 |
8 April 2010
| Russia increases uranium reservesRussia has announced a 15% increase in uranium reserves during 2009. This appears to be mainly as a result of exploration activity in the Urals and Kalmykia Republic, north of the Caspian Sea, but 2010 the focus of attention will be in the Eastern Siberian Sakha Republic (Yakutia) where the massive Elkon project is being developed. As of January 2007, Russia had known uranium resources (reasonably assured plus inferred resources up to $130/kg) of 546,000 tonnes, more than half of this in the Elkon project. WNN 7/4/10. Nuclear Power in Russia New York thwarts reactor relicensingNew York state's Environment Department has told Entergy that its Indian Point nuclear power plant can no longer use water from the Hudson River for direct (once-through) cooling, whereby a relatively large volume of water is drawn from the river and discharged back into it, a few degrees warmer. The Indian Point plant withdraws 9.5 gigalitres per day through screens, which kills some aquatic life. Last month the Environment Department introduced a draft policy requiring certain industrial facilities - including nuclear and other power plants - to recycle and reuse cooling water through "closed cycle cooling" technology with large evaporative cooling towers. Water use from the river is then much lower, to replace that evaporated (3-5% per cycle) and allow some discharge (c 2% per cycle "blowdown") to maintain quality. Entergy has applied to renew the operating licences for the two reactors for 20 years from 2013 and 2015. It estimates that building new cooling towers would cost some $1.1 billion and involve shutting down the reactors for 42 weeks. It has proposed a new $100 million screening system for the water intake which it says would be more effective than cooling towers (which still need some water input). Currently, of the USA's 104 nuclear power reactors, 60 use once-through cooling from large rivers, lakes or the sea, while 35 use wet cooling towers. Nine units use dual systems, switching according to environmental conditions. Cooling towers reportedly reduce the overall efficiency of a power plant by 3-5% compared with once-through use of water from sea, lake or large stream. A 2009 US DOE study says they are about 40% more expensive than a direct, once-through cooling system. WNN 6/4/10. Cooling Power Plants Utilities challenge US waste levySixteen utilities and the main US industry association have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Energy to suspend the government's collection of nuclear waste disposal fees, on the basis that the country no longer has a disposal plan after ruling out Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a repository site. The utilities jointly pay about $750 million a year - at 0.1 cent per kilowatt hour - into the fund which now stands at about $24 billion and earns about $1 billion annually in interest. The DOE has pointed out that the fee is legally mandated and will be applied eventually to the purpose intended. Meanwhile the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future is under way, charged with developing a new strategy for nuclear waste management in the USA. This is likely to include reprocessing and recycling of used fuel, which will greatly reduce but not eliminate the need for a deep geological repository. According to a recent Areva estimate, a 2500 t/yr US reprocessing plant and associated 300 t/yr mixed-oxide fuel fabrication plant could cost $25 billion, which would work out at less than the present 0.1 c/kWh levy. WNN 6/4/10. US Nuclear Fuel Cycle Other papers updated on the WNA Information Service (see WNA web site): Renewable Energy and Electricity , Uranium in Canada , Nuclear Power in Slovakia World Nuclear Association, www.world-nuclear.org - UK ISSN 1326-4907 |
