://news.discovery.com/tech/uranium-nuclear-power.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Russian-Ukrainian engineering venture planned

Russian-Ukrainian engineering venture planned
05 October 2010
Ukraine's national electricity generator Energoatom has agreed to establish a consortium to locally produce equipment for Ukrainian nuclear power plants with AtomEnergoMash (AEM) - part of the Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom.
 
The agreement was reached today in Moscow during a meeting of the Russian-Ukrainian working group on cooperation in nuclear engineering, Atomenergomash announced. The meeting was attended by Vladimir Kashchenko, director general of AEM, and Vladimir Pyshniy, Energoatom's vice president for maintenance and plant equipment.

During the meeting, the working group discussed a query by Ukrainian power engineering companies as to their participation in the local manufacture of equipment for the completion of units 3 and 4 of the Khmelnitsky nuclear power plant, as well as further joint projects in Ukraine.

The working group agreed to establish the new consortium, which would be responsible for establishing domestic production of nuclear power plant equipment, including for the Khmelnitsky project. The final documents for setting up the consortium are set to be signed at the next meeting of the working group, scheduled for later this month.

In June, Russia and Ukraine signed an intergovernmental agreement on the resumption of work on the two partially built reactors at Khmelnitsky. Russia is to provide financing for the amount required to design, construct and commission the two reactors, including for payments for services and goods supplied by Russia. Any components supplied from Ukraine for the project would be financed from the Ukrainian budget.

Construction of Khmelnitsky 3 began in September 1985, while that of unit 4 started in June 1986. Work on the two units stopped in 1990 when they were 75% and 28% complete, respectively.

The Ukrainian government envisages finalizing the project in 2011 and approving the design for the new units in 2011. Construction of unit 3 should be completed in 2014 and the reactor should be commissioned in 2015. Unit 4 is expected to be completed in 2015 and commissioned the following years. Russia's AtomStroyExport won a tender in 2008 to construct two AES-92 plants with V-392B reactors at Khmelnitsky, similar to the two VVERs already operating on the site.

In June 2007, Russia and Ukraine signed a protocol of intent on cooperation between their respective nuclear power companies. Under that agreement, the nuclear energy agencies of the two countries were to develop cooperation in providing scientific and technical support to the nuclear energy industry, increasing the safety and extending the service life of nuclear reactors, designing and constructing new nuclear power plants, developing nuclear fuel cycle enterprises, and seeking joint access to third-party markets. Russia and Ukraine were also to consider establishing joint ventures to mine and enrich uranium and fabricate nuclear fuel in both countries.http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-Russian_Ukrainian_engineering_venture_planned-0510104.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, October 4, 2010

A future energy giant? India's thorium-based nuclear plans

A future energy giant? India's thorium-based nuclear plans

October 1, 2010 A future energy giant? India’s thorium-based nuclear plans
As part of an ambitious three-stage plan to fulfil its nuclear vision and desire for energy security, India could find itself a leading global exporter of an alternative nuclear technology that is more efficient than today’s uranium-plutonium fuel cycle. 
In October’s - having toured through India’s nuclear labs with a British High Commission team -- science writer Matthew Chalmers details India’s vision of a secure nuclear-energy future based on thorium technology.
With 40% of its population not yet connected to the and an economy growing by about 8% each year, India’s need for a bold strategy is apparent. While India already has 19 operational pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs), the government is planning to increase its nuclear contribution from its current 5GW to 28GW in the next 10 years and to a huge 270GW by 2050.
India's three-stage vision was first set out in the 1950s by the father of the country’s nuclear programme, physicist Homi Bhabha. On returning from his studies at Cambridge University in the UK, Bhabha conceived a nuclear strategy that would work around India’s rather meagre resources of uranium, the fuel powering current commercial reactors. Instead, he sought to exploit the country's vast reserves of thorium, which - if bathed in an external supply of neutrons - can be used a nuclear fuel.
The first stage of India's grand plan is based around the country's fleet of PHWRs and state-of-the-art research facilities, which have proceeded steadily despite the country being isolated for more than 30 years from the international uranium community after it detonated a nuclear device in 1974.
But following a landmark agreement with the US in October 2008 on civil nuclear co-operation, India can now, in principle, import fuel and reactors, while building more of its own, indigenous PHWRs. These reactors burn uranium while irradiating thorium oxide to produce uranium-233.
Stage two, which seeks to plug India's energy deficit by 2050, involves using reprocessed plutonium to fuel "fast reactors" that breed further uranium-233 and plutonium from thorium and uranium.
In stage three, advanced heavy-water reactors will burn uranium-233 while converting India’s thorium reserves into further uranium in a sustainable "closed" cycle. All three stages are running parallel and each has been demonstrated on a laboratory scale.
The UK is also getting on India's thorium plans, with five nuclear-research proposals worth more than £2m being jointly funded by the UK's Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and by India's Department of Atomic Energy. One of the grant holders is Mike Fitzpatrick from the Open University, who has already visited India's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai and claims to be "amazed at the ambition and resource behind India's nuclear programme, and how much UK researchers could benefit from being associated with it".
India’s energy future doesn’t however end with thorium. As Chalmers writes, “In a modern context, Bhabha’s nuclear vision is part of a wider goal for clean, affordable energy also in form of solar, wind and hydroelectricity - all of which India is investing in heavily.
“India’s nuclear programme could even one day encompass nuclear fusion, with the country already a partner in the ITER project currently being built in France, “
More information:
http://www.physicsworld.com/

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 27, 2010

Blog Post: TVEL Wins Contract for Nuclear Fuel Plant in the Ukraine from Nuclear Power Industry News

According to news reports, Ukraine's cabinet approved the Ministry of Fuel and Energy's proposal to construct the nuclear fuel plant at a meeting on 22 September, the country's national news agency Ukrinform reported.
TVEL was said to have won the tender as, unlike the other bidder Westinghouse, it had expressed willingness to invest its own money in the construction of the plant. The cost of constructing the fuel plant is put at some $212 million.
Vitaliy Lukianenko, the prime minister's press secretary, noted, "TVEL was unanimously supported during a competition for choosing the company to build the plant."
A condition of the tender is that Ukraine holds a controlling stake in the joint venture company that is to be established to manage the plant, despite TVEL likely to provide the majority of the funds to construct it. Another condition is the requirement for the transfer of technology for the manufacture of fuel assemblies under a non-exclusive licence by 2020 for reactors both in Ukraine and abroad.
According to Yuriy Nedashkovsky, president of national electricity generator Energoatom, nuclear fuel fabrication could start at the new plant in 2013. Initial production capacity of the plant will be 200 tonnes of uranium equivalent (tUe) per year of fuel rods and assemblies. In 2017, capacity to manufacture fuel pellets is set to increase to 400 tUe, while in 2020 the plant will be able to produce 400 tUe of fuel rods and assemblies.
Ukraine has 15 nuclear power reactors at four nuclear power plants (Khmelnitski, Rovno, South Ukraine and Zaporozhe), all operated by Energoatom. All the units are Russian VVER types, two being 440 MWe V-312 models and the rest the larger 1000 MWe units - two early models and the others V-320s. In 2009, almost half of Ukraine's electricity was produced by its nuclear plants.
In common with other VVER reactors, all of Ukraine's are routinely supplied with fuel by TVEL, although trials of 42 Westinghouse fuel assemblies are ongoing at the three South Ukraine units. This is taking place on an experimental basis, with final regulatory approval for the use of Westinghouse-supplied fuel outstanding.
Efforts to establish fuel manufacturing in Ukraine are an extension of this bid to break TVEL's technological monopoly on nuclear fuel supply. In addition to nuclear services, Ukraine also depends on Russia for much oil and gas, supplies of which have twice been cut off in a long-running payment dispute. Ukraine is able to mitigate this by supplying about 30% of the uranium that goes as the raw material for nuclear fuel. It also produces the zirconium alloys needed for fuel elements, but uranium enrichment and manufacture of finished fuel assemblies takes place in Russia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 24, 2010

Japanese Plant Begins Use of MOX Fuel

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100924a6.html
A Japanese power company yesterday began operating an Okuma-based nuclear power reactor using fuel converted from weapon-capable plutonium, Kyodo News reported (see GSN, April 9).
Tokyo Electric Power Co. is expected in around five days to start running the mixed-oxide nuclear fuel reactor at full capacity. A government inspection of the reactor slated for Oct. 26 would precede its use for commercial power production, according to the firm.
The reactor was the third in Japan to begin using MOX fuel; the other two reactors are located in the towns of Genkai and Ikata (Kyodo News, Japan Times, Sept. 24).
News photo
Online: The No. 3 reactor (second from left) at Tepco's Fukushima nuclear power plant was started up Thursday. KYODO PHOTO

Tepco starts power output with MOX fuel

FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Power generation using plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel started at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant Thursday morning, the utility said.
The No. 3 reactor at the plant in Okuma, Fukushima Prefecture, is the third in Japan for MOX fuel power generation, known as "pluthermal," with the others at Kyushu Electric Power Co.'s Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture and Shikoku Electric Power Co.'s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.
Tepco will boost the reactor's power output to nearly 100 percent in about five days. It will then launch commercial operations after a final government inspection on Oct. 26, it said.
Pluthermal, a Japanese word that combines "plutonium" and "thermal," involves the use of MOX fuel, a mixture of uranium and plutonium reprocessed from spent uranium, to produce electricity.
Enhanced by Zemanta

TVEL wins tender for Ukraine nuclear fuel plant The Ukrainian government has reportedly declared Russian nuclear fuel company TVEL the winner of the tender to construct a fuel manufacturing plant in Ukraine.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-TVEL_wins_tender_for_Ukraine_nuclear_fuel_plant-2409104.html
Ukraine's cabinet approved the Ministry of Fuel and Energy's proposal to construct the nuclear fuel plant at a meeting on 22 September, the country's national news agency Ukrinform reported.

TVEL was said to have won the tender as, unlike the other bidder Westinghouse, it had expressed willingness to invest its own money in the construction of the plant. The cost of constructing the fuel plant is put at some $212 million. Vitaliy Lukianenko, the prime minister’s press secretary, noted, "TVEL was unanimously supported during a competition for choosing the company to build the plant."

A condition of the tender is that Ukraine holds a controlling stake in the joint venture company that is to be established to manage the plant, despite TVEL likely to provide the majority of the funds to construct it. Another condition is the requirement for the transfer of technology for the manufacture of fuel assemblies under a non-exclusive licence by 2020 for reactors both in Ukraine and abroad.

According to Yuriy Nedashkovsky, president of national electricity generator Energoatom, nuclear fuel fabrication could start at the new plant in 2013. Initial production capacity of the plant will be 200 tonnes of uranium equivalent (tUe) per year of fuel rods and assemblies. In 2017, capacity to manufacture fuel pellets is set to increase to 400 tUe, while in 2020 the plant will be able to produce 400 tUe of fuel rods and assemblies.

Cooperation with OMZ
 
Energoatom signed a memorandum of cooperation with Russia's OMZ on 23 September for cooperation in the manufacture of high-technology power engineering equipment, the Itar-Tass news agency reported.
 
The memorandum also calls for the two companies to exchange information and cooperate in the maintenance of nuclear power plant equipment.

Ukraine has 15 nuclear power reactors at four nuclear power plants (Khmelnitski, Rovno, South Ukraine and Zaporozhe), all operated by Energoatom. All the units are Russian VVER types, two being 440 MWe V-312 models and the rest the larger 1000 MWe units - two early models and the others V-320s. In 2009, almost half of Ukraine's electricity was produced by its nuclear plants.
In common with other VVER reactors, all of Ukraine's are routinely supplied with fuel by TVEL, although trials of 42 Westinghouse fuel assemblies are ongoing at the three South Ukraine units. This is taking place on an experimental basis, with final regulatory approval for the use of Westinghouse-supplied fuel outstanding.

Efforts to establish fuel manufactuing in Ukraine are an extension of this bid to break TVEL's technological monopoly on nuclear fuel supply. In addition to nuclear services, Ukraine also depends on Russia for much oil and gas, supplies of which have twice been cut off in a long-running payment dispute. Ukraine is able to mitigate this by supplying about 30% of the uranium that goes as the raw material for nuclear fuel. It also produces the zirconium alloys needed for fuel elements, but uranium enrichment and manufacture of finished fuel assemblies takes place in Russia.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, September 20, 2010

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel

(Updated September 2010) 
  • Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. 
  • New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides. 
  • A significant amount of plutonium recovered from used fuel is currently recycled into MOX fuel; a small amount of recovered uranium is recycled. 
A key, nearly unique, characteristic of nuclear energy is that used fuel may be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials in order to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants. Several European countries, Russia and Japan have had a policy to reprocess used nuclear fuel, although government policies in many other countries have not yet addressed the various aspects of reprocessing.
Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.
In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. This policy is driven by two factors: reducing the long-term radioactivity in high-level wastes, and reducing the possibility of plutonium being diverted from civil use – thereby increasing proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle. If used fuel is not reprocessed, then in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing the plutonium to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).
Reprocessing used fuela to recover uranium (as reprocessed uranium, or RepU) and plutonium (Pu) avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of it – about 96% – is uranium, of which less than 1% is the fissile U-235 (often 0.4-0.8%); and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving up to 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input.
So far, almost 90,000 tonnes (of 290,000 t discharged) of used fuel from commercial power reactors has been reprocessed. Annual reprocessing capacity is now some 4000 tonnes per year for normal oxide fuels, but not all of it is operational.
Between now and 2030 some 400,000 tonnes of used fuel is expected to be generated worldwide, including 60,000 t in North America and 69,000 t in Europe.
World commercial reprocessing capacity1,2 
(tonnes per year)
LWR fuel France, La Hague
1700
UK, Sellafield (THORP)
900
Russia, Ozersk (Mayak)
400
Japan (Rokkasho)
800
Total (approx)
3800
Other nuclear fuels UK, Sellafield (Magnox)
1500
India
275
Total (approx)
1750
Total civil capacity
5550
Products of reprocessing
The composition of reprocessed uranium (RepU) depends on the initial enrichment and the time the fuel has been in the reactor, but it is mostly U-238. It will normally have less than 1% U-235 (typically about 0.5% U-235) and also smaller amounts of U-232 and U-236 created in the reactor. The U-232, though only in trace amounts, has daughter nuclides which are strong gamma-emitters, making the material difficult to handle. However, once in the reactor, U-232 is no problem (it captures a neutron and becomes fissile U-233). It is largely formed through alpha decay of Pu-236, and the concentration of it peaks after about 10 years of storage.
The U-236 isotope is a neutron absorber present in much larger amounts, typically 0.4% to 0.6% – more with higher burn-up – which means that if reprocessed uranium is used for fresh fuel in a conventional reactor it must be enriched significantly more (e.g. up to one-tenth more) than is required for natural uraniumb. Thus RepU from low burn-up fuel is more likely to be suitable for re-enrichment, while that from high burn-up fuel is best used for blending or MOX fuel fabrication.
The other minor uranium isotopes are U-233 (fissile), U-234 (from original ore, enriched with U-235, fertile), and U-237 (short half-life beta emitter). None of these affects the use of handling of the reprocessed uranium significantly. In the future, laser enrichment techniques may be able to remove these isotopes.
Reprocessed uranium (especially from earlier military reprocessing) may also be contaminated with traces of fission products and transuranics. This will affect its suitability for recycling either as blend material or via enrichment. Over 2002-06 USEC successfully cleaned up 7400 tonnes of technetium-contaminated uranium from the US Department of Energy.
Most of the separated uranium (RepU) remains in storage, though its conversion and re-enrichment (in UK, Russia and Netherlands) has been demonstrated, along with its re-use in fresh fuel. Some 16,000 tonnes of RepU from Magnox reactors in UK has been usedc to make about 1650 tonnes of enriched AGR fuel. In Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland over 8000 tonnes of RepU has been recycled into nuclear power plants. In Japan the figure is over 335 tonnes in tests and in India about 250 t of RepU has been recycled into PHWRs. Allowing for impurities affecting both its treatment and use, RepU value has been assessed as about half that of natural uranium.
Plutonium from reprocessing will have an isotopic concentration determined by the fuel burn-up level. The higher the burn-up levels, the less value is the plutonium, due to increasing proportion of non-fissile isotopes and minor actinides, and depletion of fissile plutonium isotopesd. Whether this plutonium is separated on its own or with other actinides is a major policy issue relevant to reprocessing (see section on Reprocessing policies below).
Most of the separated plutonium is used almost immediately in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. World MOX production capacity is currently around 200 tonnes per year, nearly all of which is in France (see page on Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel).
Inventory of separated recyclable materials worldwide3 
Quantity (tonnes) Natural U equivalent (tonnes)
Plutonium from reprocessed fuel 320 60,000
Uranium from reprocessed fuel 45,000 50,000
Ex-military plutonium 70 15,000
Ex-military high-enriched uranium 230 70,000
More at link
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

MIT looks at US fuel cycle options

MIT looks at US fuel cycle options
20 September 2010
The availability of uranium resources, as well as scientifically sound methods for managing used nuclear fuel, should mean that nuclear fuel will not need to be recycled in the USA for much of this century at least, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

In 2003, MIT published a report on The Future of the Nuclear Power, which said "that in order to make a serious contribution to alleviating global climate change, the world would need new nuclear plants with a total capacity of at least a terawatt [1000 gigawatts] by 2050." In an update of that report in 2009, MIT noted that the rate of deployment of new nuclear power plants around the world has been much slower than needed in order to combat climate change.

MIT announced that it has now released a report on The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle because "of the continuing importance of nuclear power as a low-carbon option that could be deployed at a scale that is material for mitigating climate change risk, namely, global deployment at the terawatt scale by mid-century."

It added, "Because of the significant changes in the landscape, we have undertaken this study ... to bring a sharper focus on the key technical choices available for an expanded nuclear power program in the US and the near-term policy implications of those choices."

According to MIT, "In the US, fuel cycle policies have been in a state of confusion." It said, "To enable an expansion of nuclear power, it must overcome critical challenges in cost, waste disposal, and proliferation concerns while maintaining its currently excellent safety and reliability record." MIT added, "In the relatively near term, important decisions may be taken with far reaching long-term implications about the evolution of the nuclear fuel cycle - what type of fuel is used, what types of reactors, what happens to irradiated fuel, and what method of disposal for long term nuclear wastes. This study aims to inform those decisions."

The report states, "A key message from our work is that we can and should preserve our options for fuel cycle choices by continuing with the open fuel cycle, implementing a system for managed light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel storage, developing a geological repository, and researching technology alternatives
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Recycling offers solid solution for America's nuclear sector Updated: Friday, October 02, 2009, 11:33 AM Plain Dealer guest columnist Plain Dealer guest columnist By Alan S. Hanson

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/10/recycling_offers_solid_solutio.html

As the United States moves toward a low-carbon energy future, many wonder how we should best manage the waste from America's nuclear power sector, which is by far the nation's largest source of carbon-dioxide-free electricity. Recycling nuclear fuel is a proven solution that makes waste management easier, conserves natural resources, is cost competitive and reduces proliferation concerns. 

More at article



Enhanced by Zemanta