Russia and America – Nuclear BFFs?

Well, that’s going a little far – and silly, to boot. But the Russians have actually found a way to do a little nuclear business on this side of the world without setting off alarm bells.

Of course, we’ve noted many times the big bear’s activities around Europe and Asia, where it has competed with every other country, including the United States, with a developed nuclear business.

And, of course, there’s Iran, where Russia built the plant at Bushehr and, in so far as Iran can be leashed in its ambitions, Russia has an interest in not having its efforts corrupted.

If the tests [at Bushehr; this was written in February] are successful, [Iranian official Mohsen] Shirazi said it will clear the way for the use of nuclear fuel rods containing enriched uranium that was supplied last year by Russia under a contract estimated to be worth about $1 billion.

That fuel is currently under the seal of UN nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency … [B]oth Russia and Iran argue that the Bushehr project is purely civilian and cannot be used for any weapons program. Iran has pledged that spent fuel from the facility will be shipped back to Russia.

Coldish comfort – Iran has an enrichment facility of its own - but there it is.

The American deal is not nearly so ambitious – or troubling:

"This is a revolutionary breakthrough," Rosatom chief Sergei Kiriyenko told reporters.

No, really, it’s not:

Rosatom announced a landmark deal Tuesday to supply U.S. companies with enriched uranium fuel, in what is the first commercial nuclear energy contract between Russian and U.S. corporations.

The agreement will see state uranium-trader Tekhsnabexport, a unit of Rosatom, provide enriched uranium to U.S. electricity companies Pacific Gas & Electric Company, AmerenUE and Luminant, officials announced at the Atomexport 2009 forum, which showcased Russia's efforts to become a world leader in atomic energy.

The contract with the three companies will run from 2014 to 2020 and is worth more than $1 billion.

The Russians really like the nice round sound of $1 billion – the story above uses it, too. And Kiriyenko may well have a point, as having the Americans buy Russian uranium may well encourage other countries to follow suit. We’ll see.

Another interesting tidbid from the same story:

More than 162 billion kilowatts were produced last year by the country's nuclear reactors, more than has ever been produced in a single year in either Russia or the Soviet Union, Kiriyenko said.

The country's uranium reserves total well over 1 million tons, enough to power both existing and planned nuclear reactors for the next 60 years, he said.

Kiriyenko did say, however, that Rosatom would postpone until 2014 a program to build two reactors per year because of a drop in Russian demand for electricity.

We’d prefer they built the plants to shutter less clean plants nearby or to supplement Russia’s electricity generation while the 21st century revs up. And that drop in demand probably speaks to the economy which likely speaks to the delay.

Sergei Kiriyenko, the Rosatom chief. In many photos, he looks so young as to doubt his authority – he’s 47, which this photo at least makes believable. Russian optics, maybe? Delicate features? Lunch at Dick Clark’s?

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog