I see where you are coming from Ryguy3334, your are looking at in mainly from a proliferation standpoint, I reckon that horse has already bolted?
But there is also a rather large proliferation issue by all of the used nuclear fuels just sitting at the reactor sites, that in itself provides a proliferation issue, whether the material is stolen to make a dirty bomb or someone just aims a manpad missile at the site where the materials are kept?
There is also an issue of US nuclear security of supply, Russia has been providing a great deal of nuclear material in enriched form, that would not sit well with the Government boffins, this is exactly why the Jones act came into being.
But apart from that, I see one of the biggest problems is the nuclear waste sitting at all of those nuclear sites, Yucca Mountain is no where near big enough to take all of that waste, but if it is recycled then perhaps it is, or maybe they will need another? but that is a far cry from needing another 10 Yucca Mountains @ what price? it is well in excess of US$100 billion each and for up to a million years?
If they recycle then they say 300 to 400 years, that I believe is doable, one million years? Nah don't think so!
Back as far back as 2009 GEH/GLE were working on a Nuclear fuel recycling concept, see here-:
https://secure.inl.gov/OECDNEAWS09/pres/Paulson_Pres_Sep2009.pdf
If you look at page 7 it clearly shows a flow diagram of what was intended, that for all intents purposes is the same as the Russian REMIX program except that GLE were using Laser Isotope Technology, I believe this is still what is happening at Wilmington? only I believe there has been some very big changes.
Some of those changes relate to what Charles Forsberg wrote in a paper not back in 2015, not that long ago really?
see here-:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.13182/NT13-137
Advances in laser enrichment may enable relatively low-cost plutonium isotopic separation.
This would have large impacts on LWR closed fuel cycles and waste management.
If Pu-240 is removed before recycling plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, it would dramatically reduce the buildup of higher plutonium isotopes, Americium, and Curium. Pu-240 is a fertile material and thus can be replaced by U-238.
Eliminating the higher plutonium isotopes in MOX fuel increases the Doppler feedback, simplifies reactor control, and allows infinite recycle of MOX plutonium in LWRs.
Eliminating fertile Pu-240 and Pu-242 reduces the plutonium content in MOX fuel and simplifies fabrication.
Reducing production of Pu-241 reduces production of Am-241 - the primary heat generator in spent nuclear fuels after several decades.
Reducing heat generating Am-241 would reduce repository cost and waste toxicity.
Avoiding Am- 241 avoids its decay product Np-237, a nuclide that partly controls long-term oxidizing repository performance.
Most of these benefits also apply to LWR plutonium recycled into fast reactors. There are benefits for plutonium isotopic separation in fast reactor fuel cycles (particularly removal of Pu-242) but the benefits are less. Authors: Forsberg, C.
notice on page 7 where they show the introduction of natural Uranium which then needs to be converted to UF6, you cant tell me that Paducah is not all about this UF6 for top up, I am willing to bet that it is.
So is the price of enriched Uranium really the driver or is the requirement to rid the US of Used Nuclear Fuel waste and in doing so provide the US with enough nuclear fuel for around 900 years?
That info I posted the other day showed that recycling UNF using a similar method to REMIX was close to being viable as converted fuel in fast reactors, but as the Koreans said they will need a number of them to use that recycled fuel, they are not built yet? but BWR's and PWR's in the US are and as Charles Forsberg said in his paper
"Advances in laser enrichment may enable relatively low-cost plutonium isotopic separation.
This would have large impacts on LWR closed fuel cycles and waste management"
Ryguy3334, I get the feeling that you are closely aligned to Mr Lyman and his thoughts, would I be correct in thinking that?
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- SLX
- office of inspector general U.S. Department of Energy special report
office of inspector general U.S. Department of Energy special report, page-95
Featured News
Add SLX (ASX) to my watchlist
(20min delay)
|
|||||
Last
$5.65 |
Change
0.310(5.81%) |
Mkt cap ! $1.340B |
Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
$5.56 | $5.68 | $5.47 | $4.091M | 731.9K |
Buyers (Bids)
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 1710 | $5.58 |
Sellers (Offers)
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
$5.65 | 31291 | 3 |
View Market Depth
No. | Vol. | Price($) |
---|---|---|
1 | 1710 | 5.580 |
4 | 7615 | 5.570 |
2 | 3210 | 5.550 |
1 | 1710 | 5.540 |
2 | 8752 | 5.530 |
Price($) | Vol. | No. |
---|---|---|
5.650 | 31291 | 3 |
5.670 | 5225 | 2 |
5.680 | 10710 | 3 |
5.700 | 3820 | 3 |
5.710 | 9483 | 3 |
Last trade - 16.10pm 08/11/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
Featured News
SLX (ASX) Chart |
The Watchlist
EQN
EQUINOX RESOURCES LIMITED.
Zac Komur, MD & CEO
Zac Komur
MD & CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online