Nuclear Power Related Media Thread, page-5718

il Duce - as you would expect I have a totally different speculation to Moosey on "General Matter" status.

1. IMHO the use of "General" in "General Matters" in the name of this company in the HALEU consortium and selected Haleu candidates is "clucking at straws" - maybe I am just a skeptic but I consider that the evidence is very slim and frankly the link to "Chemical Processing" is possibly better speculation (but that's what it is and still has little to support it)
2. Chemical Enrichment methods were piloted by the French (Chemex process) and exploited a very slight difference in the two isotopes' propensity to change valency in oxidation/reduction (for more details see HERE) - evidently it was noncompetitive to centrifuge and laser technology and was dropped in the 1990's. More recently (2014) a chemical enrichment method is being investigated at Lucas Heights by Ubaryon (see HERE & HERE). To me it would appear that the Ubaryon process is of a very immature status and unlikely to compete with Silex in the medium term. It would appear that Global Uranium and Enrichment Ltd (GUE on the ASX) have a significant interest in Ubaryon - they describe it as "OKR re-rates to a +$250M market cap by achieving a major technological breakthrough with its uranium enrichment technology and/or is acquired at multiples of our Entry Price by a US focussed uranium major looking to gain access to its assets and technology" - maybe "General Matters" have done something here but IMO they are unlikely to be major competition to GLE since we have an existing tails contract with DoE, an investment grade partner in Cameco and the (US/Australian) Silex treaty does not cover this technology and Ubaryon.
3. Regarding Moosey's view on the potential for UNF - IMHO he is "dreaming" and UNF is just one of his many "rabbits". It also has litle to do with the Natrium fast (sodium) SMR currently being prototyped by TerraPower (my view is that the Natrium potentially has a great future. Their are several reasons for me to discount UNF and Natium as relevant to the medium term future for GLE;
a) The French currently produce UNF not as a replacement fuel feedstock (it's too expensive compared to mined uranium or tails); they do it to reduce the amount of high level nuclear waste. In the USA carter banned reprocessing in the early 1990's (this ban was later annulled by Regan) but the US still dos not (unlike the French/Russians) have a re-processing plant (although Moosey will assert that they have "clandestine" ones in Wilmington (ARC) and Morris IL - see HERE) - IMO these are just "hot air" speculation (Morris is a high level waste dump).
b) The Natrium processor is a "fast" reactor rather than a "thermal" reactor. Fast reactors operate in the "fast" neutron spectrum and as such need HALEU (or Pu) to operate. The problem with using Plutonium (Pu) is that it is "bomb" material and as such is highly regulated to only the military (not commercial) operations (as are uranium enrichment levels above 20% ²³⁵U) - to use Pu in new commercial fuels IMO will need a large change in "proliferation" attitudes in the USA. That doesn't imply that Pu is not a major component of nuclear electricity generation. All nuclear fuels containing ²³⁸U produce ²³⁹Pu via "neutron capture" - this constitutes about 30% of the energy output in a LWR reactor (these are NOT "fast" reactors). The difference is that the Pu produced by a LWR is not part of the original fuel but is produced in that fuel whilst in the reactor. When removed from the reactor (as "spent fuel") it is well protected since it is highly radioactive for 100's of years. What Moosey is talking about is to separate this Pu from this spent fuel (via a non existent (in the USA) and highly politically sensitive reprocessing plant). The US experience of reprocessing (for weapons) was at Hanford WA which has caused enormous controversy (see HERE) in the USA.
What a "fast" reactor does is :fission" the "higher" actinides (which includes Pu and higher elements in the periodic table) but also fissions (i.e produces energy from) ²⁴⁰Pu, ²⁴²Pu & ²⁴⁴Pu which are "poisons" in a "thermal" LWR reactor; a "fast" reactor also burns Americium (Am) and Curium (Cu) which are also part of spent fuel. The punch point is that a "fast" reactor burns much of the "nasties" is spent fuel (or "burning" fuel) and thus produces less long term radioactive waste and also burns more efficiently (i.e existing high level waste can be re-used as fuel in a "fast" reactor - the point is that the fuel says in the reactor is NOT removed for re-processing - it just "burns" more efficiently and produces a more "benign" high level waste.
c) The problem of re-processing used uranium (RepU) are immense. Firstly it's more expensive than mined uranium - you would need a U price of well over US$200/lb to justify it - I would be very pleased with this price! The second issue is that it contains ²³⁶U and ²³⁴U and only about 1% ²³⁵U - the first two isotopes are nuclear "poisons" in a thermal reactor (LWR) and therefore would need to be sold at a significant discount to mined uranium. RepU (since it's more radio active) would need to processed (enriched) is a dedicated enrichment plant. Moosey speculates that only LIS is suitable for this however I think there will be problems as below:
a) The LIS enrichment plant would need to be dedicated to RepU - you would not wish to mix natural uranium with RepU
b) The v3 infrared frequency for ²³⁵U is 15.916μm and needs to be precis since ²³⁸U v3 frequency is 15.931 μm - it's the Beam Control system (BCS) developed by SLX in the 2016 -2021 period that enables the required precision (this gives us an "edge". The v3 frequency for ²³⁶U would be 15.921μm and for ²³⁴U 15.911μm. We know from the zero spin Si that our technology cannot differentiate between ²⁹Si and ³⁰Si - I also doubt that the BCS can also hold sufficient accuracy to separate ²³⁴U and ²³⁶U from ²³⁵U. For zero spin Si we are lucky that ²⁸Si is the lowest isotope of Si and we don't care that both ²⁹Si and ³⁰Si are removed. My issue is that I doubt if our isotope reparation technology could remove the uranium poisons from RepU - I'm sure Moosey will think otherwise however he does not have appropriate academic qualifications (but according to him is an expert in maintaining Engel fridges - I do not challenge him in that area)

Sorry for the long treatise but in my view "General Matters" probably is just a speculative and embryonic company that hopes they could do a deal with any other company that could produce HALEU for them (particularly since GLE did not bid). IMO their suppliers could be any one (LIS Tech, ASP isotopes or anyone) - I doubt if they have their own technology and are just "traders" (like the majority of Centrus operations) hoping to score a $ or two by selling HALEU to the DoE in the distant future.

As another thought, the overnight moratorium by Russia to stop supplies of EUP to the USA could dramatically advance the development of Silex - it could be another Manhattan project with the NRC approvals for the PLEF (or elsewhere) "expedited" in the name of US national security. I guess Orano will be contemplating taking Russian enrichment services (and product) for French use and diverting domestic product to the USA (if the Russians allow it) - could see a 60% enriched uranium tariff on France from Trump!