Today the practices and presuppositions of half a century of nuclear power are being reconsidered, as nuclear energy moves to centre stage in provision of abundant clean electricity. A major driver in all cases is proliferation resistance. While there is much to be thankful for in the non-proliferation record so far under the 1970 NPT, new challenges and an ebbing of political will when confronted by situations such as Iran suggest that moving to some kinds of intrinsic proliferation resistance in the fuel cycle is timely.
A July conference in Moscow under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices focused on Multilateral Technical and Organisational Approaches to strengthening non-proliferation. The conference canvassed a number of ideas which were floated many years ago* and seen then as too difficult and not really necessary, but which have been dug out and revamped. A key principle agreed upon was that assurance of non-proliferation must be linked with assurance of supply and services. This raises the question of whether multilateral initiatives should be under IAEA control or co-ordination so that the IAEA might guarantee the supply of nuclear fuel and services for bona fide uses, thereby removing the incentive for countries to develop indigenous fuel cycle capabilities.
* Notably INFCE 1980.
Impetus has been given to this wide review by the leadership of Mohammed ElBaradei, Director General of IAEA, who has pointed to the need for better control of both uranium enrichment and plutonium separation. "We should be clear", he said, "there is no incompatibility between tightening controls over the nuclear fuel cycle and expanding the use of peaceful nuclear technology. In fact, by reducing the risks of proliferation, we could pave the way for more widespread use of peaceful nuclear applications." This echoes the rationale of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty itself, and he brought these matters to the attention of the UN General Assembly at the end of October. As well as constraining the 'do-it-yourself' inclinations of individual countries, "multilateral approaches could offer additional advantages in terms of safety, security and economics", he said.*
* See also Newsletter #6/03 for earlier comments.
Several approaches are proposed by an expert group convened by the IAEA:
The fuel leasing could be either from major supplier countries such as Canada and Australia, or from reactor vendors as an extension of the hardware package, as Russia is doing with Iran for Bushehr, obviating the need for fuel cycle facilities in Iran. Both IAEA and government support will be required for fuel leasing to become more widely accepted.
A significant part of the Moscow meeting was devoted to discussing Generation IV reactor systems with full actinide recycling as part of a closed fuel cycle. Such systems will produce very small volumes of fission product wastes without the long-life characteristics of today's used fuel, and will have high proliferation resistance.* The 'classic' fuel cycle with aqueous (Purex) reprocessing and recycle of plutonium into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is not intrinsically proliferation resistant.** IAEA safeguards have successfully prevented any diversion, and commercial (reactor-grade) plutonium is thankfully most unattractive for weapons, but deep burning all actinides including plutonium has several advantages.
* Actinides - heavy elements formed directly or indirectly as a result of neutron capture by uranium in a reactor core - tend to have very long half-lives. Apart from fissile U & Pu isotopes they are not fuel in the normal sense but will yield some energy in a fast neutron reactor.
** The Purex process separates Pu from U and from the actinides plus fission products. Other processes such as Urex (US) can separate only U, then keep Pu with actinides and separate both from shorter-lived fission products. See also WNA/UIC paper on Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel.
In the USA, reprocessing was banned by President Carter due to concerns about plutonium. But for several years there has been interest in new forms of reprocessing which do not separate plutonium from uranium* (recovering both together), and which segregate other actinides from fission products, enabling the actinides to be burned. The current US budget process for 2006 includes $50 million to develop a plan for "integrated spent fuel recycling facilities", and a program to achieve this with fast reactors will apparently be a major US budget request next year. As with reprocessing elsewhere, a large part of the incentive is to reduce volumes of high-level wastes and simplify their disposal, though removing the potential for a waste repository (such as Yucca Mountain) being seen as a future plutonium mine is also relevant.
* Uranium recovered from reprocessing used fuel is essentially unenriched.
In the short term, high-temperature helium-cooled reactors can deep burn actinides (including plutonium) once they are separated from uranium (recycled separately) and fission products. General Atomics claims both threefold increase in energy yield from original uranium in this way, along with tenfold reduction in actinides.
Moves towards advanced fuel cycles in conjunction with new-generation reactors are likely to lead to significant re-evaluation of the fate of used fuel from present light water reactors and those about to be built. Some countries might find that moving to new fuel cycles, initially storing their light-water reactor fuel and later re-using it, could be attractive. There seems to be a shift in attitudes about the value of used fuel that could eventually have repercussions for many national waste management programs and also lend impetus to fuel leasing. Some facilities currently envisaged as final disposal repositories may only be used for interim storage of spent fuel that will eventually be reprocessed and recycled, hence the trend to retrievability. Provision of a long-term storage service, possibly linked to fuel reprocessing and regeneration services, could be of great interest to some, while others may continue to prefer simply to dispose of used fuel.
Meanwhile, to ensure full and effective verification of the NPT safeguards regime, universal implementation is needed of the Additional Protocol to each country's safeguards agreement with the IAEA . This gives the IAEA broader rights of inspection and is now firmly established as the contemporary standard for NPT safeguards. Moreover, in those instances where a confidence and credibility deficit has arisen, additional ad hoc measures may also be required.
IAEA 13/7/05 (including MNA report), 7/11/05, Arius Newsletter #11 October 2005, NuclearFuel 21/11/05.More US utilities flag new plants
Duke Power, a subsidiary of Duke Energy, has said that it will invest in a combined Construction & Operating Licence (COL) application to build two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors, the site to be decided. Duke Energy is part of the NuStart consortium, which is sharing $520 million development costs with the Department of Energy preparatory to a COL application involving both the AP1000 and GE's ESBWR.
Constellation Energy has said that it will apply for an Early Site Permit late in 2007 and then a combined Construction & Operating Licence (COL) in mid 2008 to build a US EPR nuclear plant, probably at Calvert Cliffs or Nine Mile Point. Constellation has recently joined with Areva to form UniStar Nuclear which will promote the US version of the European EPR. Both the design certification application for the US EPR and the COL application will be filed through UniStar.
Progress Energy is also planning to apply for two COLs in late 2007 for two twin-unit plants, one in the Carolinas and one in Florida. The sites and technology will be decided in 2006.
NucNet BN 27/10/05, Nucleonics Week 27/10 & 3/11/05.
TVA feasibility study for new reactors
Under a DOE program for promoting building of new-generation nuclear plants, a $4 million feasibility study on building two ABWRs at Bellefonte in Alabama was undertaken by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) plus vendors GE and Toshiba as well as Bechtel and others. The 1350 MWe ABWR was the first Generation 3 reactor design to enter service, a number of units are operating and under construction in Japan and it already has design certification in the USA. The study showed that twin 1371 MWe ABWRs would cost $1611 per kilowatt, or if they were uprated to 1465 MWe each, $1535 /kW, and be built in 40 months. However TVA has apparently decided not to proceed, as they would be the only ABWR units in USA.
Nucleonics Week 29/9/05.
Reactor developments approved
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved 2.9% uprates at two units of Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear power plant through replacing the steam generators. One will occur in December - from 1270 to 1313 MWe, the other in 2007 - to 1317 MWe.
The California Public Utilities Commission has approved replacement of steam generators at the two 1100 MWe units of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The $815 million project will be implemented in 2007 and 2008, with eight Spanish replacements. Without it both reactors would close about 2014, though the licences run to 2021 & 2025. A licence extension application is now envisaged. The Commission is considering a similar steam generator request for San Onofre 2 & 3.
NRC 18/11/05, Ux Weekly 21/11/05, Nucleonics Week 24/11/05.
Congress increases nuclear R&D
US Congress has approved an 15% increase in funding for nuclear energy programs in its 2006 appropriations. A total of $226 million was provided for nuclear R&D, including $66 million for an industry-government partnership to improve licensing processes. Other components are: $55 million for Generation IV systems (including $40 million for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program), $25 million for nuclear hydrogen research and $80 million for advanced fuel cycle initiatives. The last is focused on proliferation-resistant reprocessing and transmutation of wastes, and calls for embarking upon pre-engineering design in 2007.
NEI Overview 14/1//05.
Strong public support for new US reactors
A survey of 1100 people living within 16 km of a nuclear power plant shows that 83% are in favour of nuclear energy, 76% are happy to see a further reactor built on their local site, and 88% are confident of that plant's safety. Employees of electric companies were excluded from the survey. Overall 81% said they felt well informed about their local plant, correlating with an absence of NIMBYism. The findings are particularly relevant as several companies and consortia prepare to build new nuclear power plants in the USA.
NEI 12/10/05.
US weapons uranium released
The USA is releasing up to 200 tonnes of high-enriched uranium (HEU) - almost half of the total - from its weapons stockpiles for other uses "in the next decades". This is 40% of the amount from Russian weapons stockpiles liberated under the 1994 agreement to supply US civil power programs, and the largest US reduction so far. The HEU will be distributed: 160t to naval fuel, to give some 50 years' reserves there, 20t reserved for space or research reactors requiring HEU pending development of high-density cores using low-enriched uranium, and 20t to be downblended for use in civil nuclear power reactors or research reactors. For civil use the 20t HEU would make about 600 tonnes of power reactor fuel.
In September, the US Department of Energy said it would contribute 17.4 tonnes of high-enriched uranium (HEU) to an international fuel reserve to be available in the event of supply disruptions. The military surplus HEU would be blended down to low-enriched U for fuel under IAEA verification and "could be released at market rates to US fuel suppliers" if the IAEA requested it for supply to an "eligible country" suffering supply disruption. The reserve will be equivalent to about 5000 tonnes of mined uranium - about 12% of annual world production. The scheme is consistent with international concerns to limit the spread of enrichment technology to countries without well established nuclear fuel cycles. Russia has agreed to join the initiative.
Platts 26/9/05, AFP 27/9/05, DOE 7/11/05.
Major defence clean up proceeds Several major US projects cleaning up the legacy of six decades of military activities put the civil nuclear wastes challenge into perspective. At Hanford, Washington the world's largest radioactive waste treatment plant is under construction to treat some 200 million litres of radioactive and chemical wastes from military plutonium production. Most of this - both high-level and low-level - will be vitrified in stainless steel canisters for disposal. Hot commissioning is expected in 2011. At Savannah River, South Carolina, a four-year decommissioning project is removing all the contaminated material from F Area reprocessing plant, which over 1951-92 separated one third of US military plutonium, from five production reactors on site.
At Rocky Flats in Colorado a huge ten year demolition and clean-up has just been completed, returning the 1952-92 weapons component site to unrestricted status, from an environmental disaster area. The cost was $3.5 billion, compared with early estimates of $36 billion. Finally, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico has over six years operation received hundreds of shipments of plutonium-contaminated defence wastes for deep geological disposal without incident, a helpful pointer to the safety of waste or civil used fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain, Nevada in future.
Radwaste Solutions Sept-Oct 2005.
Positive nuclear power policy emerging in UK
The UK government has given the clearest indication yet that it will change policy settings to encourage new nuclear power plants. A review has been commissioned to supersede the 2003 government white paper which staked everything on wind power, subsidies for which are expected to reach £1 billion per year by 2010. Framing the issue is a commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% (from 1990 levels) by 2010. Yet the principal means of reducing those emissions - nuclear power - is subject to the same tax on energy use as fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions are barely diminished. Major industry associations have been vocal in supporting the need for new base-load capacity providing carbon-free energy security, and are stressing the urgency of action. Policy initiatives might include pre-certification of reactor technology, planning procedures without scope for indefinite delay, rational economic constraint on carbon emissions, and clarity on nuclear wastes - with defined costs. Any investment in new UK nuclear plants would be private, and they would not come on line for some ten years.
Economist 19/11/05, Times 21 & 23/11/05.
UK public opinion on energy issues
A MORI public opinion poll (N=1931) showed that Britons expressed substantial interest in climate change and where UK electricity will come from, but the spread of opinion on coal, gas and nuclear power plants was wide. Gas gave rise to price and supply concerns, nuclear to safety and waste concerns, coal topped the greenhouse concern (but 24% thought nuclear contributed too), and both coal and nuclear were thought to "cause dangerous pollution". Wind's intermittency was recognised by 60%. Finally, 83% thought the UK should be self-sufficient in energy, 54% thought new nuclear plants were needed (but 30% wanted no more nuclear plants), 70% thought it most important to produce less CO2 but only 41% realised nuclear produced very little of it.
MORI via EdF Energy 8/11/05.
Russia promotes home growth and exports
The new head of Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) has announced that he intends to push nuclear power engineering exports to Southeast Asia. Exploratory discussions have been under way for some years in several countries, and the first Russian nuclear power plant in China is expected to start up soon and be connected to the grid early in January. He also says that Russia itself needs to accelerate nuclear power development and replace older plants with new. Rosatom includes Rosenergoatom which generates nuclear power, TVEL and Tenex which produce and sell nuclear fuel, and Atomstroyexport which sells nuclear plants abroad.
Rosenergoatom is formulating plans to increase its nuclear capacity by 40% by 2020, which will involve prioritising and moving forward a number of hitherto uncertain projects. Plants will initially be VVER-1000 PWRs, moving to the larger and more economical VVER-1500 types as soon as possible, and also finishing the Beloyarsk-4 BN-800 fast reactor. The first floating nuclear power plant using two KLT-40 reactors from icebreakers is due to be completed in 2009. A near-term goal is to convert Rosenergoatom from a state enterprise to a joint stock company, which will enable it to raise equity capital for new plants.
Nucleonics Week 20/10/05, Novosti & MosNews 22/11/05.
New Russian reactor in commercial operation
The Kalinin-3 V-320 nuclear reactor, which started up late in 2004, has commenced commercial operation. With modern Russian process control technology the 950 MWe unit has an expected life of 50 years, compared with 30 years as standard for Russian plants. Rosenergoatom is planning to start construction of unit 4 in 2006, with a view to operation in 2010.
Nucleonics Week 17/11/05.
Part privatisation of EdF proceeds
Shares in Electricite de France, which generates most of France's electricity - most of it from nuclear power - have been offered publicly and enthusiastically taken up. Though the 2004 law converting EdF to a joint stock company allows up to 30% to be sold, the sale of 15% raised EUR 7 billion, making it the biggest IPO since 2001. The proceeds will be put back into the business, towards some EUR 40 billion required over the next five years. The government also announced that it will not sell its share of Areva before 2007 because aspects of the corporation's activities are too sensitive to be privatised.
Nucleonics Week 27/10/05, 3, 17 & 24/11/05, Economist 26/11/05.
France to uprate older plants
Electricite de France has announced that it will increase the capacity of five of its 900 MWe nuclear units at three sites over 2008-10 by replacing turbine rotors, thereby adding about 30 MWe to each.
Nucleonics Week 27/10/05.
Finland reactor uprated
TVO has reported that in an extensive outage in mid year involving turbine replacement, Olkiluoto unit 2 was uprated by 20 MWe, to 860 MWe. The boiling water reactor was started in 1982 and had already been uprated by 26% and its lifetime extended to 60 years. The same 20 MWe uprate will be done next year on unit 1.
TVO 20/5/05, 9/11/05.
Swedish government affirms nuclear role
After a court referred the issue to it, the Swedish government has affirmed that in the short to medium term "it is not possible ... to shut down the nuclear plant without serious disruption to the electricity system" in Sweden and the Nordic region. It addressed particularly the Ringhals plant which provides 20% of Sweden's electricity. Furthermore it said some 290 MWe of uprates to this plant "are vital", and do not violate environmental laws. This approval for uprating units 1 & 3 at Ringhals and relicensing unit 2 clears the way for further uprates of other plants and gives a stamp of approval to Sweden's nuclear power, notwithstanding an official but increasingly irrelevant phase-out policy dating from 1980. New licences will have no time limits.
The government has agreed to pay the owners of Barseback-2 - Vattenfall and E.On - SEK 5.6 billion (EUR 583 million) in compensation for the unit's premature closure in May. Compensation for the politically-ordered closure of unit 1 in 1999 cost the Swedish taxpayers SEK 5.7 billion (EUR 593 million) plus a payment for operating unit 2 on its own.
Nucleonics Week 27/10/05 & 17/11/05.
EU parliamentarians call for nuclear recognition
In the strongest public statement so far from Euro politicians, a cross-party group of 25 EU members of parliament has endorsed "the vital contribution" of nuclear energy in countering climate change and called for more investment in all low- or zero-carbon power generation technologies. They said nuclear power will remain central in the EU's energy and environmental policy planning. They also called for a global strategy to address climate change, including "an effective international emissions trading scheme" and post-Kyoto arrangements for recognising the international offsetting of carbon dioxide emissions.
This was followed in mid November by a 453 to 204 vote which signalled an endorsement of the nuclear role in combating climate change, and opposition to measures which would hinder it in that role.
Foratom 19/10/05, 17/11/05.
German phase-out policy remains
Negotiations between the two major political parties in Germany which are forming a coalition government have left the previous 'red-green' nuclear phase-out policy in place. The parties agreed on the high priority of nuclear safety and on making progress with waste disposal, after the previous government set back that program. Elimination of the Greens from the coalition has meant a significant change for Germany's nuclear generators which provide 30% of the country's electricity. Most importantly, the erosion of trust and its effect on undermining the nuclear safety culture under the previous regulatory regime is expected to be remedied, as Green appointees are replaced. The four major utilities, all of which have some nuclear capacity, will not accept the closure of any significant capacity however, and will rearrange production rights accordingly so that none expire before 2009. In the meantime they are reported to be close to taking equity in the new French 1600 MWe reactor at Flamanville, having contributed to the design stages of the EPR type.
W.Breyer, Kerntext 26/9/05, Nucleonics Week 17/11/05.
Major contracts for China's new Qinshan plant
Qinshan Nuclear Power JV in Zhejiang province has signed major contracts for engineering and construction of the first two indigenous reactors to start building in 2006 - units 3 & 4 of phase 2 of Qinshan, duplicating the 650 MWe CNP-600 units there. The three contracts totalling over US$ 300 million are with China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Group and two companies in Shanghai and Zhejiang. The whole project will cost some US$ 1.8 billion, with 70% local content, much of it from Shanghai Electric Group and Harbin Power Equipment Co. Qinshan is a subsidiary of China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC), which expects to spend almost US$ 50 billion on 30 new nuclear plants by 2020.
China Daily 10/11/05.
South Korea decides waste site
After votes in four provincial cities competing to host South Korea's central repository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive wastes, Gyeongju 270 km SE of Seoul on the east coast has been designated as the site. An impressive 90% of its voters approved, compared with 68 to 83% in the other contender locations. The repository, involving shallow geological disposal of conditioned wastes eventually totaling 800,000 drums, is expected to be in operation by 2009. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy (MOCIE) is responsible for radioactive wastes, most of which arise from nuclear power generation at the country's 20 reactors, supplying 38% of the total electricity.
MOCIE in 2003 selected the four locations for detailed consideration and preliminary environmental review, and then offered US$ 290 million in benefits as compensation, following aborted attempts to impose earlier decisions (which also involved interim storage of spent fuel). A further 8.5 billion won will be paid in annual fees, and the headquarters of the state Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. will move there.
After Gyeongju was selected as the site, ending 19 years of government efforts to find a host region, residents expressed their joy at the decision. In the three regions that lost the bid, severe and sometimes physical criticism was targeted at environmental and anti-nuclear energy activist groups that encouraged residents to vote against the project. Residents said the activists had hindered the development of regional economies and asked them to leave the areas.
Korea Times 3/11/05, Chungang Daily 4/11/05, Nucleonics Week 10/11/05.
Japan consolidates nuclear R&D
As foreshadowed two years ago, the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute (JNC) and the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) have been merged to form the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). JAEA combines the results and experience of JAERIıs basic research with JNCıs nuclear fuel cycle efforts, aiming to create a major integrated nuclear R&D organization, with 4400 employees at ten facilities and annual budget of 161 billion yen (US$ 1.7 billion). Merging JNC and JAERI was a major part of the governmentıs administrative and financial reform program, and the new JAEA now ranges from basic research to project-based applications, and from fission and fusion to waste disposal.
Atoms in Japan, 3/10/05.
Japan's waste research goes underground
Construction of the underground shafts and galleries at the Horonobe Underground Research Centre has been launched by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). The facility, researching disposal of high-level radioactive wastes, has been under development since 2000 on Hokkaido, investigating sedimentary rocks. JAEA is also building a similar facility, the Mizunami Underground Research Laboratory, Gifu Prefecture, in igneous rock.
Atoms in Japan 9 &14/11/05.
Kazakhstan pursues uranium joint ventures
Kazatomprom, the state-owned uranium producer, is setting up joint ventures with Japanese companies Sumitomo Corp. and Kansai Electric Power Co. to expand its uranium mining towards a 2010 target output of 15,000 tonnes per year. It is also understood to be negotiating with China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Corp. (KHNP) on the same basis. Russia's Rosatom already owns 45% of the Zarechnoye joint venture, and UrAsia Energy Ltd owns a significant share of three other mines and is bidding for 72% control of the Kara Balta uranium mill in Krygyzstan which it intends to refurbish and use to refine its Kazakh output. Japan's Itochu Corp is buying 3000t uranium over ten years, to be marketed in USA and Japan.
Ux Weekly 21/11/05, Kazatomprom 2005 brochure.
Indian thaw
Following the September agreement between US and Indian heads of state on nuclear energy cooperation, the UK has indicated its strong support for greater cooperation. France then Canada have followed suit, and Russia has long expressed interest in increasing nuclear exports to India. The US Department of Commerce, the UK and Canada have relaxed controls on export of technology to India, though staying within the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines. The French government says it will seek a nuclear cooperation agreement, and Canada has agreed to "pursue further opportunities for the development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy" with India. Canada supplied much of India's initial nuclear technology, including that which was improperly used for weapons.
Nucleonics Week 15/9/05, Toronto Star 22 & 27/9/05.
India plans new nuclear plants
India's cabinet has approved four sites for eight new nuclear power reactors. Two of the sites - Kakrapar and Rawatbhata, are to have 700 MWe indigenous PHWR units, another is to have imported 1000 MWe light water reactors alongside two being constructed by Russia at Kudankulam, and the fourth site is greenfield for 1000 MWe LWR units - Jaitapur in the Konkan region. The 700 MWe PHWRs are stepped up from the 540 MWe reactors, the first of which has just gone into commercial operation. Acquisition of any light water reactors depends upon international political approvals.
Calcutta Telegraph 23/9/05.
Bruce Power to rebuild old Ontario reactors
Facing an impending power shortage, the Ontario government has agreed with Bruce Power to support the refurbishment of its four oldest reactors - collectively known as Bruce A, each 769 MWe - rather than embarking on the longer process of building new ones to replace them. The first task will be for Bruce Power to rebuild its shut-down units 1 & 2 so that they are back in service in 2009-10 with 25 years prospective operation. Then units 3 & 4, restarted in 2003 after five years laid-up, would be refurbished - these would otherwise close down about 2009. The whole project will cost C$ 4.25 billion (US$ 3.6 billion) - C$ 2.75 billion for units 1 & 2, $1.15 billion for unit 3 refurbishment and $350 million for unit 4. The cost for units 1 & 2 (US$ 1500/kW) approaches the cost of new plant.
Bruce Power will be paid for all electricity from Bruce A on the basis of a 6.3 cents/kWh current reference price capped for 25 years (cf 6.765 c/kWh average Ontario spot price this year, and 4.5 c/kWh floor price for Bruce B - units 5-8). If the capital expenditure is over or under the $4.25 billion, the difference will be shared between the government and the investors. The recent Pickering 1 refurbishment cost Ontario Power Generation over US$ 1600/kW, and the government then decided against reviving units 2 & 3 there because it would be uneconomic. In 2006 it will consider building new nuclear capacity for the province.
Bruce 1 & 2 started commercial operation in 1977. Unit 2 was shut down in 1995 due to a maintenance accident in which lead contaminated the core. Unit 1 was laid up with another six units at the end of 1997 to allow operational focus on newer plants. Both will now have their fuel channels and 16 steam generators replaced and ancillary systems upgraded to current standards, giving them a further 25-year life. "When needed", unit 3 will then have its fuel channels and steam generators replaced, and unit 4 will have steam generators replaced "as required". UK-based AMEC will manage the rebuilding & restart of units 1 & 2.
One of the partners in Bruce Power - Cameco, holding 31.6% - said that while it strongly applauded the project it did not meet Cameco's investment criteria, so it received a $200 million payout of its interest in Bruce A. The other partners set up Bruce A Limited Partnership (BALP) to sublease Bruce A from Bruce Power and to pay for the project.
Bruce Power 17/10/05, Nucleonics Week 20/10/05.
Pickering reactor rejoins grid
After nearly eight years being laid-up, Ontario Power Generation's Pickering 1 nuclear reactor has been reconnected to the grid after a 14-month, C$ 1 billion refurbishment.
OPG 27/9/05.
Canadian spent fuel plans open ended
Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO) has recommended to the government that used fuel be stored - possibly centrally, with a view to deep geological disposal later as high-level waste. The Adaptive Phased Management approach arises from a 3-year study and consultation process and will be implemented over more than 60 years. The NWMO was asked to consider three approaches to manage nuclear fuel waste: storage at reactor sites, centralised surface storage, and deep geologic storage. Its recommendation combines all three. An initial task for NWMO is to find "an informed, willing community to host the central facilities". Temporary storage may be utilised there en route to a deep geological repository, which will make provision for long term monitoring in the event of final closure.
NWMO 3/11/05.
Ontario plans deep repository for wastes
Following a strong positive response to polling of local residents, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proceeding with plans to construct a deep geological repository for its low- and intermediate-level wastes near the Bruce nuclear power plant. The repository will be 660 metres beneath its Western Waste Management Facility, which it has operated since 1974. Environmental assessment and licensing is expected to take 6-8 years, while the surface facility itself is developed to accommodate materials arising from refurbishment of OPG and Bruce reactors.
OPG 7/9/05.
ERA revises Ranger resources
Energy Resources of Australia has announced a revision of its uranium resources at the Ranger mine. It has increased reserves by 6285 tonnes U3O8 and overall resources by 14,923 t U3O8 due to lowering cut-off grade by one third to reflect current prices, to 0.08% U3O8. This will extend the life of the Ranger operation by three years, albeit at lower levels of output.
ERA 27/10/05.
Cameco and Cogema divest ERA shares
Energy Resources of Australia has announced a rearrangement of its shares which will mean that Cameco, Cogema and a holding company (JAURD) representing Japanese power utilities will lose their special unlisted status and their shares will become tradable. The structure originated in 1980 when the Australian government sold its share in Ranger and ERA was set up with three overseas customers holding this 25% equity. Cameco later took over Uranerz, giving it 6.69%, and Cogema took over other customer shares, giving it 7.76%. The three companies have advised ERA that they intend to sell their newly-tradable shares, "through a single offer to professional investors". Cameco said it preferred investment which yielded production rather than dividends.
Rio Tinto 10/10/05.
Australian uranium production up
Dr ElBaradei & IAEA share Nobel peace prize
IAEA and its Director General Mohamed ElBaradei have jointly won the 2005 Nobel peace prize, to be presented in Oslo in December. The Norwegian committee cited both "for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way". "His ceaseless efforts against nuclear proliferation have been crucial in securing the peaceful use of a technology on which the world's future depends. Non-proliferation and the widespread use of clean nuclear power go hand in hand," said John Ritch, Director General of World Nuclear Association. ElBaradei's conviction that US intelligence on Iraq was wrong earned him the enmity of the USA in recent years, though he was proven correct.
BBC 7/10/05, NucNet news #159/05.
PBMR contracts for new reactor
South Africa's PBMR company has awarded a contract for engineering, procurement and construction management to SLMR - a Canadian-South African joint venture - for its demonstration Pebble Bed Modular Reactor at Koeberg. A second and larger contract, for core structure graphite, was let to Germany's SGL Carbon. Construction is envisaged from 2007, and a second round of environmental hearings is under way at present.
Meanwhile the BNFL share in PBMR has been passed to Westinghouse and negotiations are under way with other possible investors to enable Eskom to reduce its stake from 30% to 5%.
Nucleonics Week 17/11/05, UX Weekly 14/11/05, Platts 23/11/05.
Green light for Silex partnership
Following a six month delay, the US government has approved potential commercial partners of Silex accessing classified information controlled by the USA and relating to non-proliferation objectives. This will enable prospective partners to assess the potential of the Australian company and its SILEX process with due diligence. Silex is the only company developing third-generation laser enrichment technology, and the decision means that a commercial partner could be in place early in 2006, enabling construction of a full-scale uranium pilot plant, probably in North America.
Silex 12/10/05.
Rio Tinto rationalises U marketing
Rio Tinto Uranium has been set up to market the output of both ERA's Ranger mine in Australia and the Rossing mine in Namibia. The two companies, majority-owned by Rio Tinto, have contracted with RTU.
Rio Tinto 5/10/05.
Low dose radiation reports leave understanding open
During 2005 three important studies have been reported. They confirm that the risks of low-level radiation are very small.
The International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) studied over 400,000 nuclear industry workers (other than uranium mining) in 15 countries with records dating from 1944 - the largest study of nuclear industry workers conducted so far. IARC concluded that "the results suggest that there is a small excess risk of cancer, even at the low doses and low dose rates typically received by nuclear workers in this study." In particular, "1-2% of deaths from cancer among workers in this cohort may be attributable to radiation." However, the risk estimate for Canada is much larger than others and no explanation is proffered. Without Canada the results show no excess risk. The overall average accumulated recorded dose was 19.4 mSv, with 90% receiving less than 50 mSv and less than 0.1% doses of over 500 mSv. Less than 5% received cumulative doses of the order of 100 mSv over their entire career, and most of these doses were many years ago. The study broadly supports the liner no-threshold (LNT) model of assessing radiation risk.
The US National Academies' National Research Council has also published a report on Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionising Radiation, following four years work by the Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation (BEIR) committee - the BEIR VII report. This supports previous estimates of there being some small risk, but strengthens the confidence in them and supports the application of the liner no-threshold model for assessing risk.
A study of 7076 workers at Lucas Heights in Australia over 1957-1998 has shown that mortality rates are 31% lower than the general population, and those for cancers in particular are 19% lower. This appears to be more than the 'healthy worker effect', given the long study period.
British Medical Journal 29/6/05, Nucleonics Week 7/7/05, ARPS newsletter July 2005.
World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2006, Hong Kong, 3 - 7 April. World Nuclear Association (WNA) and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Contact: WNA. Tel: +44-20-7451-1520; Fax: 44-20-7839-1501 E-mail: wna@world-nuclear.org
ALTA 2006 Uranium Conference, including short course on Uranium Ore Processing, May 18-20, Perth, see: www.altamet.com.au.
Reactor table
Nuclear debate
Safety of nuclear power plants
Nuclear power reactors
Sustainable energy
Military warheads as source of fuel
Transport and the Hydrogen economy
Uranium & depleted U
International waste disposal concepts
Small nuclear power reactors
Energy subsidies and external costs
Energy balances & CO2 implications (new)
Australia's electricity
Nuclear power in USA
Nuclear power in India & Pakistan
Uranium & nuclear power in Canada
Nuclear power in Denmark
Nuclear power in South Korea
Nuclear power in China
Nuclear power in Japan
See also Ux Consulting graphs
World reactor changes
Canada: Pickering 1: 515 grid connect
Finland: Olkiluoto-2 uprate 20 MWe
GPO Box 1649, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207