Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

Tamar’s Law – I want my COP15!

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:59:00 +0000

Can developing nations get their money for nothing?

Guest Column by: Tamar Cerfici*

I’m back on US soil and watching the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference or more formally, the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) thanks to the wonders of modern video software.

My last column concerned the investment commitments expected from the developed countries, amounting to trillions of dollars. On the other hand, expectations are much lower for countries that don’t belong to the European Union or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The canals in Copenhagen. Photo by: Tamar Cerafici. There’s a much prettier picture at Climate Central’s brand-new web site.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects that developed nations will provide more financial support to developing nations for emissions reduction. In fact, IEA’s low carbon revolution needs another major investment of $197 billion in 2020 in non-OECD countries.

There are two questions for Copenhagen delegates:

How much carbon will I have to reduce?
How much will it cost me?

Playing percentages

There is a deep division at the COP about the fairness of carbon reduction goals. IEA and the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that most developed countries should reduce their carbon emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels. These are really aggressive targets, and the developing nations would like to see these goals met.

Most developed countries balk at that, and have committed to much lower levels. Commitments range from 3% to 33% below 1990 levels, according to the latest study from the UN Environment Programme released Sunday.

Even this is a numbers game. The US commits to a 17% reduction from 2005 levels. Well, since it's 2005 levels were more than 15% above 1990 levels, The reduction really is a 3% reduction, and not much to get excited about.

The EU claims it will bring a 30% reduction to the table. However, the other developed nations have to play along, and promise to foot some of the bill for climate mitigation in developing countries.

Australia has some aggressive targets, too, with five conditions that must be met by other developed countries before they’ll commit.

All of the developed countries want the developing world to have a stake in the game, and some emerging economies are willing to reduce emissions by almost 20% from the current (or business as usual) emissions. If, of course, they get financial help from the developed countries.

Money for nothing?

The developing nations’ willingness to build a decent pact in Copenhagen rests on the developed countries’ willingness to help mitigate the cost of “clean” technology.

The idea of a “climate fund” has been on the table for some time, now. France has suggested that all financial transactions be taxed to help fund the program.

Bangladesh wants 15% of any climate fund that is negotiated into the treaty. More than 20 million Bangladeshis stand to lose their homes if the predicted climate disasters occur.

According to a report from Sunday’s Wall Street Journal, most developing countries want billions to combat the effects of climate change in their countries. On the other hand, oil rich nations like Nigeria want compensation for expected declines in oil use by industrialized nations.

Ecuador, which will assume presidency of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), wins the prize for the most creative financing scheme: the rich countries pay Ecuador (and possibly all of OPEC) to keep the oil in the ground. Industrialized countries who start to slack off in their oil consumption pay Ecuador $3.5 billion to keep its oil in the ground.

Can’t we just get along?

The latest news from Copenhagen describes rift between small island nations and rapidly developing economies over an enforceable maximum temperature target in the agreement, claiming Kyoto wasn’t tough enough. These small island countries have the most to lose, like the Maldives and Tuvalu.

Now that the developing economies are going to have to shoulder some of the burden to reduce carbon emissions, they’re balking at the idea. China objected strenuously, noting that it was still developing its own carbon reduction strategies.

Kyoto doesn’t require developing countries to limit their carbon or contribute to global funding of climate mitigation. Some are looking to Copenhagen negotiations to change that lopsided equation.

China doesn’t think the developed economies are bringing enough to the table. Along with its 3% reduction promise, the US and EU delegations has offered a fast start fund of $10 billion a year to pay for climate change projects. That’s not enough, according to China and Brazil, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world.

The developing countries have accused the richer nations of shifting responsibility for carbon reductions on the poorer countries. The leader of the Sudanese Delegation notes “a huge gap in developed countries leadership in modifying their longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions" as required by the convention.

Developing countries see themselves as “being required to take the leadership in cutting emissions while developed countries are continuously increasing their emissions and hence continuously over-occupying the global climate space."

Well, a whimper is better than nothing

Most delegates have given up the notion that a legally binding agreement can emerge from Copenhagen. Now they’re working toward a politically binding deal, outlining promised actions by each participating country.

The sad result is that the outdated clean development ad joint implementation mechanisms will remain in place, severely limiting the growth of nuclear energy in developing countries.

Carbon reduction and climate mitigation costs money. That’s in short supply, and the rich nations are still in shock from the financial collapse. Poorer countries expect assistance (not unreasonably).

Assistance can come in the form of reasonable and economic energy sources, including nuclear energy, whether from large baseload to smaller scale plants.

But it is all about the money. The great sage of the 20th century, Eric Idle, clarified the issue:

There is nothing quite as wonderful as money
There is nothing quite as beautiful as cash
Some people say it’s folly
But I’d rather have the lolly
With money you can make a splash

“The Money Programme” (1972)

Or how about “Dire Straits” Money for Nothing

* Author ID

* Ms. Cerafici (right) is an attorney in private practice with expertise in nuclear licensing and environmental law.

Contact info

Tamar Jergensen Cerafici, tnelaw@gmail.com
349 Shaker Road
Northfield NH 03276
(603) 496-2575

PST Names Energy Advocate Award Winners

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:55:00 +0000

Media Contact: Lane Allgood (208) 313-4166

Idaho Falls, ID - December 8, 2009 – The Partnership for Science and Technology (PST) is pleased to announce the winners of its 2009 Energy Advocate Awards. The awards are presented to individuals or organizations that were central to a noteworthy achievement in an energy or environmental field that is of interest to PST and its membership.

Awards Banquet December 19th, Red Lion Inn, Idaho Falls, ID

This year’s winners will be honored at the Annual Awards Banquet on December 19, 2009 at the Red Lion in Idaho Falls. The banquet is open to the public. For ticket information, contact the PST at (208) 313-4166 or visit the web site or see us on Facebook. Email: lallgood@partnershipforscienceandtechnology.org

2009 PST Energy Advocate Award Winners

National Award: U.S. Senate Western Caucus, Senator Mike Crapo (right) accepting. The U.S. Senate Western Caucus (video) was selected based on the introduction of the Clean, Affordable. Reliable Energy Act of 2009, which will promote the development and deployment of clean energy systems including renewable, nuclear and other forms of energy.

Members of the U.S. Senate Western Caucus include; Senators Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho, John Barrasso (Caucus Chairman) and Michael Enzi of Wyoming, Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Ensign of Nevada, John Kyl of Arizona, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas and David Vitter of Louisiana.

Regional Award: Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Governor Schweitzer (left) has been a tireless and effective advocate for sound national energy policy and for the clean development of the West’s abundant energy resources. He has worked effectively to promote clean energy investment in Montana.

His hard work has paid off for the people of Montana in the form of new wind farms, transmission lines, and the promise of a wind turbine manufacturing facility and a carbon-sequestering liquid fuels plant.

As the Chairman of the Western Governors’ Association, he has promoted the formation of a Canada-U.S. energy corridor to increase cooperation across state and national borders, and he has pledged to keep energy and climate change as top priorities for the association over the next year.

Local Award: Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council, Rod Fuger IBCTC President accepting. The Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council was selected for the award based on its long history of supporting projects at the Idaho National Laboratory and other energy related initiatives in the region.

Over the past 30 years, members of the Council’s union locals have proven to be effective citizen advocates through their attendance and testimony at public hearings in favor of projects that are in the public interest.

IBCTC members also have a long history of keeping a focus on working safety through constant training, communication, and commitment. This proactive approach to make safety a top priority and fundamental value for all workers has led to a safety culture that is second to none in the industry.

Nuclear Energy Advocate Award: Dr. J. Stephen Herring, INL Fellow, ANS Fellow. Dr Herring (left) was selected based on his noteworthy achievements in nuclear energy which include advancements at the Idaho National Laboratory on the science and engineering of the production of hydrogen from nuclear energy.

Dr. Herring is responsible for breakthroughs in High Temperature Electrolytic production of hydrogen using the heat and electricity from advanced nuclear reactors. The development and commercialization of this technology could have a long-term and significant impact on future clean energy production in the world and the revitalization of the nuclear industry in the United States.

Energy Education Advocate Award: Dr. Harold Blackman, Director of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies. Dr. Blackman was selected based on his tireless work to cement the CAES partnership, to build competitive energy research programs, to attract bright graduate students and outstanding faculty to Idaho’s universities, and to reach across Idaho to promote an informed energy policy dialogue.

~ & ~

The Partnership for Science & Technology is a non-profit, public interested organization advocating for advancement of science, energy and technology and providing accurate and timely information on related regional activities including those at the Idaho National Laboratory.

For more information: Contact PST or check us out at Facebook

# # #

Overwhelmed by climate conference news?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:34:00 +0000

Here are some places to catch up on what’s happening in Denmark

The opening waves of two weeks of all climate all the time from Copenhagen are crashing ashore on to the beach of the news reading public. OK, so what are you going to read about the conference? Here are a few sources. Please feel free to suggest other sources in a comment.

Official site for the conference

The United Nations conference web site has a lot of information include a daily summary of events.

The U.S. government delegation’s website has information on how our country is participating in the conference.

Nuclear Energy Institute

Paul Genoa, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s director of policy development, is attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) in Copenhagen, Denmark, from Dec. 7-18. Genoa is posting dispatches during COP15 at The National Journal and NEI's blog, NEI Nuclear Notes.

Genoa and others are also blogging at the National Journal. It’s pages are open to anyone for this topic.

NEI has additional sources and information about the climate conference at this web page. It includes listings of official U.N. and U.S. web sites about the conference and sources of video coverage from Copenhagen.

Follow NEI on Twitter @N_E_I

New York Times

The New York Times has a special section on the climate talks. It assembles all of the newspaper’s extended coverage of the conference at one place. This includes Andrew C. Revkin’s Dot Earth blog and his coverage from Copenhagen along with that of other reporters from the newspaper.

You can get breaking news by following him on Twitter @revkin

The Twitter hashtag for the conference overall is: #COP15

Energy Collective

The Energy Collective has fielded three bloggers in Copenhagen and has a special section for coverage of energy and climate issues.

The Energy Collective now has a special online community dedicated specifically to Copenhagen called The Cop15 Copenhagen Conversation. You can join the conversation with commenting and posting there. It features on-site coverage from Marc Gunther, Mike Smith and Rebecca Lutzy.

Follow them on Twitter @EnergyCollectiv

What others are saying

Areva

Our friends at Areva US blog have gone all out with a full court press rounding up blog and nuclear energy industry coverage of the conference. Check back daily or sign up for the RSS feed.

Constellation Energy, which plans to build an Areva EPR as Calvert Cliffs III, says nuclear energy plays an indispensable role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The company made the comments in a statement issued Dec 7 about the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

"Constellation Energy is hopeful that the international community will agree to a political framework that will ensure the conclusion of negotiations in 2010 for a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol," said Mayo A. Shattuck III, chairman, president and chief executive officer, Constellation Energy.

"The world's climate experts, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, believe that nuclear energy, in particular, plays an indispensable role in substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality and strengthening energy security in a sustainable manner that takes into account economic development and poverty eradication goals," said Mayo A Shattuck, CEO.

Constellation says nuclear energy provides about 14% of the world's commercial electricity, a number that needs to increase substantially if long-term greenhouse gas reduction goals are to be met.

Follow Areva on Twitter @ArevaInc

(Thanks Areva for the cool graphic used in this blog post.)

INL in video at Copenhagen

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) footage and research are featured in a video presented at the World Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen. President Obama introduced the video, which is titled "America's Response to Climate Change" and discusses how varied energy technologies can combat climate change.

It features a video clip and interview INL Fellow Dave Petti, director of INL's Very High Temperature Reactor Technology Development Office.

The Idaho Falls footage can be seen briefly in the first 90 seconds of the video, and the nuclear energy segment featuring Petti starts around 10:35. The entire video is more than 17 minutes long and discusses a variety of energy research projects occurring throughout the country and at INL.

# # #

Four fearless futures for nuclear energy in America

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:06:00 +0000

It’s not too early to think about what needs to be done in 2010

Claims that one will turn over a new leaf in January, via new year’s resolutions, often get a bum rap. For example, will you go to the gym and lose all extra pounds gained during the holiday season? Usually, the rap is deserved because our good intentions fade by the time the Superbowl game hits the TV. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea.

As someone who spends a fair amount of time thinking about the future of the nuclear energy industry in the U.S., I’ve organized my thoughts to describe what I think are four key priorities for 2010. In short, these are my proposals for new year’s resolutions for the U.S. nuclear industry.

Critics of the nuclear industry are focused on fault lines

There is a lot of uncertainty about the future of the nuclear renaissance in the U.S. Critics are exploiting the fault lines that have already appeared, and some, under the guise of scholarship, cherry pick their sources to make the case for failure. Their objective is to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of business and government decision makers.

I’m not prepared to accept a long-term future for the U.S. as being an agnostic on nuclear energy while the U.K. France, Italy, India, China, and other countries put the pedal to the metal to build dozens of new reactors to meet the challenge of global climate change.

At a panel discussion held at the ANS winter meeting Nov 17 about how the news media covers the nuclear energy industry, four seasoned journalists said one of the issues they have with the industry is that it is unclear about its priorities and does a poor job of communicating them.

Here’s an opportunity for you to weigh in on these priorities. According to Google Analytics, a lot of people in the industry read this blog. If you want to speak to them, post a comment about the priorities described below. I realize lots of people have different ideas. That’s what the comments link is for.

Four fearless futures for nuclear energy in America

Funding A key path to meeting the challenge of public acceptance of nuclear energy in the U.S. is widespread stock ownership of the plants through publically-traded corporations. In order for utilities to develop stock offerings, the U.S. government must place the full faith and credit of federal loan guarantees behind the new plants.

The amount of coverage should be in the range of $200 billion over three decades, which is enough to support about two dozen new reactors. Without the loan guarantees, few utilities have the market capitalization to “bet the company” on a multi-billion dollar investment in a new nuclear reactor.

Workforce The second critical issue which requires attention is developing a cadre of nuclear engineers and skilled trades capable of building new reactors on time and within budget. Foreign competition will raid U.S. engineering programs for talent unless the federal government puts in place a scholarship program and partnership with industry for jobs to channel graduates to U.S. projects. Secure funding for new reactors, via loan guarantees, will convince engineering students to enter the nuclear energy field.

Supply Chain The third critical issue is revitalizing U.S. manufacturing capabilities including development of a facility to produce large forgings, e.g., 400 tons or more, for reactor vessels. There are three manufacturing centers under development by Areva in Virginia, Shaw in Louisiana, and Babcock & Wilcox/McDermott at locations in Ohio and Indiana.

Without these capabilities, the U.S. new nuclear build will create demand that will drive up the global costs of nuclear reactor components and produce delays in construction. For instance, despite increases in capacity, Japan Steel Works reports a three-to-four year wait time for 400 ton reactor vessels.

If the U.S. wants to build reactors on time and within budget, it needs to have its own supply chain. Everyone else building reactors wants to complete their master equipment list from the same suppliers. Right now we are in a situation where reactor parts come from Japan, fuel comes from Russia, and the turbines come from Europe. Plus, home-grown supply chains mean high paying manufacturing jobs for U.S. workers.

Fuel Cycle The fourth critical issue is to resolve issue of management of the spent fuel by developing two strategically located 500 ton/year recycling plants. Related to this initiative is the need for a commercial MOX fuel manufacturing capability.

The final part of this initiative is development of commercial versions of fast reactors to burn the MOX fuel and complete the fuel cycle. The U.S. MOX plant being built at Savannah River will use weapons grade plutonium as its feedstock, and cannot be considered in the near-term as a facility in this commercial spent fuel initiative.

This strategy, which needs to evolve through R&D, pilot projects, and commercial acceptance, is far more cost-effective than the burden of indefinitely storing tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of spent fuel and the loss of the energy potential of the spent fuel itself.

* * *

That’s it. What do you think?

# # #

India’s climate change goals and nuclear energy

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:29:00 +0000

A series of groundbreaking deals are part of a drive to build 20 GWe by 2020

The visit to the U.S. of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the week before Thanksgiving was marked by a series of events related to India’s commitments to action on climate change and the use of nuclear energy to meet them.

At the same time, Singh signed new cooperative agreements with Canada and Russia for trade in nuclear technologies and fuel.

India steps up to climate change commitments

On the climate front, on Dec 4 India announced it would slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2020 following similar announcements by the U.S. and China.

India is a key player in the climate conference. It is ranked second globally in terms of population with an estimated 1.2 billion people and fifth in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Environmental Minister, in a speech to Parliament on 12/3, laid out a plan to reduce the growth of GHG by up to 25% by 2020 using 2005 as a baseline. He said that India is prepared to do more if an equitable deal can be worked out in Copenhagen.

Read the rest of the story exclusively at the Energy Collective.

# # #

Canadian Uranium News 12/02/09

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:59:00 +0000

Debut issue of a new monthly column

This is a new monthly column for this blog. In addition to the Western Lands Uranium Gopher, which covers the industry in the U.S., I'm expanding blog coverage to include the Canadian uranium mining industry.

This column is an edited version of content published in Fuel Cycle Week, V8:N355 12/02/09 by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC.

(All prices are expressed in Canadian currency)
(Image source: Canadian Nuclear Association – History of Uranium Mining in Canada)

CAMECO gains from India/Canada nuclear deal

Uranium mining giant Cameco (TSX:CCO) CEO Jerry Grandey (left) told CBC news a cooperative agreement inked between Canada and India on Nov 28 is a multi-million payday for the firm. He said India is an "energy hungry country" with a plan for aggressively building new reactors. Indian political leaders have made the case for 20 GWe of new nuclear reactor construction over the next two decades.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the deal jointly Nov 27 with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at a diplomatic meeting in Trinidad. According to information released by Harper's office, the agreement will allow Canadian firms to export nuclear fuel, technologies, and equipment to India. Harper told the National Post the agreement is worth $25-50 billion in exports over the next two decades.

Grandey estimated that the agreement could include combined exports of uranium from Canada to India of seven million pounds of uranium a year. At current long-term contract prices, the value of the exports would be about $500 million annually.

"One of the interesting things is that India has a very ambitious civilian nuclear energy power program and they have a shortage of uranium in that country. They've been quite eager to establish a long-term relationship with Cameco so we can supply them with fuel over many decades."

Canadian Trade Minister, Stockwell Day, said the state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) had signed a memorandum of understanding with India for next-generation nuclear reactors. Canada ceased nuclear co-operation with India in 1974 after it used Canadian plutonium to build an atomic bomb. This new agreement restores the relationship. It includes supplying fuel to the reactors once they are built and operational.

Canada has no uranium enrichment capability and will need to produce nuclear fuel at an intermediate site in another country in order to power the ACR1000 reactor design, a 1,200 MWe unit. It is expected to be the primary reactor type offered for export to India.

The Canadian deal with India has created an uproar in Australia which has refused to sell uranium to India because it won't sign a nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Australian mining companies have complained they are losing market share to Canada.

The Rudd Administration said it is concerned India will stockpile domestic uranium for military weapons and use uranium imports for civilian purposes.

In Canada Minister Day said his country has insisted that India admit nuclear inspectors to civilian facilities. Under the deal, Canadian nuclear exports cannot be used for military purposes, he said.

Cameco updates Cigar Lake mine status

Dewatering of the Cigar Lake mine resumed in November at locations between 250-400 meters (800-1,400 ft) below the surface by placing inflatable seals between the sources of the water and the shafts. Miners are backfilling the seals with concrete. (See mine diagram ~ PDF file ~from Cameco web site.)

Mine managers said it will take six-to-twelve months to dewater the mine and resume operations depending on what shape the shafts and equipment are in once the water is gone. Regulatory agencies including the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and those from the provincial government in Saskatchewan must approve a new operations plan before production can resume.

Cameco CEO Jerry Grandy told the Toronto Globe & Mail Nov 27 the mine is expected to produce nine million pounds of uranium a year once it is again in production.

Hathor announces NI 43-101 results for Roughrider Zone

Hathor Exploration (CVE:HAT) announced a new discovery of high-grade uranium mineralization approximately 200 meters to the east of the Roughrider Zone on its 90% owned Midwest NorthEast property.

The initial report is 6.58 million pounds U3O8 in the indicated category, and 5.47 million pounds inferred. The higher grade zone is reported to be 17.28% U3O8. The results come from drilling 120 holes totaling 41,830 meters in 2008. Results from the 2009 summer drilling program are not included in the report. A 10% interest in the property is owned by Terra Ventures (TSX:TAS).

The NI 43-101 complaint report is being prepared by Scott Wilson Roscoe Postle Associates. The initial estimated NI 43-101 compliant indicated resource is 116,000 tonnes (6.5 million pounds) U3O8 grade 2.75% and an inferred resource of 83,000 tonnes (5.5 million pounds) U3O8 grade 3.00%.

UEX Corp reports progress in Shea Creek, Athabasca Basin

UEX Corp (TSE:UEX) reported drilling results from its 49% owned Shea Creek uranium project in the Athabasca Basin. It reported intercepts of 5.55% U3O8 in the site's Kianna deposit and 7.24% U3O8 in the site's Anne deposit.

UEX CEO said in a statement to Canadian news media Nov 21, "The significant drill results over such an extensive area illustrate the vast size and potential of this project."

UEX is a joint venture partner in the mine with Areva Resources Canada Inc.

The firm said in a statement the joint venture plans to spend $12.3 million in 2010 on the Shea Creek project and two others – Mirror River and Beatty River. Of that amount, $8 million is for exploration. UEX's share of the total is $5.4 million.

At market close Nov 27 UEX shares traded at $0.93 against a 52-week range of $0.49-$1.80 with market capitalization of $179 million. The firm reported $13.4 million in cash on hand.

CanAlaska gets $3 million investment, acquires Cluff Lake Uranium Project

Can Alaska Uranium Corp (TSX:CVV) has issued shares of stock against a private placement of $3 million to be used for uranium exploration.

The firm also announced the acquisition of the Cluff Lake project data and mineral claims located in the Western Athabasca Basin, from Hawk Uranium Inc. (TSX:HUI)

CanAlaska will purchase 100% of the project from Hawk for 1,250,000 shares and a cash payment of $62,500.

The Cluff Lake claims will be added to those of the existing Carswell project. These claims are situated immediately west of the past-producing uranium mine and processing facilities at Cluff Lake, which had produced 62 million pounds U3O8 over 22 years prior to its closure in 2000.

These claims are also located 11 km NW of the Shea Creek Project, an advanced-stage uranium exploration project presently being developed by UEX/AREVA in the same area.

New Nunavut group forms to oppose uranium mining

The Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) reported Nov 25 that a new group of Nunavummiut concerned about uranium mining has been formed in response to advances in exploration in the Baker Lake region about 200 km inland from the Hudson Bay.

Spokesperson Sandra Inutiq (right) said the group "would sponsor informed discussion" about whether uranium mining should be allowed in Nunavut.

She said the group's name translates from the native language as "Nunavummiut can rise up."

In 2007 Nunavut Tunngavik, Inc. the land claims organization for the region, approved a limited authorization for uranium mining. More than 20 companies are involved in exploration. Areva Canada has submitted a permit application for an underground mine at its Kiggavik site about 80 km west of Baker Lake.

Baker Lake resident Joan Scottie, who led opposition to uranium mining in the 1980s, participated in a press statement with the Nunavummiut group as did Jamie Kneen representing MiningWatch Canada.

Newfoundland deposits under exploration

Two firms are conducting initial exploration of possible uranium deposits on the Connaigre Peninsula on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. Altius Mineral (TSE:ALS) and Kirrin Resources (OTC:KIRRF) will commence a drilling program in 2010 once the weather permits.

Lawrence Winter, VP at Altius said the combined effort will cost in excess of $1 million. Results from just four drill holes in 2009 are the basis for planning the 2010 program. He added that a decision to develop a mine in the area is several years away. The work is taking place at Boxley Point near Hermitage Bay.

At market close Nov 27 Altius stock traded at $7.45 against a 52-week range of $3.58-8.27 with market capitalization of $211 million. No stock transactions were reported for Kirrin.

International Enexco to resume drilling at Mann Lake in Athabasca Basin

International Enexco Ltd (TSX:IEC) reported that drilling operations will resume in 2010 when weather permits at the firm's Mann Lake project in the eastern portion of the Athabasca Basin. The firm is in a joint venture with a 30% share. Other partners are Cameco (52.5%) and Areva Resources Canada (17.5%). The project is located 25 km southeast of Cameco's MacArthur River uranium mine.

Preliminary drilling results, according to a company press statement, are high grade intersections at two separate locations (7.12% U3O8) and (5.53% U3O8).

# # #

Where’s the focus on AECL’s future?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:35:00 +0000

A Canadian think tank says it knows - there isn’t one - at least for now

Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) has not had an easy time over the past several years. Despite record levels of financial support from the central government, it has managed to repeatedly disrupt North American medical isotope supplies with unplanned outages at the now 50-year old Chalk River reactor. Record cost over-runs at the Port Lepreau reactor refurbishment project have set the rest of the Canadian reactor world on edge.

Worse, AECL can’t even win a major contract at Darlington in its home province of Ontario that would have secured its place in domestic energy markets and set the basis for revived exports abroad.

The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), also located in Ontario, has given some deep thought to AECL’s future and issued a report on it in November. The think tank’s findings are very clear and unvarnished in their stark appraisal of what’s wrong and what needs to be done.

At the heart of the group’s finding is the issue of the “loss of domestic political consensus” about the need for and use of nuclear energy in Canada’s economy. The result is like the line from a song by folk singer Jeremy Fisher, “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” Note the origin of this widely-cited proverb is in dispute.

Here are the additional key findings by CIGI.

The Ontario decision to delay indefinitely its plans for the construction of new nuclear reactors is emblematic of this loss and indicative of the obstacles confronting the Canadian nuclear industry;
Fragmented federal-provincial energy policy jurisdictions and political gamesmanship result in domestic market inertia effectively thwarting any prospects for a Canadian nuclear revival;
Without a revival in the domestic market for nuclear energy, AECL is unlikely to be successful marketing and selling reactors internationally;
Privatization of AECL will do little to improve the company's prospects and will mean the end of the CANDU reactor technology.

These observations are a useful condensation of what many observers have been saying for some time about AECL’s prospects for the future. The Darlington tender became a political football and the Harper government’s repeated statements about selling off part or all of AECL undermined public confidence in the organization. AECL has dim prospects for exporting its new ACR1000 reactor if it can’t convince anyone at home to buy it. Finally, selling off the crown corporation simply breaks up the firm. There is no upside from the sale for the company or its employees.

The report does not layout a clear agenda for AECL's future. The root cause of AECL's angst, lack of domestic political consensus, requires a firm response from the central government based on the principle that having a domestic source of carbon emission free power has strategic value in a world challenged by the threat of greenhouse gases.

The Canadian government needs to realize there are some things government must do, and one of them involves getting past denial about its responsibilities to address global warming. Until then AECL will continue to twist in the winds of political change.

Canada’s Agreement with India

While the future of AECL looks bleak, that hasn’t stopped the Harper government from seeking a nuclear energy cooperation agreement with India. On Nov 28 the two countries agreed (Reuters) that Canada would export uranium to India at a rate of about seven million pounds annually and also offer its new ACR1000 reactor to India to meet the energy needs of its rapidly growing economy.

India needs the uranium and reactor technologies because it plans to build 20 GWE of new civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity by 2030. The Harper government told the Globe & Mail it estimates the value of the agreement to be worth $25-50 billion (cdn) over the next 20 years.

The agreement is also the springboard for a novel idea by energy analyst Ron Banerjee who wrote in the National Post Nov 19 that if you are going to offer AECL to the highest bidder, why stop at exports? His view is that Canada should just sell all of AECL to the Indian government lock, stock, and barrel.

He argues that the combination of a sluggish economy in Ontario and the niche position of CANDU reactor technology, which India has embraced on a significant scale, makes the sale an ideal resolution of AECL’s future. On the other hand, he says, any other reactor firm buying AECL would have less incentive to advance the technology since they already have their own designs.

The rest of the article and the accompanying comments lay out the pros-and-cons for just packing up AECL in a steamer trunk and shipping it to Mumbai on the next cargo vessel outbound through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is a fascinating article argued in a readable and articulate manner by Banerjee who clearly has done his homework with a well-honed sense of history.

Prior coverage of AECL on this blog

March 8, 2009 AECL’s destiny to be decided at Darlington
July 18, 2009 Is AECL down for the count
November 1, 2009 AECL’s Cloudy Future

Video – Jeremy Fisher (who looks, and sounds, a bit like an early Bob Dylan)

Answering nine nuclear questions

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:37:00 +0000

At the EnergyCollective climate analyst Jesse Jenkins asks for dialog

Over at the EnergyCollective (TEC) climate analyst Jesse Jenkins is working on the existential nature of green political correctness v. using nuclear energy to meet baseload demand. In an act akin to nailing a proclamation to the cathedral door, Jenkins asks nine questions and requests that nuclear bloggers, who he also cites in the questions as sources, to answer them.

First of all this is somewhat disingenuous since Jesse's anti-nuclear views are well known from his blog posts and featured participation in TEC webinars. Second, some of us have been down this road before with other anti-nuclear analysts.

For instance, TEC blogger “Big Gav,” who does not post under his real name, practices a “hit-and-run” mode of blogging in which he posts anti-nuclear nonsense and then ignores comments that point out the holes in his arguments.

For nuclear bloggers the question becomes this - are you playing a losing game a 'whack-a-mole' with the latest round of anti-nuclear rhetoric or this is a chance for genuine dialog?

Assuming that Jesse is genuinely interested in a new round of answers, even though all of them have been posted here or on TEC before, I'll offer some brief replies. Jesse's questions are preceded by his initials and my answers are set off in a different font.

JJ What are the biggest three obstacles to the construction and operation of new nuclear power plants in the United States? (If you care to venture a recommendation, in what ways can public policy help mitigate or overcome these barriers)

The big three are cost/financing, manufacturing supply chain, and access to nuclear engineers and skilled trades experienced in proving nuclear quality work. There are some things government must do, and one of them is to accept responsibility for risks that are too great to bear by the private sector, e.g., financing a nuclear power plant. Also, the U.S. needs to train a whole new generation of nuclear engineers and skilled trades who can deliver a nuclear power plant on time and within budget.

JJ New nuclear-fired power plants have been built in the past decade and are operating in Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, India and elsewhere. What is the difference between the market or policy environment in these nations and the United States that paves the way for new nuclear plant deployment in these nations while slowing/blocking the industry’s development in the U.S.?

The U.S. is stuck on the idea that nuclear power plants are the responsibility of the private sector whereas in all these other countries, the government is the primary player. Anti-nuclear groups love to sing the "market mantra" because they know few utilities have the market capitalization to bet the company on one. It becomes an effective stopper to new plant development.

JJ The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established new policy support for nuclear power development, including loan guarantees covering up to 80% of eligible project costs for new nuclear projects and several additional incentives for the first six power plants/6 GW of new nuclear plants, including a production tax credit, up to $2 billion in cost-overrun support and guarantees against cost overruns due to delays in the permitting process. These policies have been insufficient to spur the construction of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. Why?

The government has had nearly five years, three energy secretaries, two presidents, and two directors of the DOE loan guarantee program for new nuclear power plants, and has yet to get one of the loan guarantees out the door. That's why.

JJ Nuclear industry advocates have been chiefly focused on securing new loan guarantees, including a push for up to $100 billion in loan guarantees (as in the new Alexander-Webb bill). Why would more loan guarantees succeed where the policies (including loan guarantees) in the Energy Policy Act of 2009 have failed?

It doesn't matter how much you have authorized in loan guarantees. If you don't award any, nothing happens.

JJ Are their specific challenges to the construction of the first few power plants of any particular, and if so, how do these challenges differ from the deployment of these designs at scale?

Yes. First-of-a-kind (FOAK) nuclear power plants inevitably create useful lessons learned that result in costs savings for future plants. That's why Areva's efforts in Finland and France are being closely followed by the rest of the nuclear industry.

JJ Assuming the industry starts growing, what new challenges emerge for nuclear power deployment at large scales (10s of GW per year)?

Getting the power to market via transmission and distribution infrastructure becomes an issue because of NIMBY opposition to power lines. It takes twice as long to get the approvals for the right-of-way as it does to build the lines.

JJ Can new nuclear power plant designs (e.g. small/modular reactors, Gen III+ or Gen IV designs, etc.) mitigate challenges to new nuclear power adoption, and if so, in what specific ways?

Yes, those that use LWR fuel and designs will have a relatively easier time with licensing and their lower price per unit and per KwHr will make them attractive to mid-size utilities that can't afford the 1,000 MW units. All of the nuclear bloggers on TEC have covered the small reactor issues extensively on TEC.

JJ What barriers to nuclear power deployment cannot be solved by policy and why? What factors are most likely to overcome these barriers (or are they intractable)?

Green political correctness run amok, like a recent LA Times editorial, becomes an article of religous faith and no amount of engineering reason or scientific truth will be able to make a dent in it.

Anyway, there you have it. Jesse could also point his browser to the web pages of the Nuclear Energy Institute(NEI), which has a wealth of information to help him answer his questions.

# # #

Ghostlight

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:53:00 +0000

Taking a break for Thanksgiving

The blog will be dark for the Thanksgiving Day holiday. Blogging on nuclear energy news will resume the following week. See my 4th annual publication of Dan’s 2nd Day Idaho Nuclear Chili below.

In the spirit of the holiday, I’d like to thank a lot of people for their full engagement in a continuous dialog about nuclear energy. It would be a very long blog post if I explained everything they did. Of course, none of them are responsible for anything I say here. They are listed in no particular order below. My apologies to anyone I missed.

Rod Adams, Atomic Insights
John Wheeler, This Week in Nuclear
Dave Bradish and the team at NEI Nuclear Notes
Kirk Sorenson, Energy from Thorium
Charles Barton, Nuclear Green
Cam Abernethy, and the team at Nuclear Street
Dave Walters, Daily Kos
Brian Wang, Next Big Future
Robert Hargraves, Rethinking Nuclear Power
Rebecca Lutzy, Mark Lazen, and Robin Carey at EnergyCollective
Jeff Madison, CoolHandNuke
Jarret Adams and the team at Areva Pure Energy
Sovietologist, Blogging about the Unthinkable
Ruth Marcus, Nuke Power Talk
Barry Brook, Brave New Climate
Steve Aplin, Canadian Energy Issues
Ted Rockwell, Learning About Energy
Cheryl Rofer, Phronesisaical
Joe Koblich, and the team at American Nuclear Society
Jeremy Gordon, World Nuclear News
Will Dalrymple, Nuclear Engineering International
Nancy Roth, Andrea Jennetta, Fuel Cycle Week
Mimi Limbach, Laura Hermann, Potomac Communications
John Kotek, Gallatin Group
Tim Chambers, Dewey Square Group
Ed Kee, NERA
Bill Sellers, somewhere in the Persian Gulf
Margaret Harding, 4 Factor Consulting
Dave Singer, Argonne National Laboratory
Tom Fields, Nicole Stricker, Keith Arterburn, Amy Lientz, Idaho National Laboratory
Lane Allgood, Partnership for Science & Technology
Eliot Brenner, Paul Dickman, Dale Klein, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Gil Friend, Natural Logic
Matt Wald, New York Times
Rocky Barker, Idaho Statesman
Scott Berg, Corey Taule, Idaho Falls Post Register
Steve Lafflin, International Isotopes
Stewart Brand
Gwyneth Cravens
William Tucker
Tamar Cerafici
Michael Flagg
Marc Gunter
Karen Street

And to everyone else among the over 100,000 people who have read this blog so far this year. Thank you.

Dan's 2nd Day Idaho Nuclear Chili

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:56:00 +0000

~ Updated for 2009! ~ Fed Up with Turkey? Try this Recipe!

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, and wanting to take a break from reading, thinking, and writing about nuclear energy, I'm offering for the 4th year my tried and true cooking instructions for something completely different. By Sunday night you will be fed up, literally, and figuratively, with turkey. Instead of food fit for pilgrims, try food invented in the wide open west -- chili. Cook this dish on Saturday. Eat it on Sunday.

These instructions take about an hour to complete. This chili has more vegetables and beans than some people might like, but we're all trying to eat healthy. Although the name of this dish has the word "nuclear" in it, it isn't that hot on the Scoville scale. If you want some other choices for nuclear chili try this Google search string.

The beer adds sweetness to the vegetables, as does the brandy, and is a good for cooking generally. In terms of the beer, which is an essential ingredient, you'll still have five cans or bottles left to share with friends so there's always that. Some readers have written suggesting the use of bourbon instead of brandy. Go for it!

However, I recommend Negra Modelo for drinking with this dish and Budweiser or any American pilsner for cooking it. Alternatives for drinking include local favorites, Moose Drool or Black Butte Porter, and regional amber ales Alaskan Amber, or Anchor Steam. You can also try Rolling Rock for cooking. Do not cook with "light" beer. It is a supremely bad idea.

History of the cooking instructions

Scoville, Idaho, is the destination for Union Pacific rail freight for the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), whcih is way out on the Arco desert. There is no town by that name, but legend has it that way back in the 50s & 60s, when the place was called the National Reactor Testing Station, back shift workers on cold winter nights relished the lure of hot chili hence the use of the use of the name 'Scoville" for shipping information. Overnight temperatures on the Arco desert can plunge to -20F or more. Unfortunately, the guys running the reactors couldn't drink beer, but they did have coffee. It's still that way today.

Why '2nd day' in the name?

This is "2nd day chili." That means after you make it, put it in the garage to cool, then refrigerate it, and reheat the next day. The flavors will have had time to mix with the ingredients, and on a cold Idaho night what you need that warms the body and the soul is a bowl of hot chili with fresh, warm corn bread on the side.

If you make a double portion, you can serve it for dinner over a hot Idaho baked potato with salad. Enjoy.

Dan's 2nd day Idaho Nuclear Chili

Ingredients

1 lb chopped or ground beef (15% fat)
1 large onion
1 sweet red pepper
1 sweet green pepper
10-12 medium size mushrooms
1 can pinto beans (plain, no "sauce")
1 can black beans
1 can chopped tomatoes
1 can small, white 'shoepeg" corn
1 12 oz can beer
1 cup hot beef broth
1 tablespoon cooking brandy or bourbon
1 tablespoons finely chopped jalapeno peppers
2-4 tablespoons red chili powder
1/2 teaspoon black pepper
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon coarse powdered garlic
1/2 teaspoon cumin

Directions

1. Chop the vegetables into small pieces and brown them in cooking oil. Add 1 tablespoon of cooking brandy near the end. Drain thoroughly.

2. Brown the meat separately and drain the fat.

3. Combine all the ingredients in a large pot. Be sure to drain the beans, and tomatoes before adding. Simmer slowly for at least 60-120 min. Stir occasionally.

4. Set aside and refrigerate when cool.

5. Reheat the next day. Serve with corn bread. Garnish with shredded sharp cheddar cheese.

Feeds 2-4 adults.

# # #

Is there a change by green groups for nuclear energy?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:44:00 +0000

A report from the UK says change is taking place, but some green groups in the US are still hard over against it.

In a news article datelined London, the Washington Post reports some green groups now see nuclear energy “as part of the answer” to the challenge of global warming. This is good news in the U.K. where the government has committed itself to build 12 GWe of new nuclear power generation capacity at 10 sites.

The newspaper reports that Stephen Tindale, (right) a former head of Greenpeace in the U.K., has changed his mind about nuclear energy. After years of telling the public “nuclear power is evil,” he’s left the organization and now tells the Washington Post, “It really is a question about the greater evil – nuclear waste or climate change.”

Tindale’s trajectory from ant-nuclear opposition to pragmatic acceptance mirrors that of former U.S. Greenpeace leader Patrick Moore who since 2006 has stumped for the CASEnergy Coalition, a pro-nuclear group funded in part by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). With all of this retrograde activity, one could think that other hard line anti-nuclear groups in the U.S. are on the verge of doing the same. Think again.

Full text of this story is online exclusively at CoolHandNuke, a nuclear energy recruiting portal and a whole lot more.

* * *

Special thanks to Jeff Madison, CEO of Cool Hand Nuke, for his support of the nuclear blogger and social media meeting that took place Nov 17 at the winter meeting of the American Nuclear Society.

Jeff wrote that his reason for supporting the meeting, even though he couldn’t be there in person, is . . .

If we do not actively participate in the new, social media with the ensuing dialogue then we will eventually become victim to it. A decision to avoid engagement cedes the conversation to the under-informed and those pushing their own agenda. This is our opportunity to inform and shape the conversations needed to secure a peaceful, nuclear future.

Hats off to Jeff for his support!

You can also connect with CoolHandNuke on Facebook.

# # #

Will the nuclear renaissance start with small reactors?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:22:00 +0000

A panel of vendors makes the case for it at the ANS winter meeting

It is the burden of all senior executives when serving on panel discussions at industry conferences to walk a fine line between being interesting and engaging with a skeptical audience on one hand and on the other hawking the daylights out of their product with shameless disregard for anyone's desire not to sit through a commercial.

A meeting of four such executives from firms planning to build small reactors, and one totally out gunned nuclear regulator, took place Wednesday Nov 18 at the winter meeting of the American Nuclear Society (ANS). This report is mostly about the highlights of the panel discussion. Details about designs are available at vendor sites. See the URLs in each section of this blog post.

Just to give you a flavor of the marketing emphasis of the meeting, the day started with a press release from Hyperion, It announced previously proprietary details of its small reactor design simultaneously publishing them, with additional technical details, in the U.S. and the U.K.

One interesting fact that came out from all of the small reactor vendors is that size matters in terms of the shipping envelope. All of them want to be able to get their reactors to customer sites by a combination of truck or rail. Reactor physics may offer opportunities to scale up to higher power levels, but in point of fact, the cargo envelopes of an 18-wheeler, or railroad flat car, are the key limiting factors.

All four firms said they expect to submit reactor design certification applications to the NRC by late 2010 or early 2011 and have completed combined operating and construction licenses by 2016-2018. In response, NRC’s Michael Mayfield called these schedule assumptions “aggressive” and in his presentation said at this point NRC has no idea what a complete application for any of the designs looks like. “We are testing the boundaries of existing regulations,” he said.

NuScale

The competitive spirit wasn’t lost on the other panelists. To start, Paul Lorenzini, CEO of NuScale, noted that it is one thing to announce your have a design on a cocktail napkin, it is another to bring it to market.

He said that he’s aware of a staggering 90 small reactor designs world wide and every one of them is touting distributed electricity generation in developing nations as their marketing advantage. Even ANS President Thomas Sanders has one at Sandia, and so does software billionaire Bill Gates.

Lorenzini did what all CEOs do well, in terms of characterizing the competition. He cast doubt on the market prospects of the 89 other firms saying the “market for distributed power generation is unknown,” and that his firm is focused on the U.S. market.

He took things a step further by describing NuScale’s one-third test facility at Oregon State University. He said that because NuScale’s 45 MW reactor is a traditional LWR design, it doesn’t have to fabricate or test new fuels.

This is a subtle but directed comment about the two fast reactors in the mix, which are Hyperion’s 25 MW conceptual design and Toshiba’s “4S” R&D prototype which comes in 10 MW and 50 MW sizes. Both are liquid metal, passively-cooled designs which will require enriched uranium in the range of 17-19%.

NuScale was also the first to announce a modular approach to selling its reactors to customers. The idea is that a utility could buy a six-pack or eight-pack of the 45 MW units. This approach means that while one unit is being refueled, the others remain online. Subject to NRC approval of the idea, it could provide economies of scale for control room operations.

B&W mPower

John Ferrara, representing Babcock & Wilcox, emphasized the advantages of an early time to market for the mPower small reactor, a 125 MW LWR design that is still being completed on the drawing boards in Lynchburg, VA. The reactor will use 5% enriched uranium in fuel rod assemblies which are similar in design to those used in 1,000 MW plants.

He said that the advantages of his firm’s design is that, “it is not a bet the company” reactor project. This makes the small reactor attractive to Wall Street investors looking for a way to get into the nuclear industry without having to wait a decade, or more, for a payoff.

At a hypothetical price of $3,000/Kw, a single unit would cost $375 million providing carbon emission free power in a future setting which will be rife with carbon taxes and other offsetting economic and policy mechanisms to discourage new fossil fuel plants.

One of the intended uses of the mPower reactor is to “repower carbon-intensive plants where the transmission and distribution infrastructure is already in place. Ferrara said the first units could be received by customers by 2018 and that the reactor can can be shipped by truck and rail to a customer site and installed below grade by skilled trades without complex training.

He claimed that the time from ink on the order book to revenue service is about three years. Like NuScale, B&W plans to offer its reactor in a modular array of up to eight units.

See also the report by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights about his talk with B&W’s technical team at the ANS conference.

Hyperion

Mark Campagna, representing Hyperion, explained that the firm’s 25 MW “nuclear battery” (slides) is a spin-off from Los Alamos National Laboratory. The firm continues to rely on expertise from the federal science facility with a cooperative R&D agreement.

Unlike B&W and NuScale, both of which emphasized hooking up their reactors to existing electrical grids, Campagna said the competitive advantage of Hyperion’s design is that it is focused on providing local, or “distributed power,” where there is no grid. Key export markets will include remote oil and gas fields, mining, and military installations. A target use for developing nations will be to power potable water treatment facilities.

Hyperion is funding its development path with venture capital. Campagna said the firm is completing the first of three rounds of financing. He claims it is “over-subscribed” for latter stage financing. Key target investors are from the firm’s supply chain.

He said this approach will not only insure NQA-1 components, but also reliable supplies because the firm’s vendors will have skin in the game. Another objective is that, given the international scope of the firm’s marketing efforts, Hyperion is planning to “dual source” all reactor components, fuel, and manufacturing capabilities.

One of the issues which came up about reactor fuel is that Hyperion had previously announced a different fuel type than it specified in the design information it released last week. Campagna said that time-to-market considerations and easing the regulatory review were critical issues for making the change.

Toshiba 4S

Tony Grenci, representing Toshiba has his work cut out for him. The firm has publicized its proposal to put a 10 MW “nuclear battery” in Galena, Alaska. The chief limiting factor in the proposal is not to get it there, or to install it, but to convince a nuclear engineer to stay there to run it.

There are no roads to Galena (map) which is served by a local airstrip and by boat traffic on the Yukon River during the brief summer season. In winter the town is cut off for days at a time by severe weather.

People make their living from seasonal tourism, timber, and from support to various state and federal agencies operating in that part of Alaska. The last census estimate listed fewer than 1,000 people recorded as living in the area.

Electrical power comes from high- priced diesel fuel. Toshiba believes that if it can bring in power from its unit below the price of diesel fuel, that it will have a competitive product for distributed power applications.

Like Hyperion, Toshiba is emphasizing applications that are off the grid including mining, military, and power for remote populations. Grenci took a straight forward approach to describing the technical details (slides) and planned market segments for the fast, passively cooled, liquid metal reactor. The reactor will be offered to customer in two sizes – 10MW and 50 MW.

Neither design will require on-site refueling. The smaller size will have a lifetime of 30 years and the larger one will be good for ten years. The below grade installation will have no moving parts in the reactor, but there will be balance of plant at grade to capture heat from the secondary loop.

NRC’s steep learning curve

Michael Mayfield, head of the Office of Advanced Reactors at the NRC, came to the panel with bad news for the small reactor vendors. He said that NRC is “unfamiliar with most small reactor technology and has no proven review process to certify one.”

This assessment puts the regulatory agency behind the eight-ball and produced a lot of grumbling from the vendors on the panel. They all offered “not happy to hear this news” types of remarks as Mayfield shot back that “vendor schedules [for NRC approval of their designs] are aggressive” and therefore unrealistic.

Another contentious issue is how control rooms will be configured and operated for modular installations of multiple small reactors. The vendors want a single control room, but the NRC is adamant, at least for now, that each reactor will need its own control panel and licensed operator. All of the vendors claim, that unlike the big iron, safety, security, and controls will be handled by small staffs rather than the hundreds of people needed to run a 1,000 MW unit.

One piece of good news is that Mayfield said the LWR designs have a good chance of getting through the Part 52 Standard Review with minimal changes to the process. The bad news for the two fast reactors, which are cooled by liquid metal, is that NRC’s initial gap analysis for review of these designs shows many unresolved issues. In other words, the NRC doesn’t know what it doesn’t know, like Rumsfeld’s famous “unknowns,” about certifying these designs.

All of the reactor vendors want to know if the NRC is open to changing the rule that requires 100% cost reimbursement for reactor design review. This issue, and many others that will affect the agency’s review, are stacked up like airplanes over DC’s National Airport in bad weather.

Mayfield said that the NRC’s Chief Financial Officer had published a notice in the Federal Register to consider changing the issue. Also, legislation has been introduced in the House (Udall, CO) and Senate(Webb-VA; Alexander, TN) to fund the NRC to conduct the reviews.

Mayfield challenged the vendors on the issue of when they would produce a prototype of their designs. While their words in response were diplomatically phrased, a more blunt translation is that the first units would be built for paying customers.

NRC’s Mayfield departed from the podium as one thoroughly grumpy regulator. He’d been candid about the challenges the NRC faces under current law, regulation, and funding, and got roughed up for his trouble. This isn’t limited to his interaction with vendors. This panel was one of those sessions with high audience participation.

He did leave one salient point relevant for potential investors in small reactors, and that is the LWR designs will have an easier time getting NRC’s safety review done. The “fast reactors,” as Mayfield called Hyperion and Toshiba’s designs, will require changes to “defense-in-depth” safety analysis to eliminate accidents which are not feasible and to other parts of the regulatory requirements for safety analysis review.

With a gap analysis pointing to a lot of holes, it’s unclear how much regulatory patchwork sock darning Mayfield and his colleagues will have to do to get the job done.

These changes will reduce the cost of the design certification reviews, but overall, both reactors will have a steeper hill to climb and take longer to do it. The NRC will have to change the regulations it uses to guide its standard review approach. Then it can do the reviews.

# # #

AEHI gets positive turnout in Payette County

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:29:00 +0000

Rocky Barker has a comprehensive report in the Idaho Statesman (11/20/09) on the latest developments with AEHI's proposals to build a nuclear reactor in Idaho.

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:00 +0000

Wheels down Idaho Falls

Taking the myths out of the debate on nuclear energy

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:54:00 +0000

News media coverage and blog posts take different paths towards the same destination

At the American Nuclear Society winter meeting taking place in Washington, DC, this week, two sessions highlighted efforts to remove the veil of confusion on three critical issues affecting the public debate on nuclear energy.

These issues are that development of civilian nuclear energy leads to proliferation of nuclear weapons, that management of spent nuclear fuel has no solution, and that the industry does not need loan guarantees for new reactors because they are subsidies in disguise.

The first session was a panel of top flight journalists who cover energy issues. Organized by Mimi Limbach of Potomac Communications, it included reporter George Lobsenz, Energy Daily, Matthew Wald, New York Times, Angie Pointer, Dow Jones News Wires, and Jim van Nostrand, McClatchy News. The audience had a typical ANS profile of nuclear engineers, utility executives, and industry consultants.

The second session was a meeting of 45 people involved or interested in new social media including blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and similar types of online tools and services. In addition to your faithful reporter, the audience included Rod Adams from Atomic Insights, John Wheeler from ThisWeekinNuclear, Dave Bradish from NEI Nuclear blog, William Tucker, author of the new book Terrestrial Energy, Ed Kee, a consultant who moderates the leading nuclear energy group on Linkedin, Nancy Roth, managing editor of Fuel Cycle Week and many others.

Read the full text of this report direct from the ANS winter meeting exclusively on the Energy Collective.

# # #

Hyperion reveals design details of its 25 MW reactor

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:59:00 +0000

Firm kicks-off effort to prepare a submission to the NRC for safety review

Update 11/24/09 (below)

Hyperion Power Generation, which is designing a small, 25 MWe, nuclear reactor, revealed design details Nov 18 (slides) about the company's product at the winter meeting of the American Nuclear Society taking place in Washington, DC.

This is the first release of reactor design information by the company. It marks the kick-off of the firm’s pre-application process with the NRC for safety analysis review that leads to a reactor design certification decision by the agency.

No matter where, globally, Hyperion plans to build their reactor, the NRC certification is a critical success factor because the agency’s regulatory review is considered to be the “gold standard” by other countries.

According to John Grizz Deal, Hyperion CEO, the firm plans to submit its design to the NRC in late 2010 or early 2011. Hyperion technical staff said the NRC learning curve is a challenge since it is not a light water reactor.

“We hope that it will not be too hard for them to understand our design. We choose technologies for fuel and fuel cladding that are well understood from a safety perspective.”

Design details

The sealed core, which is good for up to 10 years, does not require refueling at the customer site. Instead, the entire mechanism is replaced by a new one. The first use of the reactor at a customer site will be to produce electricity. The planned output of the reactor will be 25 MWe. Other applications include process heat and power for remote military applications. The company claims to have numerous customers lined up to buy the units.

Features include;

* Each unit will generate approximately 70MWt and 25MWe – enough to power 20,000 average American homes.

* The temperature of the secondary loop is 450-500 F. The secondary loop is a liquid metal circuit to produce steam so that there is no contact between the primary reactor and water in any form.

* Overnight costs are estimated by the firm to be $2,000 - $3,000 per KW capacity. The bottom line market goal is to generate electricity for < US$0.10 per kWh anywhere in the world.

* The reactor, which measures 1.5 x 2.5 meters, can be transported by truck to a customer site. Connections to a secondary loop, turbine, and transmission lines increases the footprint, but not by much.

Hyperion Reactor Information

* Operation is limited to reactivity adjustments to maintain constant temperature output and it has much fewer in-core components than a light water reactor. Hyperion claims that operational reliability is enhanced by the reduction of moving mechanical parts. Staffing will be at least two people at all times to comply with NRC requirements.

The reactor is intended to meet requirements for dedicated power by hospitals, factories, foundries, government centers, water treatment, or irrigation and desalinization. Resource intensive uses at remote sites include mining and oil production & refining. Military facilities that cannot compromise tactical readiness relative to having enough electricity may find the small footprint of the reactor and ease of transport to be of interest.

Safe shutdown

The reactor has two shutdown systems which provides redundancy. In event of a problem, there is a space in the center of the core into which the operator can rapidly dumped marble size boron pellets which will lead to rapid shutdown of the reactor.

Hyperion Plan Review of Active Core

Once reactor comes to end of fuel cycle, in about 5-10 years, it takes two years to cool down via air circulation. Then the entire reactor can be removed for disposition. Ideally, a customer will have two setups for these reactors so that one slot is empty at startup of the first one. When it’s done, you put the new one in the empty space, and let the old one cool off in place for two years. Then the customer can arrange for Hyperion to remove it. It gives new meaning to the term “plug and play.”

Future fuel fabrication plans

Fuel will be enriched to between 15-19.6% because this small reactor needs more highly enriched fuel to get power levels to point of economic value. Fuel is a uranium nitride alloy. No fuel has been fabricated or tested so far. A system engineer at Hyperion said in an interview INL’s ATR is an option for testing fuel. Other international sites (unnamed) are also interested if ATR is not available. The firm’s goal is to verify that fuel meets requirements for higher burn-up rates.

Hyperion said in October it plans to build a factory to make the reactors in the UK. CEO Deal is making a simultaneous announcement there about design details this week. Nuclear Engineering International Magazine published a technical update 11/19/09.

Update 11/24/09

Like everyone else, I was surprised by the change in fuel types. My report on Idaho Samizdat referenced above is based on telephone interviews on 11/16/09 with technical staff at Hyperion and with CEO John Deal.

Note also that Hyperion's technical staff told me explicitly that no fuel has been fabricated or tested. I've since been told by an expert in the matter that Los Alamos, which is supplying technical expertise to Hyperion via CRADA, has in fact done work with this fuel type.

See also
R&D work done at UC Berkeley in 2002 and paid for by the US Department of Energy.

The change in the fuel type for Hyperion is based on a decision by the company to go with a fuel type that it believes will have a better chance of passing regulatory review.

At the ANS winter meeting 11/18/09, M. Mayfield of NRC characterized both Hyperion's design and the Toshiba's 4S as "fast reactors." See my additional reporting on small reactors from ANS for comparisons between small LWRs and the two fast reactors.

The Hyperion design is very similar to the Soviet KLT-40S. This 25 MW reactor has been used in Russian subs and ice breakers. The design has a 10-12 year cycle after which the reactor is repalced and the old one decommissioned.

Prior coverage on this blog

09/03/09 – What’s a small reactor like you doing in a market like this?

# # #

Alexander v Jaczko: 180 degrees of separation

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 02:33:00 +0000

Sen. Alexander and Webb put their oars it the water, but NRC’s Jaczko says the nuclear industry is sinking its own ship

As dutiful attendees to industry conferences know, the first 45 minutes of a “plenary” session are often extra snooze time to make up for a night on the town. Once the worthies of the conference leadership have gotten through the obligatory self-congratulations, the real interesting stuff shows up.

At the start of day one of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) meeting being held this week in Washington, DC, the 1,400 or so registered at the meeting filled a giant hotel ballroom to standing room status.

21st century Manhattan project in the works

One the highpoints of the half dozen speakers who offered their views on the state of the nuclear industry was a bipartisan tag team talk by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) (Alexander’s original press release on his plan (blueprint document) for 100 new reactors) and Sen. James Webb (D-VA) (Webb Press Release from today’s speech).

They discussed a stand-alone effort called the “Clean Energy Act of 2009” modeled after the Manhattan project in World War II. The 21st century equivalent is an effort to double the amount of electricity generated by nuclear reactors in the U.S. by building 100 more of then in the next two decades. They also proposed funding of $1 billion to cover the cost of reviewing small reactor designs at the NRC and another $1 billion for educating the next generation of nuclear engineers and skill trade crafts to build those 100 new reactors.

Paperwork piles up at NRC

One of the low points was a list of complaints by NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko about the nuclear energy industry’s collective interactions with the agency. He said utilities and reactor vendors are not following the agency’s licensing and reactor design certification process as intended creating all kinds of headaches for the NRC’s rapidly growing and inexperienced staff.

He mentioned that the agency has increased its budget by 60%, but that 50% of the staff have less than five years of experience with the agency. That group presumably includes Commissioner Jaczko, who started there in 2005.

Sail boats for submarines?

There is frustration on the current situation with both advocates and critics of the nuclear energy industry. In one of those metaphors that sticks in your mind, Alexander described the loss of U.S. competitive position for nuclear energy globally this way.

“If we were going to war we wouldn’t mothball our nuclear navy and start subsidizing sail boats.”

Alexander said that if you wanted to build a wind farm that would supply as much power as a 1,000 MW reactors, you would need to cover a land mass the size of West Virginia. Of course that’s not the best place to build a wind farm, but like the sail board analogy, he got his point across to the audience.

He said China is starting new nuclear reactors at the rate of one every three months, the UK just announced it will build 10 and the UAE will build three.

Speak softly and carry a big paint brush

On the other hand, NRC’s Jaczko painted a picture in broad strokes with a wide brush characterizing the vendors of nuclear reactors as turning in poor quality responses to requests for information and often late to boot. He added the utility operators are “complacent” about the NRC’s oversight process. That’s the type of complaint that keeps licensing managers awake and which is also a flare that lights up the night sky for anti-nuclear groups.

It is significant that Jaczko complained about the NRC’s “overwhelming work load" which includes three new reactor design certifications, two revisions to existing reactors, 13 combined construction and operating license applications that are active (another five are on hold), and nine power uprate applications.

Here’s where things got murky. Jaczko said that unless the nuclear industry followings the processes for reactor design review and licensing more to the agency’s liking, that the “NRC could not be predictable” in or “timely” in its responses.

On the surface, this sounds plausible. a regulatory agency like the NRC is, after all, prescriptive when it comes to telling the industry how to deal with it. If the industry turns in bad data and late, it has only itself to blame when the NRC takes longer to straighten things out. That’s called sinking your own ship to borrow from the nautical flavor of Sen. Alexander’s thinking.

On the other hand, the broad critical sweep of Jaczko’s speech could also be interpreted another way. Try this translation – if you (the nuclear industry) don’t straighten up and fly right, don’t expect me to make your sloppy work my crisis by not slipping the review scheduled to fix the resulting mess.

Time to market and enter revenue service depends on NRC

Since time is money, and every month, or year, of delay in getting a reactor design certified or license is a delay in entering revenue service, the NRC has substantial influence and power to take the position of “my way or the highway.” That’s the prescriptive part of how regulatory agencies behave when they get their socks in a knot.

Coming back to Sen. Alexander’s plans to build 100 new reactors in 20 years, one wonders how NRC Chairman Jaczko would manage the review of eight-or-nine dozen license applications in the first five-to-ten years of the program? Right now the NRC seems to be mired in dealing with just one dozen license applications.

Few cans short of a six pack

It appears the missing piece in Sen. Alexander’s 100 reactor plan is how to sustain safety standards in the review of license applications while at the same time getting the paperwork through the process? One answer is that Congress must stop stripping off some of the reimbursement payments from the industry to the NRC to use them for pet pork projects in other appropriation bills. Fully funding the agency consistent with its workload would help.

Chairman Jaczko owes it to the industry to be more proactive than just complaining and sitting on his hands when the paperwork goes south. Rapping knuckles, metaphorically speaking, at an ANS conference is an effective way to get industry’s attention. The question is that after getting it on Monday, what are you going to do about it on Tuesday?

Finally, if there are legitimate problems, like “zombie RAI’s” that waste everyone’s time, why isn’t the NRC listening to industry concerns?

As Ricky Ricardo once said, more than once to Lucille Ball, “Lucy, you got some explaining to do.” It looks like more explaining and less complaining would get us a lot more reactors built a lot sooner.

# # #

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:08:00 +0000

#ANS09 hashtag on Twitter for live updates from American Nuclear Society, Washington DC. Nov 16-18

Live from ANS Winter Meeting

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:18:00 +0000

There’s a lot going on at the American Nuclear Society conference in Washington, DC, Nov 15-19

Wheels down at OMNI Shoreham hotel!

If you work in the nuclear energy industry, the “can’t miss” conference is ANS Winter Meeting & Nuclear Technology Expo. It will take place Nov 15-19 at the OMNI Shoreham hotel in Washington, DC.

The opening plenary session Monday morning, Nov 16, will set the stage for the meeting. It will include, among others,

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) who has called for 100 new reactors to be built by 2020;
Gregory Jaczko, Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, Chairman of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee,
Mike Wallace, COO Constellation Energy, which is expected to break ground in 2012 with Calvert Cliffs III, an Areva EPR,and,
Warren (Pete) Miller, Assistant Secretary, Nuclear Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.

I’ll be blogging from the ANS conference where there are always lots of exciting developments in the nuclear energy field.

Nuclear bloggers meet-up

Another interesting event will be the meeting of nuclear energy bloggers on Tuesday, Nov 17, at 6:30 PM, in the Capitol Room. This is a continuation of the dialog we started at the ANS meeting in Atlanta last June.

I’m incredibly excited about this session for two reasons. First, I want to thank my colleagues who also publish nuclear blogs for their support. Second, we have sponsors including Areva, CoolHandNuke, and Fuel Cycle Week. See this blog post for details and Areva's blog announcement (poster below). We hope to see you there.

RSVP

We'd like to get a head count so drop me a line via email: djysrv@gmail.com
or leave a voice mail at my Google Voice number: 208-419-3881

Note: This social media event is not part of the official ANS program nor is it sponsored or endorsed by ANS. They have graciously allowed us to use one of the hotel conference rooms for this meeting.

Wiznucleus Exhibit Booth

As readers of this blog know, it is not my day job. I make my living in the world of marketing communications for clients in the nuclear industry.

At the ANS meeting, I’ll be helping staff a booth for one of my most important clients. It is Wiznucleus, which is a knowledge management software company. This is not your usual exhibitor booth full of sales reps in suits. It will be staffed by principals for the firm and its partners.

Wiznucleus develops and implements knowledge management solutions for the nuclear energy industry. These tools are designed to meet the challenges of knowledge capture, risk management, and regulatory requirements in the nuclear industry. Wiznucleus is a nuclear company with extraordinary IT capabilities.

Here’s a profile of the key executives who will be at the ANS Exhibit booth.

Krish Shetty CEO – a graduate of Harvard Business School, Mr. Shetty has in the past 20 years successfully started and developed several profitable high-technology firms delivering hardware and software solutions to customers.

Wiznucleus got its start with work done during Mr. Shetty’s earlier efforts in partnership with another firm. They developed knowledge management solutions for reactor design certification and reactor licensing under NRC’s standard review approach and One-Step Licensing. Wiznucleus is his latest start-up which is rapidly developing an international customer base.

Read more about Krish Shetty at Linkedin

Bruce Hinkley VP at Beckman Associates, and a graduate of the US Naval Academy, has over 30 years of nuclear industry experience as both a consultant and utility executive in the areas of design engineering, operations, start-up testing/commissioning, and construction.

He currently leads Beckman Associates, a partner with Wiznucleus, in the areas of nuclear engineering and business services. He has been an engineering executive for Maine Yankee, Yankee Atomic, and Carolina Power & Light. He served on the U.S. nuclear submarine Simon Bolivar SSBN 641 as a nuclear division officer.

Read more about Bruce Hinkley at Linkedin

Margaret Harding, a graduate of Iowa State University, is President, 4 Factor Consulting. She serves as a strategic advisor to Wiznucleus.

She has over 27 years experience in the nuclear energy business including an executive career at General Electric’s Nuclear Energy business unit leading large engineering groups. She is a Nuclear Quality Assurance Auditor and has extensive experience in BWR reactor core and fuel designs.

Tamar’s Law: You say you want a carbon revolution?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:15:00 +0000

But world governments must open their wallets first

Guest Blog Post by Tamar Cerafici*

This is my last post from Sweden, as things heat up for the climate change conference next month in Copenhagen which is just across a narrow body of water (left) called the Kattegatt.

A bit of history: the Kattegatt is an interesting maritime formation, where the Baltic Sea flows through narrow and shallow straits before it joins the north sea. Dutch mariners called it the "Cat's Hole" because it was so narrow and shallow that even a cat would have difficulty squeezing its way between the reefs and narrow passages.

Copenhagen lies at one of the narrowest points of this treacherous course (the honor for narrowest goes to Elsinore, where Sweden's shores are a mere 2.5 km northeast ).

There will be some interesting goings-on at the climate change talks in Copenhagen next month.

Some, like the Guardian, have already hinted the something is rotten in Denmark, or at least in predictions of the World Energy Outlook (WEO), the leading energy forecast prepared for the 15th round of climate change talks since the international community sang kumbaya in Rio.

Rotten or no, the WEO is grim

The international community as a whole has failed to make adequate infrastructure changes to support a meaningful response to climate change. Developed nations have, in fact, cut back on energy investments that would contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), publisher of the report, clearly recognizes the world Is in a deep recession and life is miserable on many fronts. It also recognizes that with the recession carbon emissions have gone down, and the international community has a unique opportunity to make the investments it needs to meaningfully address climate change this time around.

With the recession carbon emissions have fallen to the point that there is some breathing room. Investments have fallen, too.

Time for a low-carbon revolution

This is a problem. With the lack of capital the impact on more efficient use of energy is seen when a household keeps an old refrigerator and our energy security rises when exploration ceases and low carbon projects are shut down.

Sure, households and private industry must make significant Investments. But governments must also step up to the plate. They set national and international policy – households and industry don’t.

Governments hold the keys to changing the mix of energy development. Only governments can make the national and international policy framework that can steer Investment and consumption decisions to low carbon options.

An alarming fossil energy path

This is big news, because the economists behind the WEO don't generally get terribly excited, or political. They are this year.

For example, one set of predictions, the Reference Scenario, assumes that no changes are made in world energy policy. The Reference Scenario predicts that increased fossil fuel use (arguably as a result of our failure to invest now) moves us "inexorably" towards a long-term concentration of GHG in the atmosphere that will cause a 6° C rise in global average temperature. Sea rise follows as day follows night.

Recent photograph of an island in the Maldives. Courtesy COP15 website

Increased reliance on imports from countries that still have fossil fuel will adversely affect energy security worldwide.

Moreover, failure to invest now will lock us into high carbon energy use for years to come as a result of long engineering, procurement and construction lead times for most low carbon alternatives.

Limit global temperature rise to 2° C

The IEA lays out a clear plan for avoiding Doomsday. This is going to require aggressive commitments in international agreements and national policies, and apparently some militancy from the developing world.

And it’s easier said than done.

The UN’s Barcelona run-up to Copenhagen two weeks ago wanted the developed nations to commit to reductions of 25-40% of GHG by 2020. It’s been difficult for industrialized nations to commit, so the African delegations boycotted the meeting. An entire continent walked out for a day.

In response, a US negotiator accused the boycotting countries of refusing to accept responsibility for immediate action. Really?

Governments must fund the global revolution

The happier "450 scenario," where governments agree to limit global rise in temperature to 2° C, is based on an international investment of around $10.5 trillion over the period between now and 2030; in the long term the investment would be returned on the sale of carbon credits, increased health, and energy security benefits. Short term government investment - in the form of stimulus efforts is crucial.

The cost averages out to an annualized investment of about $50 billion for the US, with similar commitments required from other industrialized countries. The G-20 finance ministers couldn't even agree to that last week.

Governments must commit to aggressive action

Globally, the challenge is to find the right tools and incentives to insure that developing countries will reduce their carbon emissions. The likelihood of this happening in Copenhagen is as grim as the WEO.

Nationally, at least in the US, the politics of climate change must change.

Coal state Democrats are threatening to scuttle the Senate climate change bill, likely limiting the effectiveness of US participation in Copenhagen. In any case, it is unlikely there will be any Senate action worth talking about when the climate conference kicks off.

A “thumbs up” for nuclear

The WEO notes that the low carbon revolution must be supported by increases in renewables (72% by 2030), nuclear (19%), and carbon sequestration.

Fatih Birol, the economist who prepared the report, said that nuclear energy would not be a “bridge technology” like natural gas. Instead, nuclear energy is going to play a “crucial role” in the 450 Scenario.

In fact, the report gives an unequivocal thumbs up to nuclear, noting: "Nuclear technology is the only large-scale, baseload electricity generation technology with a near-zero carbon footprint, apart from hydropower (potential for which is often limited).”

Good news on the global front. Now, if the US delegation, the administration, and Congress will pay attention, we can have a nuclear renaissance here.

Actually, I don’t think we have a choice. But if the Dutch traders could successfully navigate the Kattegatt, it’s possible that we can make it through the dangerous waters ahead.

Author ID

* Ms. Cerafici (right) is an attorney in private practice with expertise in nuclear licensing and environmental law.

Contact info

Tamar Jergensen Cerafici, tnelaw@gmail.com
(She is currently on travel in Sweden)

# # #

Green groups slime Duke on MOX fuel

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:14:00 +0000

Anti-nuclear groups claim the end of a fuel test is “huge setback” for the utility

A rapid-fire exchange of press releases this week Friday, Nov 13 made short order of a claim [press release] by Friends of the Earth (FOE) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that the end of testing of MOX fuel in a Duke Power reactor is a “huge setback” to the program.

Identical letters sent Nov 10 by Tom Clements, representing both two green organizations, to Energy Sec. Steven Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko claimed that a decision by Duke not to reload test bundles of MOX fuel at the Catawba reactor represents a “failure to demonstrate” the safety of the fuel in a conventional light water reactor.

The letter called the situation “an aborted test” and claimed that as a result the MOX fuel is unsafe for use in civilian nuclear reactors. The remainder of the letter is incendiary with claims that the MOX fuel program should not proceed as a result of the “decision” by Duke Energy.

This is one of those stories that pretty much writes itself, but it is still worth walking you through the high points. It is not the first time these groups have promoted a rush to judgment about MOX fuel nor is it likely to be the last.

Duke Energy says ‘no so fast’

The first shot across the bow in response to the slime attack by the two green groups comes from Duke Energy. According to a media report in the Charleston Regional Business Journal Nov 13, Duke Power issued a statement that the decision not to reload the MOX fuel has nothing to do with success or failure of the testing program.

Instead, the utility said the fuel has been sent to Oak Ridge for testing and that the remainder of the fuel outage for the Catawba reactor is on schedule. Duke Energy spokesperson Rita Sipe told the Journal the evaluation of the fuel at a lab in Tennessee is part of the project.

“For us nothing has really changed. The technical evaluation of the fuel rods was part of the lead assembly program. We have expressed interest in a new proposal [for use of MOX fuel] and we are still supportive of the program”

According to the Journal, Sipe acknowledged that Duke’s contract with Shaw Areva MOX Services to conduct the tests lapsed last December, but she said the utility has sent the company a letter of intent to continue the relationship.

DOE answers the charges

The second response came from DOE’s NNSA office, which arranged the MOX fuel test, and which is building a $4.8 billion MOX fuel manufacturing facility in South Carolina. It issued a strong statement refuting the claim by the two anti-nuclear groups.

NNSA spokesperson Jennifer Wagner said in an email to this blog . . .

“The news release issued today by Friends of the Earth is inaccurate and draws incorrect conclusions about the performance of the MOX lead test assemblies.”

- The FOE press release is incorrect that three cycles of irradiation of Lead Test Assemblies are essential to license the use of MOX fuel in reactors. Irradiation of the MOX lead test assemblies (LTAs) for two 18-month cycles was successfully completed as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. After a post-irradiation examination of five rods from the LTAs is completed next year, sufficient data will exist from the two cycles of irradiation to demonstrate that MOX fuel performs satisfactorily.

- The removal of the Lead Test Assemblies from the Catawba 1 Reactor after two cycles was not related to the fact that the fuel was MOX. As explained when the LTAs were removed, the LTAs had experienced assembly growth and rod bow slightly in excess of predictions. This had nothing to do with the fact that it was MOX fuel; the same phenomenon has been observed in many uranium assemblies of the same physical design.

In addition, she said, the Department of Energy has evaluated numerous approaches for disposing of surplus weapon-grade plutonium and, "simply put, there is no, ‘cheaper, safer and faster alternative. This critical project also is important for the Southeastern region of the United States, where it will create jobs and stimulate the local economy.”

The question has to be asked, if anti-nuclear groups don' want the weapons' plutonium used on new nuclear fuel in civilian reactors that will keep the lights on, what is their plan? Their letter doesn't offer one.

What’s wrong with this picture?

The problem here is that the two environmental groups went all in, as they say in poker, in an effort to derail the MOX fuel program. They made false claims about the MOX test to the top government officials. This isn't dialog over honest differences.

The problem for FOE and UCS is that Chu and Jaczko are smart guys and can see through this smokescreen. Chu earned a Nobel Price for his science accomplishments so this is not someone you want to blow spoke at. What kind of significance will be attached to the next letter the two groups send to the government?

There is another way to look at these distortions by the Friends of the Earth and the Union of Concern Scientists. They are no different than conspiracy theories of a decade ago that “black helicopters” are being used by the government to harass ordinary citizens.

The problem with conspiracy theories is that once they are out into the mainstream, they have no mass, and like neutrinos pass through everything, including some news media editor’s brains, without being affected by logic, reason, or analysis. This is not the case with the Charlotte Business Journal which did a good job of capturing Duke Energy's response. Whew.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Even more startling, the blunt tactics of the two groups ignore the fact that the MOX fuel program is designed to recycle plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons. It takes nuclear bomb material out of the weapons complex forever. It is crucial to the mutual agreement with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons we still have pointing at each other left over from the Cold War.

One would think that an anti-nuclear group like the Union of Concerned Scientists would support this program. Apparently, in the upside down world of green politics, they do not. So, for the record, here is the rationale. NNSA Principal Assistant Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Ken Baker said last July . . .

“By disposing of surplus weapons plutonium in a transparent and irreversible manner, the United States is demonstrating our commitment to meeting our nuclear nonproliferation commitments. The MOX program is an important component of our nuclear security agenda that also holds the promise of cheaper nuclear reactor fuel for consumers.”

Over at Nuclear Street, Duncan Williams points out that the Savannah River Site is not reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors.

“The Savannah River Site’s process will focus on extracting “weapons-grade” plutonium. Not only is weapons-grade plutonium of a higher purity than reactor-grade plutonium, but the plutonium coming from spent nuclear fuel includes many other impurities from fission products as a result of being irradiated for years inside a nuclear reactor.”

TVA letter of intent leads the way

It is also noteworthy that in addition to Duke Energy, TVA has signed a letter of intent with Shaw Areva MOX Services to negotiate a contract to receive MOX fuel. Last July NNSA said in a statement the letter of intent signed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and MOX Services “is an important step forward for a critical nuclear nonproliferation objective.”

The nonbinding letter of intent signed by MOX Services and TVA came one week after President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a joint statement on nuclear cooperation that reaffirmed their commitment to dispose of 34 metric tons each of weapons-grade plutonium in the United States and Russia.

TVA is evaluating the use of MOX fuel in its Sequoyah Units 1 and 2, its Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3, as well as future reactors.

NNSA said in a statement that “following further evaluation, TVA and MOX Services intend to enter contract negotiations that could result in the execution of an agreement in the summer of 2010 for irradiation of MOX fuel in two or more reactors.”

According to current schedules, the MOX facility will begin producing fuel in 2016. In addition to TVA, there are three other utilities interested in irradiating MOX fuel.

Something you can do – no more fish stories

One of the things that makes this story so amazing is that Friends of the Earth thought Sec. Chu and Chairman Jaczko would buy their claim hook, line, and sinker. It’s really just a fish story, and there is something you can do about it.

Friends of the Earth has an office in Washington, DC. If you feel that green groups shouldn’t be going around telling fish stories, send them a can of fish as a protest. Be nice. Choose a clean can of tuna or sardines. Include a brief note explaining why you are sending them the canned fish. You can keep it simple and use a magic marker to scrawl on the can “no more fish stories." That will make the point. Here is their address.

Friends of the Earth
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Prior coverage about MOX fuel on this blog

11/10/09 Update on MOX fuel in Japan, UK, and US
07/18/09 Shaw Areva in MOX fuel negotiations with TVA
08/10/08 The future of MOX fuel
05/25/08 Areva signs contract for MOX fuel at SRS

# # #

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:35:00 +0000

Mobile live blogging for ANS winter meeting coverage now enabled. Tweet hash tag is. #ans09

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:28:00 +0000

Wheels up in one day 4 ANS

Update on MOX fuel in Japan, UK, and US

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:38:00 +0000

MOX fuel loaded in Japan

Japan took another step to insure its energy independence this month when it began loading MOX (Mixed Oxide Fuel) at the Genkai #3 nuclear reactor owned and operated by Kyushu Electric Power Co (TYO:9508) It is the first time MOX fuel has been loaded into a commercial nuclear reactor in Japan. (diagram from Japan Nuclear Corp.)

About one-third of the 193 fuel assemblies were swapped out during a scheduled refueling outage and 16 of the new ones contain MOX fuel. The utility plans to triple the number of MOX fuel assemblies to 48. All of the MOX fuel is being produced under contract with Areva and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). The MOX fuel was fabricated at Areva’s Melox plant in June 2009.

Environmental groups protested the shipment of the fuel from France to Japan earlier this year despite the use of a vessel designed to carry this type of cargo. It arrived safely in Japan in May 2009.

According to World Nuclear News, MOX fuel is produced by recovering plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Use of the plutonium in new fuel increases the energy it generates by 12%. If new, un-irradiated uranium, is used, the energy increase over conventional fuel is increased to 22% compared to conventional LWR reactor fuel. The process of recycling spent nuclear fuel decreases the volume of other fission byproducts by over 60%.

The Genjai reactor, a 1,127 MW unit, began operations in 1994. Other Japanese utilities are planning to follow its lead in the use of MOX fuel. Shikoku Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power have announced plans to start using MOX fuel next year. According to estimates published by the Japanese nuclear power industry, there will be 16-18 reactors using MOX fuel by 2015.

Testing extended for Japanese Rokkasho reprocessing plant

Japan Nuclear Fuel (JNFL) announced recently that it will extend the trial operations of its spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in northeastern Japan by another 12 months. The Rokkasho facility has suffered from equipment problems and reports of leaks of liquid radioactive waste processing byproducts.

The plant is designed to produce MOX fuel for Japan’s nuclear utility industry. The original trial run of 18 months was begun three years ago according to Kyodo News.

The reprocessing plant is now under final commissioning test. Company officials said in August 2009 on the firm's web site they are ready to confirm the safety and stability quality of the plant equipment with using spent fuels at this final stage.

The maximum reprocessing capacity of the plant is 800 tons U/year, enough to reprocess the spent fuel produced from 40 reactors at 1,000 MW-class nuclear power plants. That is nearly equal to 80% of annual spent fuel generation in Japan. One of the key issues is material accountability for the plutonium separated and handled in the plant.

The unique feature in this plant is uranium-plutonium co-denitration process. Owing to this process, the plant does not produce plutonium as a single element, which has considerable advantages for non-proliferation. Operations at all reprocessing facilities, located separately, are controlled and monitored at the central control room. The mainframe computer and central control board enables efficient operation.

Sellafield MOX plant will continue operations

The UK Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has decided to continue the operation of the Sellafield MOX plant. The facility, along with the THORP plant, make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for Japanese utilities and European customers. The plants recovers uranium and plutonium from spent nuclear fuel, but neither has performed to expectations since they started operations in 2001.

The ‘Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant" (Thorp) suffered a major internal leak in 2005 which went on for some time due to failure of the operations staff to detect it. No external releases resulted from the leak which poured 20,000 gallons of liquid radioactive material into a sump. The British Nuclear Group, then the operator of the plant, was fined {L} 500,000 for violations of safety regulations. Restart of operations was scheduled for 2008, but has been delayed repeatedly due to continuing equipment problems.

The decision by the NDA to continue to try to restart the plant for continuous operations comes following the appointment of a new consortium of contractors to run the plant composed of Areva, URS / Washington Divsion, and AMEC. The deal is worth $2.1 billion a year.

The NDA said that demand from customers for MOX fuel was one of the primary reasons it decided to assign the new contractor consortium with the task of getting the plant back into commercial operation. The NDA said it seems a light at the end of the tunnel in terms of getting plant equipment to work reliably without breakdowns or safety hazards. The NDA noted that the plant recently completed eight MOX fuel assemblies for a customer in Europe.

Competition to THORP is coming in the U.S. A MOX plant is under construction in South Carolina by the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) of the U.S. Department of Energy. The $4.5 billion facility is expected to be operational in 2016 following a two-year period of start-up testing. It will be capable of processing 3.5 metric tons of plutonium a year into MOX fuel. It’s NRC license is good for 20 years. It will blend plutonium and uranium oxides to make the "mixed oxide" fuel.

The plant is being built by Shaw Areva MOX Services. TVA and Duke Power have signed contracts to test the use of MOX fuel. Areva’s EPR reactor, which is currently in design certification at the NRC, can burn MOX fuel. The first U.S. unit is expected to break ground in 2012 at Calvert Cliffs III in Maryland. Also, Duke Power and Areva have announced plans for an EPR reactor for Piketon, OH. Two other utilities in the U.S. have also listed Areva's EPR reactor as the design reference in their license applications to the NRC for new plants.

GE-Hitachi promotes PRISM reactor in the U.K.

There may be a market for an advanced nuclear fuel recycling system in the U.K. given the size of its recently announced new nuclear build. The U.K. said this week it will commit to build 12 GWe of nuclear energy power stations with the first units expected to enter revenue service by the middle of the next decade.

In presentations to energy industry analysts, GE-Hitachi (GEH) said it is developing an “Advanced Recycling Center” or ARC, using a “4th generation” sodium-cooled fast reactor called PRISM. The ARC includes an ellectro-metallurgical separation process that would lead to manufacturing of new MOX TYPE fuel without separating the plutonium in its pure form. The name PRISM is reportedly based on the design shape of the fuel elements. GEH has not released a lot of technical detail in this area so this information is subject to change.

The PRISM reactor is based on the design of the Integral Fast Reactor first developed at Argonne West in Idaho. See Eric Lowen’s briefing to ANS for technical details.

Lisa Price, the GEH executive in charge of developing the process, told the analysts this feature will meet the objections of the nonproliferation community. She said the technical challenge is building fast reactors that are cost-competitive in terms of their inputs to the total process. She said the firm expects governments to be the primary customers for the ARC system though none so far have signed contracts for it.

Energy Analyst Tim Stone of KPMG, told Reuters the design “is very clever.”

“The principles have been known for a long time. A positive part is it burns the worst radioactive waste (actinides).”

Tim Abram, a professor of nuclear fuel at Manchester University, told Reuters the basic technology has been demonstrated, but that so far it appears fast reactors will cost about 20% more than conventional LWR designs.

Ian Hore-Lacy, an analyst with the World Nuclear Association, told Reuters interest in fast reactors is increasing because of their ability to burn waste fission products that would otherwise have to be stored for very long periods of time in a geologic repository.

However, Hore-Lacy also noted that all of the MOX manufacturing operations would have to be done via remote manipulation in heavily shielded facilities due to the high levels of radioactivity.

“No one has yet demonstrated these robotic capabilities on industrial scales.”

GEH’s Price responded to comments by energy analysts saying that using fast reactors is going to be more expensive than today’s LWR reactors. She noted that the GEH PRISM system puts energy back in the economy through recycled MOX fuel. She added that when you take that factor into account, along with the comparison to long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel, then the economics of recycling and manufacturing of MOX fuel make sense.

* * *

More reading on MOX fuel

Over at Nuclear Street Duncan Williams has another of his excellent "under the hood" series of columns on MOX fuel. It is rich in technical nuance, but very accessible for the non-technical reader. It is well worth your time.

# # #

Western lands uranium gopher for 11/12/09

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:38:00 +0000

Green groups chase uranium miners in Montrose County, Colorado

This blog posted is an edited version of a report published in Fuel Cycle Week, V8:N352 by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC

Want to know what comes with the territory running a uranium mine in Montrose County, Colorado? The answer is being pecked at by ducks, metaphorically speaking, as a result of actions by the Sheep Mountain Alliance which made life a bit harder, but not impossible, for two uranium operations there.

The group attacked the supply of raw uranium ore and a planned uranium mill in a two-pronged effort to undermine the fuel cycle for the nuclear energy industry.

In the first action, the group filed a protest with the Department of Interior over the adequacy of an environmental assessment for the Topaz Mine. In the second action, it filed a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners over their decision to grant a permit to Energy Fuels for a new 500 ton/day uranium mill. Both sites are in Naturita, Colo.

As a result of the environmental protest, Denison Mines (AMEX:DNN) was told this week by the Colorado State Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that it wanted more information on a proposal to expand the firm's Topaz mine. Specifically, BLM asked for more data on the condition and environmental effects of waste piles and on groundwater monitoring data related to them.

Jamie Sellar-Baker, BLM's Associate Manager for the San Juan Public Lands Center in Dolores, Colo, told FCW the waste piles have been there for three decades since mining first started at the Topaz site, and four others that are part of the Sunday Mine complex. She said the request for data doesn't stop the current mine from operating as long as Denison doesn't increase the footprint of the current dump site.

Ron Hockstein, CEO of Denison Mines, told FCW the BLM request for new information was "routine." He also said that due to low uranium mining prices, the Topaz mine was on standby status.

Hilary White, a spokesman for the Sheep Mountain Alliance, and Jeff Parsons, an attorney representing the group, from the Western Mining Action Project, said the environmental assessment [EA] was inadequate because it didn't produce a new baseline of the impacts of the 30-year old waste dump.

Sellar-Baker said that her office made a decision that since Dension wasn't proposing a new mine, that current information on the waste piles from prior owners was all that was needed for the EA. She said that new surface disturbances would add up to about 20 acres. Denison has asked for permission to drill new exploration holes, put in new vents to the underground mine, are repair some surface structures and equipment.

White and Parsons also asked the Colorado State Office to overturn the EA based on a claim there was no regional assessment of the cumulative impacts of uranium mining. BLM turned them down flat on that issue. Sellar-Baker said she thinks the groups know they have a weak case for that issue under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because they didn't take their appeals to the Department of Interior Board of Land Appeals in Washington, DC.

Sellar-Baker said that while acquiring the new information could take some time, it is likely the end result will be no change in the EA.

"There is a chance that the data will show no new mitigation efforts are needed relative to the decision to expand the dump area."

The only real substantive issue that came up in the EA for the mine was a request by the Colorado Department of Transportation that Denison improve the mine access road where it meets a state highway to make it safer from ore trucks to enter traffic. When the Sunday Mine complex is operating, ore from the mine is shipped to Denison's White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah, for processing.

Denison to put Arizona mine into production

Denison Mines (AMEX:DNN) will bring its 100% owned Arizona 1 mine near Fredonia, Ariz., into production in 1Q 2010 with expected output in 2010 of 156,000 pounds U3O8. Planned production in 2011 is 461,000 pounds, and in 2012 it is 240,000 pounds.

The ore, with an expected yield of 11 pounds per ton, will be hauled by truck 315 miles to Dension's White Mesa Mill near Blanding, Utah. Total production from the mine over the next three years, which is an underground breccia pipe, is 857,000 pounds U3O8 based on an ore volume of 72,121 tons.

When asked about the long haul distance, Curt Steele, VP for Marketing, told FCW, "I don't think we're breaking any records here. If we didn't have such a good grade, we wouldn't consider hauling it that far."

Steele told FCW the firm expects to see a spot price for the uranium of $53/lb and a long-term contract price of $65/pound. He said total revenue over three years is expected to be about $51 million.

Cash operating costs will be $30.50/lb of which $13.52 is for mining and hauling the ore to the mill. Mill costs are estimated to be $10.88/lb with additional costs of $5.86 for overhead and $0.74/lb for reclamation.

Capital costs are budgeted at $2.3 million as most mine infrastructure is already in place. Of this amount, $0.4 million is for new underground equipment.

The underground mine is 1,252 feet deep with expected production of 335 tons of ore per day, four days a week. The mine will employ 32 people.

Ron Hockstein, CEO, told FCW this is the first of a series of breccias-type uranium deposits the firm expects to develop in the next few years.

Energy Fuels permit is basis for lawsuit

While Denison was swatting off what amounted to a nuisance protest over the Topaz Mine, the Sheep Mountain Alliance as filing a lawsuit against the Montrose County Commissioners over a planned 500 ton/day uranium mill. The Alliance alleged in a suit filed in District Court in Telluride, Colo., that the commissioners violated county zoning rules and abused their discretion when they unanimously approved a special use permit allowing Energy Fuels (TSE:EFR) to use 880 acres of agricultural land in the Paradox Valley near Naturita for the new mill.

Travis Stills, an attorney with the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango, Colo., argued in the lawsuit that the rezoning action from agricultural to industrial use "was an abuse of discretion." He also claimed that county officials violated open meeting laws by having technical exchanges of information with staff from Energy Fuels when they filed the paperwork for the special use permit. He asked on behalf of the Sheep Mountain Alliance that the special use permit be overturned.

Energy Fuels CEO George Glasier denied that any laws were broken. He said his staff and the county talked all the time as the permit was being reviewed to insure it was complete. He characterized the lawsuit as "a long shot."

"We're not going to stop work [on this mill site] because of a simple little lawsuit like this," he said.

He added Energy Fuels will file its request for a permit for the mill with State of Colorado regulatory authorities next month. Colorado is an "agreement state" with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which gives the state the authority to license uranium mills.

Strathmore submits Roca Honda permit in New Mexico

The joint project between Strathmore Minerals (CVE:STM) of Rawlins, Wyo., and Sumitomo Corp., the giant Japanese conglomerate, filed a permit application Oct 23 for an underground uranium mine at the joint venture's Roca Honda mine site in the Grants District of New Mexico.

John DeJoia, an executive for Strathmore, said the application describes, "the largest proposed mine in New Mexico in 30 years." A bankable feasibility study for the mine will begin in early 2010.

The Roca Honda Property was acquired by Strathmore in 2004, along with the Kerr McGee uranium data base. In March 2006, Strathmore completed an independent NI 43-101 resource calculation which estimated a Measured and Indicated mineral resource of 17,512,000 lbs. U3O8 contained within 3,782,000 tons at an average grade of 0.23% U3O8. An additional 15,832,000 lbs. contained within 4,546,000 tons at an average grade of 0.17% U3O8 are estimated as an Inferred mineral resource.

Strathmore and Sumitomo are also developing a plan for a large uranium mill at the site. In April they completed a 30% mill design report that presents the preliminary layout and equipment configuration for a 3,500 ton per day throughput capacity expandable to 7,000 tons per day.

Peninsula buys database from Ur-Energy for $1 million

Peninsula Minerals Limited, has bought a historic uranium drilling database in Wyoming from Ur-Energy (AMEX:URG) for $1 million. Labeled the “Moorcroft Database,” it consists of paper geologic maps and technical drilling logs and report reports completed in the 1970s and 1980s for more than 5,000 exploration and development holes. Uranium was first discovered north of Gillette in the late 1960s by Nuclear Dynamics, which drilled the holes and created the records.

Peninsula Minerals holds mineral and/or surface access rights on 23,400 acres in an area northeast of Gillette. The company submitted a notice to the NRC Oct 6 it plans to develop an ISR mine on the site. The Lance Project has a target production of 1.5 million pounds of uranium a year from the mine by 2012. Peninsula told the Gillette News Record Oct 24 it believes the site contains 50-76 million pounds of uranium.

Uranium Energy Corp sets $11M deal with Neutron Energy for NM property

Uranium Energy Corp (AMEX:UEC) announced it has entered into an option agreement with Neutron Energy, Inc. a privately held Nevada corporation, granting Neutron the exclusive option to purchase a 49% interest in Cibola Resources LLC for $11 million. Neutron must close the deal in 60 days or lose the option.

The property is the Cebolleta uranium project, a mining lease covering approximately 6,700 acres 45 miles west of Albuquerque, NM. Cibola is owned 49% by the Company and 51% by Neutron, a private corporation based in Englewood, Colorado.

The status of the Cebolleta project is that the Cibola partners have recently submitted an application for a permit to proceed with exploration.

Uranium Energy will use the proceeds from the proposed sale to further strengthen and expand its uranium resource base in Texas.

Monaro Mining raises $3 million

Monaro Mining (ASX:MRO), an Australian firm, has raised $3 million to pursue uranium mining projects at its Rio Puerco property in New Mexico and at the Apex-Lowboy mine in Nevada. The funds were raised by sale of 33.3 million shares of stock at $0.09/share. The firm's stock closed Nov 6 at $0.09/share against a 52-week range of $0.06-$0.16 with 108.4 million shares outstanding and market capitalization of $9.75 million.

Nichols Ranch gets air quality permit

The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) approved and issued an air quality permit for the Uranerz (AMEX:URZ) Nichols Ranch ISR mine. The permit covers the central processing area and the Hank Satellite plant. A DEQ permit to mine and an NRC Source Material License are needed to break ground at the mine. Both applications were submitted in December 2007.

Production from the Nichols Ranch is reportedly planned to be 600,000-800,000 pounds U3O8 a year and the central processing facility is proposed to be licensed for a production level of two million pounds a year.

Powertech submits BLM application for Dewey-Burdock

Powertech (TSE:PWE) has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for its Dewey-Burdock ISR mine located near the Wyoming border of South Dakota. While the project consists of 10,580 acres, BLM only manages 240 acres within the project, but is required to review the plan because 15 acres of BLM land are expected to be impacted by mine operations.

Richard Clement, CEO at Powertech, said in a statement he expects the BLM review will occur concurrently with reviews by the State of South Dakota and the NRC, which are ongoing. Powetech had some difficulties getting its initial application paperwork docketed by both agencies over the summer, but since then has had both agencies indicate the applications are administratively complete and ready for technical review.

Uranium Resources gets drilling permit for Ambrosia Lake

Uranium Resources (NASDQ:URRE) has received approval from the State of New Mexico to drill 10 exploratory holes to investigate the feasibility of developing an ISR mine at its Ambrosia Lake property. The permit is good until Nov 2010.

CEO Don Ewigleben told the UPI wire service Oct 27 the firm thinks the property could have as much as 2.4 million pounds of uranium. The firm owns or has mineral rights to 183,000 acres in New Mexico. Its primary operations are in Texas where its operates ISR mines at several locations.

International Isotopes sets waste storage agreement with New Mexico

New Mexico environmental officials and International Isotopes (OTC:INIS) have reached an agreement on how much waste can be stored at the firm's planned uranium deconversion plant near Hobbs, NM. International Isotopes will extract fluorine gas from depleted UF6 and sell it to industrial customers. The agreement limits onsite storage to 2.2 million kilograms or 2,425 tons of uranium after the fluorine has been extracted from the UF6. The remaining material, which is almost entirely composed of uranium 238, will be disposed of at a licensed facility in Texas.

International Isotopes is building a $55 million uranium deconversion plant 15 miles outside of Hobbs, NM. A license application for the plant is pending with the NRC and is expected to be issued by the third quarter of 2011 according to a statement by Steve Lafflin, CEO. Operations employing 130-150 people are expected to begin in late 2012.

Louisiana Energy Services plans to spool up centrifuges

Reinhardt Hinterreither, CEO at Louisiana Energy Services (LES) said in Hobbs, NM, last week that the firm's three million SWU uranium enrichment plant will get a final readiness review from the NRC in mid-November. Test runs of the plant's centrifuges are expected to spool up in December. At date for start-up of commercial operations depends on completion of final NRC inspections of the plant.

Anti-nuclear group quits after lawsuit

An anti-nuclear group organized in Idaho to protest the disposition of low-level nuclear waste at the American Ecology site east of Boise has disbanded following the filing of a defamation lawsuit. According to a report in the Idaho Statesman Nov 6, Citizens for Clean Idaho, based in rural Fremont County at the other end of the state, was sued by American Ecology which charged the group was a front for Utah-based Energy Solutions. The intent of the protest, American Ecology said, was to drive the revenue associated with the waste disposition to a competitor.

Amercian Ecology said in its suit filed in the Idaho courts that organizer Steve Loosli, with support from Energy Solutions, made false and misleading statements. Indeed, Loosli's website mystified observers in Idaho familiar with the anti-nuclear environmental community. The website was sophisticated in its design, but it contained outdated and inaccurate information. For his part, Loosli said he feels the lawsuit is without merit, but he said he took down the website to avoid further problems.

Steve Romano, CEO at American Ecology, told the Idaho Statesman Energy Solutions backed Loosli and two other groups to protect its low-level waste disposal business.

Energy Solutions spokesman Mark Walker told the newspaper that Romano was just "trying to make headlines."

The issue arose when Westinghouse asked the NRC for permission to dispose of 50,000 tons of soil and debris from a site in Missouri which had very low levels of radioactivity. The NRC rejected the protest from the 'Clean Idaho' group.

Arizona governor opposes Interior ban on uranium mining

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar Nov 2 protesting the agency's ban for new uranium mining claims on one million acres of land near the Grand Canyon. She wrote that "adequate environmental controls are in place," and that "modern mine exploration creates minimal impact to the land."

She added her concerns about the economic impact of the ban on jobs, and said she supported continued exploration in the area for uranium mining.