duci.ro FORUM at forumco.com
duci.ro FORUM at forumco.com
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?




 All Forums
 Ecologie si integrare europeana
 Energetica Nucleara, EURATOM, EPR
 News
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

duci
Forum Admin


210 Posts

Posted - 12/20/2007 :  17:19:17  Show Profile  Email Poster Send duci a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Nuclear fuel: some positive changes?
19 December 2007

After years of being rather stuck in a time warp, it now seems there are some potentially significant changes taking place in the supply of nuclear fuel.

By Steve Kidd
The sharp rise in the uranium price has been much analysed and discussed, along with the arrival of hundreds of new junior uranium companies, a much enhanced exploration effort and the prospect of a significantly greater level of uranium production by 2010. The significant investments in new centrifuge enrichment capacity have also been heavily covered in market commentaries. There are, however, some other aspects very worthy of note.

Outsiders, such as financial analysts and consulting companies, always find extremely curious the way in which nuclear fuel buyers buy uranium, then have the fuel converted, enriched and fabricated by separate service companies before being loaded into a reactor. “Why don’t they just buy the fabricated fuel?” they all ask. This is, of course, a good question. The answer is a mixture of history, the bad experience of the famous Westinghouse case of the late 1970s (when the company was contracted to sell fabricated fuel at prices below costs inflated by unforeseen rapid uranium price inflation), some inertia or conservatism in utility fuel managers (some cynics would see it as enlightened self interest in order to preserve their jobs) or, more positively, a view that the present arrangements guarantee the best prices for the buyers (which they indeed may). Finally, the fuel fabrication part of the fuel cycle is different to the uranium, conversion, and enrichment sections – it is not a fungible product or service but a high technology specialised operation, with products specific to particular reactor designs (or even particular buyer requirements).

The usual procedure may, however, be under renewed attack. Some of this has possibly been prompted by the extent to which many fuel buyers have been burned by the uranium price increases. For some US utilities, which back in 2003 had little inventory and low contract coverage for the 2005-2010 period, the pain has been considerable. Why not take up a decent offer for the supply of a total fuel package at a predictable (and hopefully currently competitive) price? The problem up to now has been the lack of willing sellers.

Buying enriched uranium product (EUP), ie uranium in its enriched form, is a halfway house and enrichment companies have been happy to oblige. They are effectively in the uranium and conversion business themselves, with their ability to under- or overfeed their plants and re-enrich depleted uranium. But now we are seeing vertical integration in the front end fuel cycle, with other companies hoping to copy Areva in its ability to offer all four components in a package. So far this has been only for first cores and limited refuelling for new reactors, but may eventually go much further. The Russians have, of course, provided for many years a full fuel service for the reactors they have sold overseas (including taking back the used fuel), but now Kazatomprom, the rapidly-growing uranium producer from Kazakhstan, has shown by taking a 10% stake in Westinghouse (now majority owned by Toshiba) its eventual intention to offer a compete fuel service, also by signing a cooperation deal on a conversion facility with Cameco. Kazatomprom already has a large fuel pellet producing plant and seems set on extending its fuel fabrication activities much further – it wants to add further value to its significant natural uranium endowment. Other fuel cycle participants are likely to follow this trend.

Indeed, offering a full fuel service also fits in with latest international moves to provide assurance of fuel supply to new countries building nuclear power plants, renouncing their right to build domestic enrichment and reprocessing facilities. This could still involve them buying each component separately, but does seem to lead itself to them buying not only a reactor, but many years of assured total fuel supply at the same time.


Another interesting trend has been some signs that nuclear utilities are prepared to invest directly in fuel cycle facilities to secure future supplies, as well as to stimulate infrastructure renewal and spur competition. This was initially seen with the investments in Urenco’s LES New Mexico enrichment facility by US utilities. These have been more reluctant, however, to invest in new uranium mines, in contrast to the position in the past when many took stakes in uranium companies. This often ended in tears, however, with many years of poor uranium prices, and there is clearly a reluctance today to risk getting burned once again in businesses very different to their own. It has mainly been the Japanese, Korean and Chinese utilities that have been investing in mines, particularly in Kazakhstan, but also in Africa and Russia. The tight short-term uranium supply situation has clearly motivated this, along with a desire to free themselves, at least to some extent, from the vicissitudes of the uranium market. With most near-term nuclear growth currently set to be concentrated in the Asian region, what is seen as the world uranium market today may increasingly become irrelevant. Companies may take their equity shares of production at cost prices, rather than based on references to quoted uranium prices. Unless there is substantial new nuclear build in North America and the European Union (EU), the uranium market of today may become merely a declining residual feature, with somewhat quaint and mysterious practices largely divorced from the worldwide industry trends.

Seeking ways to get as far away as possible from uranium market gyrations is clearly a popular theme. It is clear that the market, as it stands today, doesn’t work to anyone’s long-term interests. Having swung from a position for over 20 years when prices were too low to offer a workable financial incentive for badly-needed new production facilities, the opposite could now be happening. Fixing contract prices for a vital commodity in a very long-term business like nuclear power, based on short-term surpluses or shortages in an illiquid, opaque spot market is clearly ridiculous in any economic sense. This practice led to the situation of weak supply infrastructure today and the consequent need to ramp up production very rapidly. Yet the seeds of an unpleasant subsequent bust are already sown. Establishing new production facilities may take longer than generally expected but come online they undoubtedly will – the economic advantage of doing so, based on current spot prices and likely cost levels, is just too obvious. The risk, however, is that prices will fall too early and too far and fast, potentially choking off some of the expected production growth, as company share prices and their ability to raise money take a hit. Although nobody would begrudge today’s uranium companies enjoying the much higher prices after being financially hammered by buyers for so long, they must be careful not to ‘milk’ the situation as the buyers foolishly did (only to get caught out now). Far better to return, one would think, to signing long-term contracts with buyers that give the producer an adequate return on investment and the buyer some assurance about future price levels as well as on firm deliveries. Indexing future prices to spot prices at the time of delivery seems a distinctly odd practice, when a standardised but tradable long-term contract market would be a much superior option.

Finally, it now appears from recent announcements and US court rulings that we may be inching forward, at last, towards a complete world market in nuclear fuel. The main distortions at present are that Russia makes it difficult for its ‘captive’ customers (with Russian designed reactors) to take fuel supplies from elsewhere (mainly by offering very good prices), while the US market in enrichment has, in turn, been protected from Russian primary supply (although downblended Russian HEU provides around half of the US market). Areva and Urenco from Europe have also faced trade actions in the US enrichment market. All of these seem to be slowly withering away but a fully competitive world market is still a long way off. Ukraine seems set to load Western-origin fuel in some of its reactors, to follow the Czech Republic, which did so for a time. Russia will continue making hard-to-beat offers but Eastern European reactor operators will continue to look westwards after joining the EU. US utilities will gradually be able to sign contracts for Russian enrichment as their HEU deal expires in 2013 and it seems only a matter of time before the US market is opened up completely.

Restrictions imposed by Euratom in the EU seem gradually to be withering away too. Utilities should surely now be treated as ‘big boys’, quite capable of looking after their own interests in supply security and prices. Nuclear will hopefully gradually become treated as just another business rather than something requiring a lot of market interference.

In conclusion, a number of areas are showing very positive developments for nuclear fuel, such that it will be ready to play its important role in a future and prosperous nuclear industry. One cloud on the horizon, nevertheless, is the continued transportation difficulties the industry faces, which threaten to imperil the economic logic prompting sourcing material from the lowest cost locations, subject to security of supply considerations. These require maximum attention to get resolved or else all the additional options the buyers can now begin to consider may become meaningless. But overall, it is possible to foresee the fuel supply infrastructure getting renewed at long last, together with a heightened range of market alternatives put under offer.


Author Info:
Steve Kidd is Head of Strategy & Research at the World Nuclear Association, where he has worked since 1995 (when it was the Uranium Institute). Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the World Nuclear Association and/or its members

Prof.Dr. D. Ciurchea

Google AdSense

USA
Mountain View


duci
Forum Admin



210 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2008 :  09:50:23  Show Profile  Email Poster Send duci a Private Message  Reply with Quote
APUD: You must be logged in to see this link.

Westinghouse invests in zirconium tube plant
09 January 2008



Westinghouse is to invest nearly $13 million in improvements at a plant that makes zirconium alloy tubes for nuclear fuel in readiness for the worldwide nuclear renaissance.

The company has announced that its Specialty Metals Plant in Pennsylvania will be fitted with new equipment to accommodate its projects in China as well as pending projects in the USA. "The investments we are making to expand our manufacturing capabilities will position Westinghouse for continued success in the worldwide nuclear renaissance," said Aris Candris, senior vice president of Westinghouse's Nuclear Fuel business unit. Construction work is due to start in March on the first of four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors to be built in China, and applications for construction and operating licences for two two-unit AP1000 power plants have recently been submitted in the USA.

The bulk of Westinghouse's investment - over $11 million - will be spent on two high-speed pilgers used in the manufacturing process to produce seamless zirconium alloy tubing. The other major equipment purchase will be a vacuum annealing furnace worth some $1.75 million, which Westinghouse says will support the anticipated growth of the next generation of zirconium alloys providing enhanced performance. The new equipment is expected to be commissioned in early 2009.

Zirconium alloy tubes manufactured at the Specialty Metals Plant are used to encase pellets of uranium dioxide to make nuclear fuel rods. The rods, which are typically around 4 m long, are arranged in fuel assemblies for loading into a reactor. The fuel for the AP1000 is based on a 17x17 design that has already been used in pressurized water reactors in the US and Europe.


Prof.Dr. D. Ciurchea
Go to Top of Page

duci
Forum Admin



210 Posts

Posted - 01/24/2008 :  09:54:14  Show Profile  Email Poster Send duci a Private Message  Reply with Quote
APUD: You must be logged in to see this link.

US suspends financial participation in Iter

18 January 2008

The USA has admitted that it will have to suspend financial participation in the Iter experimental fusion reactor project due to cuts in the federal research budget.

In its omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 2008, announced in December, Congress included only $10.7 million for US work on the project. The US financial commitment for Iter is $1.1 billion, and the Bush administration had proposed spending $160 million in 2008 to start purchasing components for the project.

Although the Department of Energy's Office of Science's total science budget increased 4.6% to $4 billion, most of those increases were for supercomputers and biological research. Congress withheld money for DoE's $160 million commitment to Iter, the international fusion reactor in France, and slashed funding for the International Linear Collider (ILC), the next-generation particle accelerator, from $60 million to $15 million.

Raymond Orbach, Under Secretary for Science at the DoE, wrote to Kaname Ikeda, director general of the Iter Organization (IO), on 10 January. In his letter, Orbach said: "As you know, besides a modest amount for supporting research and development, the US fiscal year 2008 appropriations provided no funding for the US contributions to the Iter project." He added, "I want to let you know that the US is firmly committed to meeting our obligations under the Iter Joint Implementing Agreement and that we are doing everything possible to rectify the situation."

Orbach said, "For the time being, however, there will be some limitations on our ability to fully participate in Iter activities: we will be forced to defer our 2008 cash contributions to the IO; postpone some US design, research and development activities; and forego initiating our long-lead hardware procurements."

Neil Calder, a spokesman for the Iter project, told Agence France-Presse, "This is a very worrying situation, but we cannot come to the conclusion that the United States will quit Iter." He added, "It's not a cash contribution that has been withdrawn from the project, but equipment that the Americans were to have constructed that will be delayed."

On 4 January, 21 members of the US fusion community sent a letter to members of Congress and the Executive Branch protesting the removal of Iter fund in the fiscal 2008 appropriations bill. The letter said: "Failure by the United States to sustain its international commitments to Iter seems certain to establish the United States as an unreliable partner not only in the Iter project, but in many other areas of science. This comes at a time when the expense and scope of many critically important scientific activities suggest international partnership and cooperation. Therefore, for the sake of the international and domestic fusion effort and for the sake of the US reputation in the international scientific community, we most respectfully urge that funding be provided for continued US participation in Iter."

Iter will be a crucial step in the development of nuclear fusion power stations. The 500 MWt device will be the proving ground for technologies and operational procedures leading to the eventual exploitation of nuclear fusion as a source of abundant clean energy. Parties involved in the project are: China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, the USA and the European Union. The resulting technology will be available for use by all participants.

The Iter program is projected to last for 30 years, with ten years of construction followed by 20 years of operation, although this may be extended. In total the project is expected to cost just under $15 billion.


Prof.Dr. D. Ciurchea
Go to Top of Page

duci
Forum Admin



210 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2008 :  10:42:48  Show Profile  Email Poster Send duci a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Romania wants to build second nuclear power plant after 2020
03.17.08, 9:42 AM ET
BUCHAREST (Thomson Financial) - Romania plans to build a second
nuclear power station to ensure its future energy independence, the
head of Nuclearelectrica, Teodor Chirica, said.

'After 2020, we'll need a second nuclear power plant, with between two and four reactors,' Chirica said at an energy strategy seminar here.

Romanian Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu said in October that Bucharest was planning a second nuclear power station 'so as not to be dependent
on resources like gas and oil which are running out.'


The current Cernovada power plant in the country's southeast, which
currently has two reactors in operation, supplies around 17 percent of Romania's electricity needs.

Another two reactors are set to go into operation by 2014-2015, and
Romania launched an international tender for their construction, the
cost of which was estimated to be 2.2 billion euros.


For the project, a joint venture was set up between Nuclearelectrica
and six foreign investors -- Arcelor-Mittal, Czech utility CEZ,
Electrabel of Belgium, Enel of Italy, Iberdrola (other-otc: IBDRF.PK -news - people ) of Spain and German power giant RWE.

The six will each take stakes of 10-15 percent in the joint venture.

Prof.Dr. D. Ciurchea
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Send Topic to a Friend
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
duci.ro FORUM at forumco.com © 2000-05 ForumCo.com Go To Top Of Page
Generated in 0.2 seconds. Hello from Duci !!! Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free