Skip to main content

Brazil Opens Uranium Enrichment Center

Opening of a new center in Resende means Brazil won't have to send its Uranium to Urenco in Europe for enrichment.

UPDATE: Austrlia looks 20 years ahead and sees something similar.

Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

GreenGOP said…
Brazil gets it and the US should follow their lead. Brazil is upgrading its nuclear energy capabilities, while simultaneously getting itself 100% off foreign sources of oil this year. That Brazil kicks our ass in soccer I can deal with, but in energy security and independence too? That shouldn't happen.
David Bradish said…
Fair enough. However, Brazil consumes one tenth the amount of energy the U.S. does. It is much easier to replace one thing than ten things.
Robert Merkel said…
While I generally support the widespread use of nuclear power, and I realise that the NEI's concern is promoting their nuclear power business rather than military matters, isn't uranium enrichment a particularly proliferation-sensitive technology?

Isn't what Brazil has just done essentially the same thing that the United States is threatening threatening dire consequences for Iran over?

I don't mean to imply that I think the Brazilians intend to construct a nuclear weapon (though back in the days of the military dictatorship they apparently had plans to do so), or that I think Iran is just interested in the commercial reactor uranium enrichment business. However, I don't think you can run a global anti-proliferation system based on who the United States happens to be suspicious of, or friendly towards, at any particular time, because countries that are not particularly well-disposed towards the US will simply ignore it as a tool of "Western imperialists" or whatever the favoured insult at the time is.

I just wonder whether some reflection about the consequences is called for before applauding the spread of enrichment technology.
Paul Primavera said…
Robert Merkel,

It takes a lot more enrichment to produce weapons-grade uranium (which must be 90+% pure U-235) than reactor-fuel-grade uranium (which is usually around 5% for LWRs). As far as I understand it, neither Brazil nor Iran have weapons-grade enrichment capability which is an order of magnitude harder to develop than enrichment capability for reactor fuel.

That being said, there is a world of difference between the mad theocracy of Iran and Brazil which is a relatively free nation. However, I do not think the US or anyone else should dictate to either any conditions on the use of enrichment technology. Rather, if either one develops and uses a nuclear weapon, then that country should be put back into the stone age with all due haste. The principle is a simple one - "non-initiation of force." Dr. Jerry Pournelle has repeatedly proposed that we let our cultural weapons of mass destruction work in the case of Iran. When its youth realize the difference between the restrictions of a Shia Islam lifestyle and Western "sex, drugs and rock'n roll", they'll do the same as the Poles, East Germans and others did in the early 1990s.

As far as emulating Brazil's example in using ethanol to replace gasoline, why not go with Graham Cowan's idea of boron replacement of petroleum for transportation? Use nuclear energy to provide combustible boron and recyle to waste back again? Here are several web links:

Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Eric McErlain said…
Robert,

Writing about the Brazilian enrichment facility doesn't imply endorsement. In this case, I was simply passing along a news item for comment and discussion.

Take a look at our disclaimer sometime. I know it might be hair splitting, but I think it's important to remember.
Robert Merkel said…
Firstly, thanks to Eric for the clarification, and thanks to the NEI for the excellent venue for discussion.

Paul, it's difficult to get a straight answer on this in the public domain, but as I understand it the same centrifuges (assuming they are well designed) can be used to produce LEU or HEU; to produce HEU you either need to reconfigure the centrifuges into a bigger cascade, or run the uranium hexaflouride gas through the cascade several times. On Arms Control Wonk, a blog whose authors appear to be quite well informed about these issues, I asked this very question. One poster gave the answer above, and nobody disputed it. Furthermore, Iran's centrifuge designs are very closely based on the Pakistani designs shared with the world by A.Q. Khan, which proved perfectly adequate for Pakistan to make HEU for nuclear weapons.

For what it's worth, Paul, I think yours is a defensible position. After all, as was pointed out in The Guardian yesterday, deterrence works. But it doesn't seem to be one that the major powers, and particularly the present leadership of the United States, are prepared to accept with regards to Iran, and in the future possibly other states gaining capabilites that make constructing a weapon easier, at the moment.

But if nuclear power is as widely adopted around the world as many of the people on this blog hope, demands for indigenous enrichment facilities will continue to rise. A constant theme on this blog is the undesirability of the United States depending on unstable foriegn sources of fossil fuel. Guess what? Other countries might feel the same way about depending on foriegn sources of reactor fuel.

Anyway, as an issue that might seriously affect the global nuclear power industry's future, it's worth thinking about very carefully.

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…