This month
- A correction
- Uranium extraction from seawater, by Paul Spare
- Waste Vitrification at Sellafield
- Nuclear energy is still the number 1 source of electricity in the European Union in 2024
- Russian plans in the Arctic
- Lawsuit challenges NRC on SMR regulation
- Waste recycling regulation in USA
- “The Best of 2024” according to the The Ecomodernist Society of North America
A correction
I have been found guilty by a member of adding a small ‘c’ into Hinkley, as for its homophonic twin in Leicestershire. I should get it right. I apologise.
Uranium extraction from seawater, by Paul Spare
There have been a number of press releases over recent months discussing the progress with the extraction of uranium from seawater. This has been considered feasible for many years, but there has little interest in the west, because the economics never looked attractive, as the concentration in surface deposits is many orders of magnitude greater than in seawater. Is the situation changing?
Over the last 15 years, the price of UO2 has hovered around US$100/kg, but the spot price has increased to about $200 recently. The forecast price from seawater has generally been over $1100/kg, so it has to be reduced by a large factor. It is claimed that the Chinese have developed a high efficiency nanofibre membrane that will change the economics and they have extracted kilogram quantities of uranium from seawater. The nuclear industry requires about 67,500 tonnes of uranium (tU) each year. This includes initial cores for new reactors coming online.
Researchers from the Shanghai Advanced Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences have not only pulled out kilogram quantities of uranium from seawater but slashed costs down to $150/kg, nearly matching land-based uranium at $130/kg, with projections to hit $100/kg by 2026.
The first stage, set to conclude in 2026, is nearly complete with the successful development of an economical and scalable solution. Phase two, from 2026 to 2035, involves scaling up to ton-level extraction, setting the stage for phase three, from 2036 to 2050, where China plans to be self-sufficient in uranium production.
Any new scheme extracting uranium from the sea faces great physical challenges to make a substantial contribution to global production. Uranium seawater concentration is only 0.003 ppm ie 3 parts per thousand million or 3.3 micrograms per litre. One kg could potentially be extracted from 300,000 m3 (te) of seawater. This is the volume of about 4000 Olympic pools.
If the pumping rate was 1 m3/s …(about one tenth of one percent of an Olympic pool) it would take 83000 seconds for 1 kg …1400 minutes or 1 day. This might need a 50 kW motor pump. The Chinese prototype platform shown in the CNNC article has an area of about 100 m2, looks to be very modest and not capable of handling any greater flow rates. That aggregates to a total 360 kg in a year.
Uranium demand for Chinese nuclear plants is probably about 10000 tU/yr. The prototype would therefore have to be scaled up by a factor of 30,000 to achieve supply independence.
This is a formidable challenge, but Chinese engineers have completed many enormous projects in recent years. Extrapolating costs for such a massive increase in scale is very speculative but is unlikely to be the dominant factor in their thinking.
Waste Vitrification at Sellafield
“What about the waste?” Its long-term encapsulation is successfully handled remotely at Sellafield. This has been developed over many decades and should be more widely known. A post by Phillip Greatorex on LinkedIn explained recently:
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7270489962775511040/
“The Sellafield Waste Vitrification Plant (WVP) has been in operation since 1991 and comprises three production lines. One of the features of the plant is the incorporation of a Nuclear Engineered Advanced Telerobot (NEATER) to swab the stainless steel waste containers to ensure they are free of external contamination before they are remotely placed into storage. It was one of the very first successful applications of robotic technology in a high radiation environment, the result of extensive development and testing by engineers at Harwell.
NEATER was commercially launched in December 1989 by AEA technology and Stuabli Unimation and based on the clean-room version of the PUMA 762 robot. For it to be used reliably in high radioactive environments the electronic circuitry was redesigned, wiring upgraded, the motors redesigned with radiation tolerant plastics and greases, the shaft encoder’s microelectronics replaced with semiconductors, thereby introducing more radiation tolerant silicon. After successful testing and clean trials, it was used in the decommissioning of 120 gloveboxes in the Harwell B220 Laboratories, the DIDO High Activity Handling Cell. Further afield, versions were used in the decommissioning of the Windscale AGR and elsewhere overseas.
Credit for early robotic development work goes to the then UKAEA Head of
Decommissioning at Harwell, Dr Ed Abel. He remarked this week, ‘I joined
the Remote Handling Group at Harwell in 1979 and was surprised to see
that manipulator design and operation had seemed to become rather
stagnant; there was no collaboration with non-nuclear industries who
were using robotics. I reviewed the worldwide state of the art for
Remote Handling and proposed the development of industrial robots for
use in a nuclear environment. Sinclair Third and I started to work out
what had to be done. I bought a Commodore PET computer and a small
educational robot called Smart Arms. We experimented with prototype
input devices we had built on-site, in wood, which could turn the robot
into a telerobot. So that was the start. I then, with no choice, got
transferred into the Atomic Energy Technical Branch (AETB) to work with
John Collier, Walter Marshall and others on the Sizewell B project.
Nuclear Robotics had to wait for over three years when I returned”.
Although Dr Abel was not successful in securing a DTI sponsored Advanced
Robotics Centre for Harwell, the work he started continues to this day.
Visitors to the robotics hub in West Cumbria, known as RAICo1, can see
how Sellafield Ltd, its supply chain partners and academia are working
together to develop the technology needed to safely decommission
Sellafield and other sites. It is the first of a network of robotics and
artificial intelligence hubs across the U.K.
Nuclear energy is still the number 1 source of electricity in the European Union in 2024
Nuclear energy is still the no. 1 source of electricity in the European Union,
according to a report by Alessandro Blasi at
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alessandro-blasi-6579a66_technology-power-mobility-activity-7283775197604679682-dt2j/.
His chart, reproduced from
https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=EU&year=2024&interval=year,
shows EU nuclear production of 618.43 TWh for 2024 is 25.4% of total energy production.
The numbers are aligned with official data taken from EC quarterly reports available at:
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/data-and-analysis/market-analysis_en.
Russian plans in the Arctic
A translation of a LinkedIn post by Federico Fubini https://www.linkedin.com/in/federico-fubini-87769387
The Kremlin’s first strategic act after the total aggression against Ukraine in 2022 was the launch of the new “maritime doctrine”. There are a hundred pages from July of that year, the essential point of which does not concern the Black Sea – where Moscow continues to fight – but the Arctic. Without that text, the objectives it sets out and the relations with China that it implies, it is more difficult to understand two developments that overlap these days: Donald Trump’s insistent claims on Greenland and the reluctance of Beijing and Moscow to cooperate against climate change, even now that average temperatures are rising more and faster than the thresholds indicated by the Paris Agreement. “The Arctic is one of the most important issues from a geopolitical and commercial point of view among those that have not yet emerged to public attention,” says Marco Forgione, director general of the Institute of Export & International Trade in London. It is an area of growing attention and potential disagreements between countries.”
The Kremlin’s “maritime doctrine” on the Arctic
In fact, the fourth of the twenty-one points of the Kremlin’s “maritime doctrine” on the Arctic makes clear one of Vladimir Putin’s intentions: “Development of a Nordic sea route, so as to establish it as a safe national route all year round and competitive for the Russian Federation globally”. That document also describes Moscow’s systematic militarization of the very long stretch of sea between the Bering Strait and the Norwegian border.
But the commercial stakes are also potentially immense. As recently as 2018, it was thought that the Arctic route opened up by climate change could be navigable, at most, three or four months a year. Now the acceleration of global warming allows Moscow, which has the most powerful fleet of icebreakers in the world, to aim to keep that path always open.
For international trade, the difference would be profound. From the large Chinese port of Shenzhen to Hamburg it takes about 34 days for a container ship, if it passes through the Straits of Malacca and Suez. But now transits from the Red Sea have chronically plummeted to less than 30% of before, due to the threat of Yemen’s Houthis and the relative boom in insurance costs; many merchant ships therefore prefer to circumnavigate Africa as far as Gibraltar, now taking – according to the Sea Rates analysis center – an average of 48 days from China to the main European ports of the North Atlantic. Only the large European shipping logistics groups have seen their profits explode, obviously at the expense of producers and consumers. The new Arctic route, on the other hand, would ensure the same connection in less than half the time, 23 days, at much lower costs. And the Russians want to grant (for a fee) the privilege only to the Chinese.
Related WNN Report on North East Passage trade in 2024 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/northern-sea-route-cargo-set-new-record-in-2024
Lawsuit challenges NRC on SMR regulation
It is no secret that the staff and their activities at the US NRC have delayed and obstructed the development of nuclear energy for years. Their policies have had international knock-on effects too, for instance in Japan in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident. So, although much decision making in the USA ends up in the courts, notice of the following legal battle is particularly significant, especially in the era of Trump2.0.
As reported by WNN Friday, 10 January 2025:
The States of Texas and Utah and microreactor developer Last Energy Inc are challenging the US regulator over its application of a rule it adopted in 1956 to small modular reactors and research and test reactors.
Under the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Utilization Facility Rule, all US reactors are required to obtain NRC construction and operating licences regardless of their size, the amount of nuclear material they use or the risks associated with their operation. The plaintiffs say this imposes “complicated, costly, and time-intensive requirements that even the smallest and safest SMRs and microreactors - down to those not strong enough to power an LED lightbulb” must satisfy to secure the necessary licences. This does not only affect microreactors: existing research and test reactors such as those at the universities in both Texas and Utah face “significant costs” to maintain their NRC operating licences, the plaintiffs say.
In the filing, Last Energy - developer of the PWR-20 microreactor - says it has invested “tens of millions of dollars” in developing small nuclear reactor technology, including USD2 million on manufacturing efforts in Texas alone, and has agreements to develop more than 50 nuclear reactor facilities across Europe. But although it has a “preference” to build in the USA, “Last Energy nonetheless has concluded it is only feasible to develop its projects abroad in order to access alternative regulatory frameworks that incorporate a de minimis standard for nuclear power permitting”.
Noting that only three new commercial reactors have been built in the USA over the past 28 years, the plaintiffs say building a new commercial reactor of any size in the country has become “virtually impossible” due to the rule, which it says is a “misreading” of the NRC’s own scope of authority.
They are asking the court to set aside the rule, “at least as applied to certain small, non-hazardous reactors”, and exempt their research reactors and Last Energy’s small modular reactors (SMRs) from the commission’s licensing requirements.
Turning point
Houston, Texas-based law firm King & Spalding said the lawsuit, if it is successful, would “mark a turning point” in the US nuclear regulatory framework - but warns that it could also create greater uncertainty as advanced nuclear technologies get closer to commercial readiness.
“Regardless the outcome, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit highlights the challenges in applying the Utilization Facility Rule to the advanced nuclear reactors now under development in the US,” the company said in an analysis released on 9 January.
But the NRC is already addressing the issue: in 2023, it began the rulemaking process to establish an optional technology-inclusive regulatory framework for new commercial advanced nuclear reactors, which would include risk-informed and performance-based methods “flexible and practicable for application to a variety of advanced reactor technologies”. SECY-23-0021: Proposed Rule: Risk-Informed, Technology-Inclusive Regulatory Framework for Advanced Reactors is currently open for public comment until 28 February, and the NRC has said it expects to issue a final rule “no later than the end of 2027”.
The lawsuit has been filed with the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.
Waste recycling regulation in USA
In the same vein of cutting red tape here is news of a bipartisan act on fuel recycling. Again the intention is to circumvent the US NRC. The following LinkedIn message was posted by Oscar L Martin https://www.linkedin.com/in/oscarlmartin
“Bipartisan act will bring single step licensing for nuclear waste
recycling facilities. In short, this act will make recycling nuclear
fuel as easy as recycling your soda can, with a lot less regulatory
paperwork compared to the current bureaucratic nonsense.
U.S. Reps. Bob Latta
(Rep-OH) and Scott Peters (Dem-CA) have thrown their hats into the ring
with the Nuclear REFUEL (Recycling Efficient Fuels Utilizing Expedited
Licensing) Act H.R. 10321 👉https://lnkd.in/gK9gu_BK.
Right now, navigating the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)
licensing process is like trying to find your way through a maze
blindfolded. But this bill wants to cut through the bureaucratic fog by
sticking recycling facilities only under Part 70 licensing with a single
step process, slashing the red tape surrounding the waste reprocessing
technology.
This isn’t just about making life easier for nuclear facilities; it’s a
strategic move towards U.S. energy dominance. By streamlining recycling,
the US Congress is
looking at a future where nuclear power is not only more cost-effective
but also significantly reduces the nuclear waste stockpiles, putting an
end to the ongoing polemic about waste storage.
The magic happens with pyroprocessing, which transforms spent nuclear
fuel into a U/TRU mix for advanced fast reactors, recycling over 97% of
the material and shrinking the waste pile to only those fission products
not suitable for other uses in medical, research, or food processing.
The industry’s buzzing with excitement. From Oklo
Inc.’s CEO Jacob
DeWitte to
ClearPath Action’s Jeremy Harrell and Curio’s Ed McGinnis, everyone’s on
board, seeing this as a step towards securing the supply chain and
paving the way for a cleaner energy future.
Pyroprocessing is significantly more energy efficient compared to
traditional aqueous reprocessing methods, which are highly polluting. It
supports a closed nuclear fuel cycle, enhancing the overall efficiency
of nuclear fuel use by allowing more than a dozen of reuse cycles.
With all this in mind, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) is preparing for the
nuclear waste reprocessing revolution, actively seeking Directors for
key roles like Fuel Supply Technologies, Advanced Fuel Technologies, and
Materials and Chemical Technologies. These new leaders will be at the
helm, ensuring that when the Nuclear REFUEL Act becomes law, the
industry is ready to roll from day one.
“The Best of 2024” according to the The Ecomodernist Society of North America
This Society posted “excerpts from the best clips from shows featuring Dr. Wade Allison is Emeritus professor of Physics at Oxford University Mark Havens, former Senior Technical Architect at AT&T and former Senior Systems Engineer at Verizon, with an award-winning weekly science education Isaac Arthur and other luminaries.” https://youtu.be/gYt_Shfo1G0?t=14
“Best” seemed to allow my message to get posted first. A measure of success, perhaps. However, some of the later clips illustrate the publicity environment which we are up against, in the US at least.
Wade AllisonHon. Sec.
January 2025