This article originally appeared in Fuel Cycle Week #338, 7/15/09
By Roger Murray, Special Correspondent, Fuel Cycle Week
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s four-day, four-country trip to Africa in late June produced a plethora of bilateral agreements on nuclear cooperation, energy, infrastructure and trade with Egypt, Nigeria, Angola and Namibia. It was Medvedev’s first visit to the continent, and he brought with him a 300-person trade delegation.
Analysts widely viewed Medvedev’s primary intention as beefing up Russia’s position as a major bilateral partner on the continent, as well as catching Russian firms up with Western and Chinese firms in securing access to African natural resources—especially uranium, oil and gas. China has stakes in uranium ventures in Niger and Namibia (via investment in AREVA’s Trekkopje mine), while mainly Australian and Canadian juniors have spearheaded yellowcake exploration.
Medvedev carefully selected African countries with which Russia already has close political, or economic and trade links. The BBC commented that Medvedev’s African safari came “at a time when Russia is trying to strengthen its global strategic role.”
Egypt is Russia’s top trading partner in Africa, and political and military ties have been strong since the 1960s presidency of Gamel Abdul Nasser. Although Russia trades little with Nigeria—nor does it need the country’s crude oil exports—Nigerian authorities regard Russia warmly because it supplied the Nigerian federal government with armaments during the civil war of the 1960s, enabling the government to prevail during the Biafra secession.
Similarly, Russia enjoys close political ties with the ruling parties of both Angola and Namibia, which both received political and financial backing, along with weapons, when engaged in their armed liberation struggles against Portugal and South Africa, respectively. Those ties have endured over the decades.
Namibia: Accords Many, U-Deals None
In Namibia Russia sought deals on oil and gas as well as uranium. The official joint communiqué issued after Mevedev’s meeting with President Hifikepunye Pohamba on June 26 noted that the development of natural resources, infrastructure and energy were among the “priority areas of bilateral cooperation.”
The communiqué added that the two countries had reached agreement “on the expansion of Russian investments to develop and introduce new large-scale projects in the Namibian economy, in particular in mining, oil exploration and energy.”
Mevedev’s visit has apparently paved the way for a significant increase in economic and financial links between Namibia and Russia.
Andrei Sharonov, managing director of the Troika Dialog Group, Russia’s largest independent investment bank, was a participant in Medvedev’s delegation. “My trip to Namibia is meant to introduce members of the Russian delegation to [Namibia’s] Standard Bank and to explore opportunities for financing Russian companies’ projects in the country,” he told reporters. Sharonov emphasised the interest expressed by Russian businesses in partnership opportunities in Namibia, “both in terms of mineral resources as well as participating in power and infrastructure projects”.
Standard Bank, which is one of Namibia’s four commercial banks (all South African-owned), announced at the end of June that it would join with Troika to “create an international platform to connect Russian clients to Africa and other emerging markets.” The Namibian bank recently announced plans to become a 33% stakeholder in Troika, in one of several proposed business partnership.
But no new uranium agreements were reported during Medvedev’s brief visit. Local media only had limited access to the official events, and the joint communiqué was vague on specifics. Russia’s previous offer of a floating nuclear power plant, which Kirienko offered during a 2007 visit, was not on the agenda for this trip, Russian ambassador in Namibia Nikolai Gribkov confirmed to the local media.
Russia’s only current involvement in the Namibian uranium sector is via the locally registered SWA Uranium Mines, which holds two exploration licenses in the Erongo region. Both are due to expire next year. The majority owner of SWA Uranium Mines is now the Moscow-based private mining investment group Arlan, which holds a 75% equity interest.
The other two shareholders, each with 12.5%, are Vneshtorgbank (VTB) and Atomredmetzoloto (ARMZ); ARMZ and Arlan have acquired the shares previously held by Techsnabexport (Tenex) and Renova respectively, which were part of the original joint venture established to mine uranium in Namibia three years ago, according to The Namibian daily newspaper. However, there have been no reports of exploration work.
In addition the Namibian government now requires mineral exploration license holders to form partnerships with local black economic empowerment partners as a condition of relicensing. This happened recently in the case of license extensions granted to Australia’s Deep Yellow (FCW #333, June 24). It remains to be seen whether the government enforces the rule when Arlan’s current licenses expire.
Westerners Generate Economic Benefits
While for political reasons the Namibian government is keen to diversify involvement in uranium mining and exploration beyond Western-owned firms, Russia can offer little in terms of finance and technical expertise that is not already available.
For example, Rössing Uranium recently published its 2008 Report to Stakeholders, which disclosed that out of N$2.8 billion ($339 million) net income last year, the government had received N$935 million ($113 million) in income tax and payments for services to state-owned utilities. Employees gained N$455 million ($55 million); shareholders N$342 million ($41 million); and N1.1 billion ($133 million) were reinvested in the company.
In addition, Rössing payments for goods and services amounted to N$2.3 billion ($278 million) in 2008, of which N$1.45 billion ($176 million) or 62% went to Namibian suppliers.
The report added that Rössing remained committed to expanding annual output to nameplate capacity of 4,500 tonnes U3O8 by 2012 and that under its strategic production planning process the current focus is on evaluating the feasibility of a heap leach processing plant to treat currently uneconomic ore, to sustain operations until 2021.
Egypt: Inside Track for Nuke Tender?
Russia appeared to score a success in Egypt, where it has been invited to participate in the tender for the construction of Egypt’s first nuclear power plant at El-Dabaa. Accompanying Medvedev was Rosatom Director General Sergei Kirienko, who told Russian news agency Itar-Tass that the tender would “most likely” be called for in late 2010.
The planned 1,000-MWe El-Dabaa plant, a combined nuclear reactor and desalination plant on the coast, is slated for construction by 2015 at an estimated $1.5-2 billion cost and is open to foreign participation. Egypt recently awarded a contract to Australian engineering consultants Worley Parsons to select the reactor technology, choose a plant site, organize training and provide technical services.
Egypt had announced plans to develop nuclear energy in 2006 and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak signed a bilateral accord on the use of nuclear power for peaceful purposes during his 2008 visit to Russia.
Last month Russian and Egyptian officials signed a bilateral uranium exploration and mining agreement. Kiriyenko told the press that Egypt had “very promising uranium deposits” and would cooperate in uranium prospecting and development.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Belene Suspended While New Bulgarian Government Cleans House
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Soon-to-be Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov announced the temporary suspension of the Belene nuclear plant project shortly after the victory of his Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party defeated the sitting Socialist government on July 5 . Borisov was quick to clarify that the suspension did not indicate a lack of commitment to Belene. "We have the permission of the EU and to miss the opportunity of having a [nuclear] plant would be what I would call a crime against the state," Borisov said during an interview on Nova TV.
Rather, all major investment projects will be frozen while the new government assesses the country's financial standing and decides which projects to continue and which to postpone. The South Stream gas pipeline project was also frozen.
Borisov accused the previous government and its Economy and Energy Minister Petar Dimitrov of failing to take Bulgaria's economic crisis into account as it signed on to new, investment-intensive projects. Suspicions of corruption were not infrequent, including the apparent disappearance of BGN500 million (US$361 million) in the preparation of the site for Belene. "The last government managed the energy sector without any transparency. According to GERB, this sector has not been reformed and the new government will pay special attention on it," said GERB Economic Advisor Biser Boev.
As to Belene in particular, the new government was clear that Bulgaria could not guarantee the price of the project and that funding would have to come from private sources. With international banks shying away from Belene, this means Russia, who have promised Bulgaria the €3.8 billion (US$5.5 billion) loan it needs to build the reactors. However, the Russian Ministry of Finance said the loan would not be granted for at least six months while the conditions of credit are sorted out. RWE, the 49% partner in Belene, has been waiting for Bulgarian utility NEK to sort out its financing arrangements before coming up with its own money. Boev said negotions with RWE would be accelerated.
The suspension of Belene may feel like yet another weight sinking the project toward eternal limbo, but in the long run, this may be good news for the plant. Bureaucratic entanglement and poor planning has stalled Belene again and again. A house cleaning may be the crucial step to move the plant off the drawing board and into real life.
Soon-to-be Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov announced the temporary suspension of the Belene nuclear plant project shortly after the victory of his Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (GERB) party defeated the sitting Socialist government on July 5 . Borisov was quick to clarify that the suspension did not indicate a lack of commitment to Belene. "We have the permission of the EU and to miss the opportunity of having a [nuclear] plant would be what I would call a crime against the state," Borisov said during an interview on Nova TV.
Rather, all major investment projects will be frozen while the new government assesses the country's financial standing and decides which projects to continue and which to postpone. The South Stream gas pipeline project was also frozen.
Borisov accused the previous government and its Economy and Energy Minister Petar Dimitrov of failing to take Bulgaria's economic crisis into account as it signed on to new, investment-intensive projects. Suspicions of corruption were not infrequent, including the apparent disappearance of BGN500 million (US$361 million) in the preparation of the site for Belene. "The last government managed the energy sector without any transparency. According to GERB, this sector has not been reformed and the new government will pay special attention on it," said GERB Economic Advisor Biser Boev.
As to Belene in particular, the new government was clear that Bulgaria could not guarantee the price of the project and that funding would have to come from private sources. With international banks shying away from Belene, this means Russia, who have promised Bulgaria the €3.8 billion (US$5.5 billion) loan it needs to build the reactors. However, the Russian Ministry of Finance said the loan would not be granted for at least six months while the conditions of credit are sorted out. RWE, the 49% partner in Belene, has been waiting for Bulgarian utility NEK to sort out its financing arrangements before coming up with its own money. Boev said negotions with RWE would be accelerated.
The suspension of Belene may feel like yet another weight sinking the project toward eternal limbo, but in the long run, this may be good news for the plant. Bureaucratic entanglement and poor planning has stalled Belene again and again. A house cleaning may be the crucial step to move the plant off the drawing board and into real life.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
African Projects Update: Rossing South Resource Raised to 145M Pounds
This article originally appeared in Fuel Cycle Week #337, 7/8/09
By Roger Murray, Special Correspondent, Fuel Cycle Week
On July 2 Australia’s Extract Resources announced a 34% increase in the resource estimate for Zone 1 of its Rossing South deposit in Namibia.
Based on drilling and chemical assay data completed to June 2009 and compliant with Australia’s JORC code, the overall resource is now estimated at 145 million pounds (65,770 tonnes) U3O8 at a 100 ppm cutoff, up from the initial resource estimate of 108 million pounds (48,988 tonnes) published in January (FCW
#312, Jan. 28).
Extract noted that the overall resource grade had increased to 449 ppm (0.045%), compared to 430 ppm (0.043%) previously, and that 20% of the contained uranium metal—24 million pounds (10,886 tonnes)—is now classified as indicated.
The company added that it expected Zone 2’s initial resource estimate to “propel Rossing South into the top 10 global uranium deposits” by contained metal, with both Zone 1 and Zone 2 mineralization still open along-strike and down-dip “with extensive exploration potential still to be tested.”
Extract’s Managing Director Peter McIntyre confirmed that the Zone 2 initial resource was on track for August 2009, predicting that the company would “establish an even larger resource base over the next two months and position Rossing South amongst the best of the world’s uranium deposits.”
He added: “This resource base is expected to support a long-life, large-scale open-pit mining operation and a feasibility study is in progress to quantify this potential.”
An equally enthusiastic response to the Rossing South resource update came from Extract’s largest shareholder, AIM-listed Kalahari Minerals, also on July 2. Its Chairman Mark Hohnen said: “The 34% increase in resource for Zone 1 to 145 million lbs of U3O8 in line with our estimates. Additionally we were hugely excited about the increase in grade which makes Rossing South the highest grade granite hosted uranium deposit in Namibia.”
Hohnen Warns Off Rio Tinto
The latest resource update for Rossing South, coupled with a likely further substantial boost to the deposit’s overall size in August to above 200 million pounds (90,720 tonnes), make it likely that Rio Tinto will continue stalking both Extract and Kalahari.
The Anglo-Australian resources group already holds substantial minority stakes in both firms, but Hohnen is determined that any purchase of either company would only be on terms that reflect the commercial potential of a Rossing South mine.
In the July 3 Mining Journal, Hohnen was quoted as saying: “If Rio wants to be in a joint venture to develop Rossing South, or wants to take over Extract, it must be only on a commercial basis.”
Hohnen also explained the decision to call off the planned merger between Kalahari and Extract late last year. “We were very worried that they (Rio Tinto) could go to 30% of the merged group under the UK (takeover) rules,” he told the London-based weekly. We asked Rio to enter into a voluntary handcuff agreement where they would not increase their holding until we were able to talk through these issues; Rio was not prepared to do that. On the back of that, some of our shareholders just said they were not prepared to vote for the merger because there was just too much of a risk of Kalahari getting into a bear hug.”
Polo Chairman Agrees
Polo Resources executive chairman Stephen Dattels has made similar comments. Dattels joined Extract’s board last month, as the South African-based concern holds a 10% direct equity interest in the firm. Other companies that he is connected to, namely AIM-listed Niger Uranium and Emerging Metals, also own a combined 25% interest in Kalahari, equivalent to a further 10% indirect interest in Extract (FCW #330, June 3).
Mining Journal reported that in a recent interview (with another publication) Dattels said: “Why should Rio Tinto be able to muscle the shareholders of Extract and Kalahari around to suit its own benefit? In my view there is a much better alternative, which is to have both companies sold to the highest bidder.”
By Roger Murray, Special Correspondent, Fuel Cycle Week
On July 2 Australia’s Extract Resources announced a 34% increase in the resource estimate for Zone 1 of its Rossing South deposit in Namibia.
Based on drilling and chemical assay data completed to June 2009 and compliant with Australia’s JORC code, the overall resource is now estimated at 145 million pounds (65,770 tonnes) U3O8 at a 100 ppm cutoff, up from the initial resource estimate of 108 million pounds (48,988 tonnes) published in January (FCW
#312, Jan. 28).
Extract noted that the overall resource grade had increased to 449 ppm (0.045%), compared to 430 ppm (0.043%) previously, and that 20% of the contained uranium metal—24 million pounds (10,886 tonnes)—is now classified as indicated.
The company added that it expected Zone 2’s initial resource estimate to “propel Rossing South into the top 10 global uranium deposits” by contained metal, with both Zone 1 and Zone 2 mineralization still open along-strike and down-dip “with extensive exploration potential still to be tested.”
Extract’s Managing Director Peter McIntyre confirmed that the Zone 2 initial resource was on track for August 2009, predicting that the company would “establish an even larger resource base over the next two months and position Rossing South amongst the best of the world’s uranium deposits.”
He added: “This resource base is expected to support a long-life, large-scale open-pit mining operation and a feasibility study is in progress to quantify this potential.”
An equally enthusiastic response to the Rossing South resource update came from Extract’s largest shareholder, AIM-listed Kalahari Minerals, also on July 2. Its Chairman Mark Hohnen said: “The 34% increase in resource for Zone 1 to 145 million lbs of U3O8 in line with our estimates. Additionally we were hugely excited about the increase in grade which makes Rossing South the highest grade granite hosted uranium deposit in Namibia.”
Hohnen Warns Off Rio Tinto
The latest resource update for Rossing South, coupled with a likely further substantial boost to the deposit’s overall size in August to above 200 million pounds (90,720 tonnes), make it likely that Rio Tinto will continue stalking both Extract and Kalahari.
The Anglo-Australian resources group already holds substantial minority stakes in both firms, but Hohnen is determined that any purchase of either company would only be on terms that reflect the commercial potential of a Rossing South mine.
In the July 3 Mining Journal, Hohnen was quoted as saying: “If Rio wants to be in a joint venture to develop Rossing South, or wants to take over Extract, it must be only on a commercial basis.”
Hohnen also explained the decision to call off the planned merger between Kalahari and Extract late last year. “We were very worried that they (Rio Tinto) could go to 30% of the merged group under the UK (takeover) rules,” he told the London-based weekly. We asked Rio to enter into a voluntary handcuff agreement where they would not increase their holding until we were able to talk through these issues; Rio was not prepared to do that. On the back of that, some of our shareholders just said they were not prepared to vote for the merger because there was just too much of a risk of Kalahari getting into a bear hug.”
Polo Chairman Agrees
Polo Resources executive chairman Stephen Dattels has made similar comments. Dattels joined Extract’s board last month, as the South African-based concern holds a 10% direct equity interest in the firm. Other companies that he is connected to, namely AIM-listed Niger Uranium and Emerging Metals, also own a combined 25% interest in Kalahari, equivalent to a further 10% indirect interest in Extract (FCW #330, June 3).
Mining Journal reported that in a recent interview (with another publication) Dattels said: “Why should Rio Tinto be able to muscle the shareholders of Extract and Kalahari around to suit its own benefit? In my view there is a much better alternative, which is to have both companies sold to the highest bidder.”
Friday, July 10, 2009
Vattenfall's Kreummel Blunder Strikes a Blow for Germany's Anti-Nuke Camp
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Traffic lights blinked out and shopping malls went dark in northern Germany this weekend as a transformer malfunction caused an emergency shutdown at Vattenfall's 25-year old Kruemmel nuclear plant. The incident occurred just one week after Kruemmel's reopening, after two years of repairs following a 2007 transformer fire. The company revealed this week that a device that monitors partial discharges of power at the transformer had not been installed.
Both of Kruemmel's transformers must now be replaced. It will take the new transformers until next spring to arrive, Vattenfall said, and even longer to obtain proper permissions and install the new gear. In the meantime, the company will conduct a full inspection of the Kruemmel reactor. This week, the reactor vessel will be opened for an inspection of the 80,000 fuel rods, one or more of which the company believes may have been damaged during the incident.
"We are aware that we have lost trust again," said Vattenfall Chief Tuomo Hatakka. "We'll have to earn it anew." Indeed, Kruemmel's failed restart not only interrupts the utility's operations--Vattenfall loses about €1 million (US$1.4 million) in operating income each day that Kruemmel and its other halted plant, Brunsbuettel, is not running--but also tarnishes the company's reputation.
In Vattenfall's home country of Sweden, the government demanded an account of its work to improve safety, and the nuclear safety agency contemplated more intense supervision of the utility's operations. On Wednesday, the government ordered Vattenfall to improve safety at the Ringhals plant, which has chalked more than 60 safety incidents.
In Germany, anti-nuclear advocates seized on the Kruemmel shutdown as a reason to close Germany's fleet of reactors. "It's time to switch off the Kruemmel plant," said Vice-Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a member of the Social Democratic Party. The incident even drew frustration from nuclear supporters such as Peter Harry Carstensen, State Premier of Schleswig Holstein, where Kruemmel is located. "If there is one more incident like this, I will see to it that this power station is shut down."
Clamor over Kruemmel plays out against the background of a larger nuclear debate within Germany. Under the leadership of former prime minister Gerhard Shroeder, Germany decided in 2000 to close its 17 reactors by 2020. Current Chancellor Angela Merkel is warmer to nuclear power, and encourages continuing its use. As national elections at the end of September draw closer, Merkel's Christian Democratic Union has backed away from the prospect of building new plants, but continues to advocate extending the lifespan of existing reactors. Nuclear is not popular in Germany, but high power prices have lately started to soften the resistance of the populace.
In this light, the Kruemmel debacle speaks not only to Vattenfall's irresponsibility and ineptitude, but harms the case of nuclear in general. It is almost certain that Germany will find a reason to continue operating its nuclear plants, as there is at this time no apparent replacement for the generation they provide.The damage is really dealt in the case for nuclear as an enduring option, distancing its chance to play a role in the next generation of German power.
Traffic lights blinked out and shopping malls went dark in northern Germany this weekend as a transformer malfunction caused an emergency shutdown at Vattenfall's 25-year old Kruemmel nuclear plant. The incident occurred just one week after Kruemmel's reopening, after two years of repairs following a 2007 transformer fire. The company revealed this week that a device that monitors partial discharges of power at the transformer had not been installed.
Both of Kruemmel's transformers must now be replaced. It will take the new transformers until next spring to arrive, Vattenfall said, and even longer to obtain proper permissions and install the new gear. In the meantime, the company will conduct a full inspection of the Kruemmel reactor. This week, the reactor vessel will be opened for an inspection of the 80,000 fuel rods, one or more of which the company believes may have been damaged during the incident.
"We are aware that we have lost trust again," said Vattenfall Chief Tuomo Hatakka. "We'll have to earn it anew." Indeed, Kruemmel's failed restart not only interrupts the utility's operations--Vattenfall loses about €1 million (US$1.4 million) in operating income each day that Kruemmel and its other halted plant, Brunsbuettel, is not running--but also tarnishes the company's reputation.
In Vattenfall's home country of Sweden, the government demanded an account of its work to improve safety, and the nuclear safety agency contemplated more intense supervision of the utility's operations. On Wednesday, the government ordered Vattenfall to improve safety at the Ringhals plant, which has chalked more than 60 safety incidents.
In Germany, anti-nuclear advocates seized on the Kruemmel shutdown as a reason to close Germany's fleet of reactors. "It's time to switch off the Kruemmel plant," said Vice-Chancellor Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a member of the Social Democratic Party. The incident even drew frustration from nuclear supporters such as Peter Harry Carstensen, State Premier of Schleswig Holstein, where Kruemmel is located. "If there is one more incident like this, I will see to it that this power station is shut down."
Clamor over Kruemmel plays out against the background of a larger nuclear debate within Germany. Under the leadership of former prime minister Gerhard Shroeder, Germany decided in 2000 to close its 17 reactors by 2020. Current Chancellor Angela Merkel is warmer to nuclear power, and encourages continuing its use. As national elections at the end of September draw closer, Merkel's Christian Democratic Union has backed away from the prospect of building new plants, but continues to advocate extending the lifespan of existing reactors. Nuclear is not popular in Germany, but high power prices have lately started to soften the resistance of the populace.
In this light, the Kruemmel debacle speaks not only to Vattenfall's irresponsibility and ineptitude, but harms the case of nuclear in general. It is almost certain that Germany will find a reason to continue operating its nuclear plants, as there is at this time no apparent replacement for the generation they provide.The damage is really dealt in the case for nuclear as an enduring option, distancing its chance to play a role in the next generation of German power.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
AREVA Seeks Capital With Offering of 15%, T&D Arm
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
AREVA announced plans to sell a 15% share in the company last week, citing need "to pursue an ambitious investment program to take advantage of its growth." The sale will lower the French government's stake from its current 93% down to 78%. In addition to seeking investment from other businesses, the company is starting an employee shareholder program.
AREVA is also looking into selling off some of its other holdings, most importantly its Transmission and Distribution division. A call for bids is expected, with a final decision regarding if and when to sell the T&D wing to follow. The firm's 72% share in AREVA T&D India Ltd., the division's Indian arm, will also be offered for sale. Its stakes in French miner Eramet and Swiss electronics firm ST Microelectronics will also be offered up.
The sale will generate about €14 billion (US$19.6 billion) in capital, steeling AREVA to maintain its prominent status in the ever more vital nuclear market. Much of the money will no doubt be directed toward the continued development of the firm's third generation EPR reactor. The company's maiden EPR project, Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, has encountered problem after problem, leading to a three-year delay in the target start-up date. Cost overruns from the Finnish project contributed to the 21% decline in AREVA's profits during 2008.
Speculation as to who might grab this stake is wide. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries confirmed its interest. The company seems a likely contender, given its ties to AREVA in nuclear fuel and the development of the medium-sized Atmea reactor. Strengthening ties to the French giant would prove advantageous to MHI, likely boosting its competitive power as a reactor supplier.
Other French energy firms like EDF, GDF Suez, Total, and Alstom are also likely contenders. Germany's Siemens has been raised by some sources, but we think this is unlikely. AREVA previously blocked Siemens' attempt to raise its 34% holding in reactor division AREVA NP, and now hopes to buy back this stake. According to The Financial Times, the French government has also talked to certain Middle East-based sovereign wealth funds about an investment deal.
AREVA stocks rose 8% following the announcement of the offering.
AREVA announced plans to sell a 15% share in the company last week, citing need "to pursue an ambitious investment program to take advantage of its growth." The sale will lower the French government's stake from its current 93% down to 78%. In addition to seeking investment from other businesses, the company is starting an employee shareholder program.
AREVA is also looking into selling off some of its other holdings, most importantly its Transmission and Distribution division. A call for bids is expected, with a final decision regarding if and when to sell the T&D wing to follow. The firm's 72% share in AREVA T&D India Ltd., the division's Indian arm, will also be offered for sale. Its stakes in French miner Eramet and Swiss electronics firm ST Microelectronics will also be offered up.
The sale will generate about €14 billion (US$19.6 billion) in capital, steeling AREVA to maintain its prominent status in the ever more vital nuclear market. Much of the money will no doubt be directed toward the continued development of the firm's third generation EPR reactor. The company's maiden EPR project, Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, has encountered problem after problem, leading to a three-year delay in the target start-up date. Cost overruns from the Finnish project contributed to the 21% decline in AREVA's profits during 2008.
Speculation as to who might grab this stake is wide. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries confirmed its interest. The company seems a likely contender, given its ties to AREVA in nuclear fuel and the development of the medium-sized Atmea reactor. Strengthening ties to the French giant would prove advantageous to MHI, likely boosting its competitive power as a reactor supplier.
Other French energy firms like EDF, GDF Suez, Total, and Alstom are also likely contenders. Germany's Siemens has been raised by some sources, but we think this is unlikely. AREVA previously blocked Siemens' attempt to raise its 34% holding in reactor division AREVA NP, and now hopes to buy back this stake. According to The Financial Times, the French government has also talked to certain Middle East-based sovereign wealth funds about an investment deal.
AREVA stocks rose 8% following the announcement of the offering.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Darlington On Hold: Leveraging a Hard Bargain?
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
The government of Ontario promised a decision in June regarding plans for the proposed Darlington nuclear power plant. True to its word, on June 29 the province announced it: the Darlington project has been put on hold.
Of the three firms vying for the Darlington contract, only state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s bid met the specifications for the project, Ontario's government said. However, Energy Minister George Smitherman said AECL's price tag was "billions" above what the province was willing to pay. The sum remains undisclosed, but estimates place the minimum price for the twin reactor plant at $15 billion.
What were the bid criteria? Prime Minister Stephen Harper told AECL that its bid must provide a commercial rate of return and a price that recovers all costs. The ever present expectation cost overruns-- a chronic problem in AECL's history-- looms over Harper's order, and accounting for such explosive project costs no doubt led to the high figure presented to Ontario.
The specter of budget busts future figures strong in the province's picture as well. According to Smitherman, the inclusion a liability framework for cost overruns in AECL's bid was the factor that gave it an edge over bids from Westinghouse and AREVA. Here the picture starts to get fuzzy. The record of cost overruns for Ontario nuclear projects is no secret, and its hard to believe that AREVA and Westinghouse did not provide guidelines for such an occasion in their offers.
For those of us watching from the sidelines, it evidence points to the unspoken term that seems to hover over the whole deal: that AECL get the contract. Facing a lack of industry interest in AECL's new ACR-1000 reactor model, Darlington stands as a possible redemption for the company, able to set a precedent for future Canadian and international plants, and protect the 30,000 jobs tied into AECL's business. Without Darlington, the ACR-1000 stands little chance of getting off the ground, and the company would most likely be relegated to the role of global repairman for the 48 operating plants using CANDU technology.
After the most recent malfunction at AECL's Chalk River research reactor in mid-May led to the reactor's shutdown and a shortfall in medical isotopes, a line seemed to have been crossed. Quickly, the lingering option of privatizing AECL switched onto a fast-track toward reality. Now Harper is splitting the company's commercial and research arms, seeking a minority or majority partner for the commercial CANDU business, and casting its net for private companies to take over Canada's medical isotope business.
Uncertainty about AECL's future, particularly how private ownership would effect a cost overrun framework, contributes equally to Ontario's decision to suspend Darlington. However, Premier Dalton McGuinty still seems hopeful to negotiate a price that will allow the project to go forward. "There is going to be a continuing dialogue with the feds," McGuinty said. "We want to know whether they are going to backstop AECL, that they believe it has a promising future for all Canadians. If they do, then we want to be part of that. The way we see it right now is, the ball is in their court."
Our guess is that McGuinty is still banking on the appeal of Darlington as a buoy for the sinking AECL, and is holding off the project in hope of a better deal once the company reorganizes.
Discussion of alternative plans to meet Ontario's growing power demand has been sparse.
The government of Ontario promised a decision in June regarding plans for the proposed Darlington nuclear power plant. True to its word, on June 29 the province announced it: the Darlington project has been put on hold.
Of the three firms vying for the Darlington contract, only state-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.'s bid met the specifications for the project, Ontario's government said. However, Energy Minister George Smitherman said AECL's price tag was "billions" above what the province was willing to pay. The sum remains undisclosed, but estimates place the minimum price for the twin reactor plant at $15 billion.
What were the bid criteria? Prime Minister Stephen Harper told AECL that its bid must provide a commercial rate of return and a price that recovers all costs. The ever present expectation cost overruns-- a chronic problem in AECL's history-- looms over Harper's order, and accounting for such explosive project costs no doubt led to the high figure presented to Ontario.
The specter of budget busts future figures strong in the province's picture as well. According to Smitherman, the inclusion a liability framework for cost overruns in AECL's bid was the factor that gave it an edge over bids from Westinghouse and AREVA. Here the picture starts to get fuzzy. The record of cost overruns for Ontario nuclear projects is no secret, and its hard to believe that AREVA and Westinghouse did not provide guidelines for such an occasion in their offers.
For those of us watching from the sidelines, it evidence points to the unspoken term that seems to hover over the whole deal: that AECL get the contract. Facing a lack of industry interest in AECL's new ACR-1000 reactor model, Darlington stands as a possible redemption for the company, able to set a precedent for future Canadian and international plants, and protect the 30,000 jobs tied into AECL's business. Without Darlington, the ACR-1000 stands little chance of getting off the ground, and the company would most likely be relegated to the role of global repairman for the 48 operating plants using CANDU technology.
After the most recent malfunction at AECL's Chalk River research reactor in mid-May led to the reactor's shutdown and a shortfall in medical isotopes, a line seemed to have been crossed. Quickly, the lingering option of privatizing AECL switched onto a fast-track toward reality. Now Harper is splitting the company's commercial and research arms, seeking a minority or majority partner for the commercial CANDU business, and casting its net for private companies to take over Canada's medical isotope business.
Uncertainty about AECL's future, particularly how private ownership would effect a cost overrun framework, contributes equally to Ontario's decision to suspend Darlington. However, Premier Dalton McGuinty still seems hopeful to negotiate a price that will allow the project to go forward. "There is going to be a continuing dialogue with the feds," McGuinty said. "We want to know whether they are going to backstop AECL, that they believe it has a promising future for all Canadians. If they do, then we want to be part of that. The way we see it right now is, the ball is in their court."
Our guess is that McGuinty is still banking on the appeal of Darlington as a buoy for the sinking AECL, and is holding off the project in hope of a better deal once the company reorganizes.
Discussion of alternative plans to meet Ontario's growing power demand has been sparse.
Monday, June 29, 2009
NRG Defeat: Minor Setback In Week of Good News
This article originally appeared in Fuel Cycle Week #333, 6/24/09
Nancy E. Roth, Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
NRG Energy has failed to convince a U.S. District Court that Exelon misled NRG stockowners about its intentions in its $6.2 billion takeover offer. So said N.Y. District Judge John Koeltl on Friday in a decision dismissing the NRG lawsuit, which the independent merchant generator had filed last March.
But last week the ruling seemed little more than a piece of paper for NRG. The lawsuit has served what in retrospect appears to be one of its key purposes: to stall Exelon’s hostile takeover attempt and push back the crucial NRG shareholder vote on it. Whatever the judge’s decision, the credit freeze meanwhile has begun to thaw—and the Department of Energy has named NRG as one of four finalists slated to receive its coveted nuclear-project loan guarantees. NRG in 2007 was the first of a wave of U.S. energy companies that applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate advanced new-generation reactors.
Delay Strengthens Hand of NRG
But 2008 was a tough year for the Princeton, N.J.-based power generator. It spent much of the time beating the bushes for joint-venture partners with deep pockets, in the U.S. and abroad, to shore up the financing of two planned GE- Hitachi ABWR reactors at its South Texas site. As the financial market soured NRG could not seal any deals. By October, in the global economic freefall, NRG found itself stranded with $8 billion in debt and murky prospects.
On Oct. 19 Exelon unveiled an offer to exchange 0.485 per share of common stock for each of NRG’s 233 million shares outstanding, valuing NRG shares at $26.10. At the time that represented a 37% premium over NRG’s share price of $19.33, but the NRG board summarily rejected it as inadequate.
Exelon, the 900-pound gorilla of American nuclear utilities, then launched a three-pronged attack on the smaller company. It threatened to sue the NRG board of directors for neglecting its fiduciary obligations to shareholders,while making a direct appeal to stockowners to tender their shares for purchase by Exelon. It also announced a plan to force the company to expand its board to accommodate a set of candidates it planned to nominate at NRG’s annual meeting on May 14.
By the time the offer expired on Feb. 26, Exelon issued a statement that it had won the support of 51% of NRG’s shareholders, and would extend its offer to June 26.
NRG fought back by suing Exelon in federal court in March. The NRG legal team apparently calculated the timing to allow the company to postpone its shareholder meeting, which is now set for July 21—and, hopefully, to realize some gains in an improving economy.
The delay seems to have strengthened NRG’s hand. Its share price now almost matches the Exelon offer, reducing the stockowners’ premium to 3.6%. That allows the company to press its earlier warning to shareholders that Exelon showed signs of financial weakness (FCW #319, March 18). Exelon’s announcement last week of a 500-job cut by the end of August did nothing to dispel NRG’s claims.
Exelon: Pressure to Raise or Retract Bid
On June 17 NRG issued a statement noting that as of June 16 only 12% of its shareholders still supported the Exelon bid—meaning that roughly three-quarters of those that Exelon recruited had now withdrawn their tenders. “NRG believes the low number of shares tendered reflects [shareholders’ understanding] that the value NRG has created over the past eight months greatly outweighs the value of Exelon’s proposal,” the company said.
Analysts cited by Dow Jones linked NRG’s gains to the acquisition of Reliant Energy’s retail business—and “progress” in its nuclear projects, undoubtedly referring to the DOE loan guarantees. Although the Energy Department will not award any guarantees until 2011, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to start issuing Construction and Operating Licenses, the federal government’s promised backing undoubted enhances investor confidence in NRG (FCW #316, Feb. 25).
Credit also seems to becoming more available for nuclear projects. Last Friday, for example, Entergy announced that it was reactivating its long-delayed spinoff of Enexus Energy, due to the availability of more credit for the project.
This does not mean NRG and others seeking to build new reactors will suddenly find it easy to attract support, given the cost uncertainties that still dog the industry. But NRG’s turn of fortune may force Exelon to up its offer, after all. Exelon’s board of directors will meet on June 30 to discuss the bid.
For its part, Exelon shows no sign of giving up or sweetening its offer. Analysts at Wachovia Capital Markets wrote last week that Exelon’s bid amount “is likely limited by the potential need to issue new equity to placate rating agencies,” according to the Dow Jones report. Exelon shareholders were not particularly enamored of the deal either, the analysts added.
On June 17 Exelon sent another letter to NRG shareholders urging them to vote in favor of the merger and extending its offer deadline to Aug. 2. In a statement about Exelon’s recent court success, Executive Vice President, Finance and Legal, William Von Hoene said on Monday that the company was now focusing “on the election of nine new, independent and experienced NRG directors who will act in the best interests on NRG stockholders” at the July 21 meeting. The company on June 17 also filed a new definitive proxy statement with the Security and Exchange Commission in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the meeting.
Nancy E. Roth, Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
NRG Energy has failed to convince a U.S. District Court that Exelon misled NRG stockowners about its intentions in its $6.2 billion takeover offer. So said N.Y. District Judge John Koeltl on Friday in a decision dismissing the NRG lawsuit, which the independent merchant generator had filed last March.
But last week the ruling seemed little more than a piece of paper for NRG. The lawsuit has served what in retrospect appears to be one of its key purposes: to stall Exelon’s hostile takeover attempt and push back the crucial NRG shareholder vote on it. Whatever the judge’s decision, the credit freeze meanwhile has begun to thaw—and the Department of Energy has named NRG as one of four finalists slated to receive its coveted nuclear-project loan guarantees. NRG in 2007 was the first of a wave of U.S. energy companies that applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate advanced new-generation reactors.
Delay Strengthens Hand of NRG
But 2008 was a tough year for the Princeton, N.J.-based power generator. It spent much of the time beating the bushes for joint-venture partners with deep pockets, in the U.S. and abroad, to shore up the financing of two planned GE- Hitachi ABWR reactors at its South Texas site. As the financial market soured NRG could not seal any deals. By October, in the global economic freefall, NRG found itself stranded with $8 billion in debt and murky prospects.
On Oct. 19 Exelon unveiled an offer to exchange 0.485 per share of common stock for each of NRG’s 233 million shares outstanding, valuing NRG shares at $26.10. At the time that represented a 37% premium over NRG’s share price of $19.33, but the NRG board summarily rejected it as inadequate.
Exelon, the 900-pound gorilla of American nuclear utilities, then launched a three-pronged attack on the smaller company. It threatened to sue the NRG board of directors for neglecting its fiduciary obligations to shareholders,while making a direct appeal to stockowners to tender their shares for purchase by Exelon. It also announced a plan to force the company to expand its board to accommodate a set of candidates it planned to nominate at NRG’s annual meeting on May 14.
By the time the offer expired on Feb. 26, Exelon issued a statement that it had won the support of 51% of NRG’s shareholders, and would extend its offer to June 26.
NRG fought back by suing Exelon in federal court in March. The NRG legal team apparently calculated the timing to allow the company to postpone its shareholder meeting, which is now set for July 21—and, hopefully, to realize some gains in an improving economy.
The delay seems to have strengthened NRG’s hand. Its share price now almost matches the Exelon offer, reducing the stockowners’ premium to 3.6%. That allows the company to press its earlier warning to shareholders that Exelon showed signs of financial weakness (FCW #319, March 18). Exelon’s announcement last week of a 500-job cut by the end of August did nothing to dispel NRG’s claims.
Exelon: Pressure to Raise or Retract Bid
On June 17 NRG issued a statement noting that as of June 16 only 12% of its shareholders still supported the Exelon bid—meaning that roughly three-quarters of those that Exelon recruited had now withdrawn their tenders. “NRG believes the low number of shares tendered reflects [shareholders’ understanding] that the value NRG has created over the past eight months greatly outweighs the value of Exelon’s proposal,” the company said.
Analysts cited by Dow Jones linked NRG’s gains to the acquisition of Reliant Energy’s retail business—and “progress” in its nuclear projects, undoubtedly referring to the DOE loan guarantees. Although the Energy Department will not award any guarantees until 2011, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to start issuing Construction and Operating Licenses, the federal government’s promised backing undoubted enhances investor confidence in NRG (FCW #316, Feb. 25).
Credit also seems to becoming more available for nuclear projects. Last Friday, for example, Entergy announced that it was reactivating its long-delayed spinoff of Enexus Energy, due to the availability of more credit for the project.
This does not mean NRG and others seeking to build new reactors will suddenly find it easy to attract support, given the cost uncertainties that still dog the industry. But NRG’s turn of fortune may force Exelon to up its offer, after all. Exelon’s board of directors will meet on June 30 to discuss the bid.
For its part, Exelon shows no sign of giving up or sweetening its offer. Analysts at Wachovia Capital Markets wrote last week that Exelon’s bid amount “is likely limited by the potential need to issue new equity to placate rating agencies,” according to the Dow Jones report. Exelon shareholders were not particularly enamored of the deal either, the analysts added.
On June 17 Exelon sent another letter to NRG shareholders urging them to vote in favor of the merger and extending its offer deadline to Aug. 2. In a statement about Exelon’s recent court success, Executive Vice President, Finance and Legal, William Von Hoene said on Monday that the company was now focusing “on the election of nine new, independent and experienced NRG directors who will act in the best interests on NRG stockholders” at the July 21 meeting. The company on June 17 also filed a new definitive proxy statement with the Security and Exchange Commission in connection with the solicitation of proxies for the meeting.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
South Korea Looks to Middle East as Portal to West
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
South Korea signed a nuclear pact with the United Arab Emirates this week, vowing to aid the Middle Eastern country in the development of its nuclear energy program over the next two decades. The agreement allows South Korean companies to bid on contracts for the UAE's maiden nuclear plant, which is slated to start operation by 2015.
The United Arab Emirates is one of several Middle Eastern nations who have sought cooperation with the international community and recognized nuclear authorities in the development of their program, a counterpoint to the defiant, rogue tendencies of neighbor Iran. The list also includes Jordan (who has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea and just about every other nation with a global nuclear presence) and Kuwait.
Though its presence in the foreign nuclear industry has been focused on heavy component fabrication and supply, South Korea has the makings to become a much bigger player. The country has a strong domestic nuclear presence, generating about 40% of its electricity from its twenty reactors, with plans to expand this figure to 60% over the next twenty years. South Korea also has a strong reactor design in its APR-1400 model, and with the recent purchase of 19.9% of Denison Mines by state utility Korea Electric Power Corp., now possesses a significant uranium connection.
Thus far, South Korea's overseas nuclear ventures have been focused in Southeast Asia, competing with Japan for presence in the region' budding nuclear markets. KEPCO is in the midst of conducting a feasibility study of the abandoned Bataan Nuclear Plant in the Philippines, and has discussed building reactors in Indonesia and Vietnam. In the world outside its home region, South Korea's involvement has been largely limited to parts supply and, recently, a 2.5% stake in AREVA's Georges Besse II plant.
The Middle East, however, presents wider possibilities; namely, the expansion from a regional power into an international presence. The Middle East is largely virgin territory for the industry, free of the histories and existing alliances that make Europe and the Americas less hospitable to South Korea's ambitions. However, it is not the only one to recognize the potential of the region. KEPCO is definitely the underdog in the competition for UAE and Jordanian nuclear projects, pitted against far bigger companies like AREVA, GE-Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse, and Rosatom. But a victory here for South Korea could mean stepping up to the next plateau.
South Korea signed a nuclear pact with the United Arab Emirates this week, vowing to aid the Middle Eastern country in the development of its nuclear energy program over the next two decades. The agreement allows South Korean companies to bid on contracts for the UAE's maiden nuclear plant, which is slated to start operation by 2015.
The United Arab Emirates is one of several Middle Eastern nations who have sought cooperation with the international community and recognized nuclear authorities in the development of their program, a counterpoint to the defiant, rogue tendencies of neighbor Iran. The list also includes Jordan (who has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea and just about every other nation with a global nuclear presence) and Kuwait.
Though its presence in the foreign nuclear industry has been focused on heavy component fabrication and supply, South Korea has the makings to become a much bigger player. The country has a strong domestic nuclear presence, generating about 40% of its electricity from its twenty reactors, with plans to expand this figure to 60% over the next twenty years. South Korea also has a strong reactor design in its APR-1400 model, and with the recent purchase of 19.9% of Denison Mines by state utility Korea Electric Power Corp., now possesses a significant uranium connection.
Thus far, South Korea's overseas nuclear ventures have been focused in Southeast Asia, competing with Japan for presence in the region' budding nuclear markets. KEPCO is in the midst of conducting a feasibility study of the abandoned Bataan Nuclear Plant in the Philippines, and has discussed building reactors in Indonesia and Vietnam. In the world outside its home region, South Korea's involvement has been largely limited to parts supply and, recently, a 2.5% stake in AREVA's Georges Besse II plant.
The Middle East, however, presents wider possibilities; namely, the expansion from a regional power into an international presence. The Middle East is largely virgin territory for the industry, free of the histories and existing alliances that make Europe and the Americas less hospitable to South Korea's ambitions. However, it is not the only one to recognize the potential of the region. KEPCO is definitely the underdog in the competition for UAE and Jordanian nuclear projects, pitted against far bigger companies like AREVA, GE-Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse, and Rosatom. But a victory here for South Korea could mean stepping up to the next plateau.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Talked-Out Commissioners Postpone Paradox Mill Vote
This article originally appeared in Fuel Cycle Week #332, 6/17/09
By Nancy E. Roth, Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Last week the Montrose County Planning Commission listened to five hours of community testimony on whether it should approve a special-use zoning permit that Energy Fuels Inc. has requested in order to erect a uranium and vanadium mill in Paradox Valley in western Colorado. Finally, at 11:00 p.m. the commissioners adjourned, having decided to hold back the vote until their next meeting on July 1. They also declared the issue closed to all further testimony.
Russ Means, an official in the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, told FCW in an e-mail that the commissioners “wanted to review EF’s response to a couple of requests. So at the next meeting they will not take any further comments but just vote.”
From Day One Mill Drew Controversy
Local media reported that more than 100 people showed up at the June 10 hearing, most of whom supported the Energy Fuels proposal (as confirmed to FCW by a knowledgeable local source). That is a startling reversal of the prevailing sentiment at earlier public meetings, where EF encountered vocal opposition from quickly mobilized antinuclear groups and individuals.
One extreme example, John Metcalf, was a self-described “instigator” who put up the website savingparadox.org, featuring images of environmental ruin and frightening, albeit irrelevant, articles on the dangers of plutonium. The website is still up, but not very active: the most recent “informational meeting” posted on it was held on May 30, 2008 (FCW #286, July 9, 2008).
A local source speaking on condition of anonymity told FCW that much of the mill’s opponents were residents of wealthy enclaves outside Montrose County, such as Telluride and Durango. Metcalf lives in Ridgway, roughly 60 miles from the mill site.
But local newspapers also quoted mill opponents who are relatively new residents of Montrose County as well. The mill appears to draw its core supporters from families whose members remember when Colorado’s active uranium mines conferred prosperity across the region.
Recession Activated Nascent Supporters
At recent public meetings, it is these long-time residents of work- starved communities on the county’s mineral-rich West End who have been vigorously defending the mill project. While initially slower to respond to the proposal, the closure of mines, and especially the drop-off of gas drilling since the economy tanked last fall may have galvanized this group to raise what Means called “a solid voice.” Local newspapers reported that at a May 19 meeting of an advisory group to the Planning Commission, for example, about half or more of those who spoke advocated the mill.
On June 10 the Telluride Watch reported that mill opponents were planning a protest near the entrance of the hall where the Planning Commission was to meet that evening. But a June 11 account in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel noted that the protesters lined up outside the hall found themselves face to face with sign-waving mill proponents. A county official “described both sides as respectful,” the report said.
Energy Fuels officials were not willing to comment on record while the matter remains undecided, but Means, who said he had recently spoken to a company representative, told FCW in his communiqué, “EF feels confident they have addressed all concerns and given the county what they wanted.”
It may be that the commissioners need the extra few weeks to tweak the language of a final agreement with the mining company. If they come up with an agreement that Energy Fuels can accept, it would go before the full Montrose County Commission, which would probably green-light whatever the Planning Commission has approved. That would clear Energy Fuels to apply for a mine construction and operation permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, perhaps before yearend.
Means thought the EF mill would be a boon to the Colorado mining community. “The uranium world has slowed way down and shrunk some here,” he wrote. “But [a new mill] would push [Denison Mines’] White Mesa to be more competitive and some of my [regulated] mines on shutdown would fire up in a hurry, I think. That’s a stimulus package I can believe in.”
By Nancy E. Roth, Managing Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Last week the Montrose County Planning Commission listened to five hours of community testimony on whether it should approve a special-use zoning permit that Energy Fuels Inc. has requested in order to erect a uranium and vanadium mill in Paradox Valley in western Colorado. Finally, at 11:00 p.m. the commissioners adjourned, having decided to hold back the vote until their next meeting on July 1. They also declared the issue closed to all further testimony.
Russ Means, an official in the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology, told FCW in an e-mail that the commissioners “wanted to review EF’s response to a couple of requests. So at the next meeting they will not take any further comments but just vote.”
From Day One Mill Drew Controversy
Local media reported that more than 100 people showed up at the June 10 hearing, most of whom supported the Energy Fuels proposal (as confirmed to FCW by a knowledgeable local source). That is a startling reversal of the prevailing sentiment at earlier public meetings, where EF encountered vocal opposition from quickly mobilized antinuclear groups and individuals.
One extreme example, John Metcalf, was a self-described “instigator” who put up the website savingparadox.org, featuring images of environmental ruin and frightening, albeit irrelevant, articles on the dangers of plutonium. The website is still up, but not very active: the most recent “informational meeting” posted on it was held on May 30, 2008 (FCW #286, July 9, 2008).
A local source speaking on condition of anonymity told FCW that much of the mill’s opponents were residents of wealthy enclaves outside Montrose County, such as Telluride and Durango. Metcalf lives in Ridgway, roughly 60 miles from the mill site.
But local newspapers also quoted mill opponents who are relatively new residents of Montrose County as well. The mill appears to draw its core supporters from families whose members remember when Colorado’s active uranium mines conferred prosperity across the region.
Recession Activated Nascent Supporters
At recent public meetings, it is these long-time residents of work- starved communities on the county’s mineral-rich West End who have been vigorously defending the mill project. While initially slower to respond to the proposal, the closure of mines, and especially the drop-off of gas drilling since the economy tanked last fall may have galvanized this group to raise what Means called “a solid voice.” Local newspapers reported that at a May 19 meeting of an advisory group to the Planning Commission, for example, about half or more of those who spoke advocated the mill.
On June 10 the Telluride Watch reported that mill opponents were planning a protest near the entrance of the hall where the Planning Commission was to meet that evening. But a June 11 account in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel noted that the protesters lined up outside the hall found themselves face to face with sign-waving mill proponents. A county official “described both sides as respectful,” the report said.
Energy Fuels officials were not willing to comment on record while the matter remains undecided, but Means, who said he had recently spoken to a company representative, told FCW in his communiqué, “EF feels confident they have addressed all concerns and given the county what they wanted.”
It may be that the commissioners need the extra few weeks to tweak the language of a final agreement with the mining company. If they come up with an agreement that Energy Fuels can accept, it would go before the full Montrose County Commission, which would probably green-light whatever the Planning Commission has approved. That would clear Energy Fuels to apply for a mine construction and operation permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, perhaps before yearend.
Means thought the EF mill would be a boon to the Colorado mining community. “The uranium world has slowed way down and shrunk some here,” he wrote. “But [a new mill] would push [Denison Mines’] White Mesa to be more competitive and some of my [regulated] mines on shutdown would fire up in a hurry, I think. That’s a stimulus package I can believe in.”
Friday, June 19, 2009
AREVA Joins Duke and Unistar for Ohio Project
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Piketon, Ohio may (relatively) soon become one of the nuclear power capitals of the United States. Duke Energy announced a new alliance with French giant AREVA and UniStar Nuclear Energy that hopes to build a 1,650 MWe nuclear plant in Piketon, Ohio.
The reactor would employ AREVA's EPR technology, making it the French firm's fifth American EPR project in the works. Other than that, the details are sparse. The companies provided no timeline or cost figures, though observer estimates range from $6.4 billion to $10 billion. Yet Duke CEO Jim Rogers expressed confidence in funding the project in a period where large financing is hard to come by. "I am confident I can fund it," Rogers told The New York Times. "Most of our fleet in Ohio, which is coal-fired, will be retired over the next 15 to 20 years, and we're going to need to replace it, and this plant will be a good candidate to replace that capacity." Rogers said that the participating companies would likely provide about 95% of the funding, perhaps looking to the government for the remainder.
The project suggests a turning point for Duke Energy, a major producer of both coal and nuclear power. Rogers told Reuters last month that it is not likely to begin any new coal-fired power plant projects until carbon capture and storage technology is better developed, which could take 10 to 15 years. Asked which technology Duke would choose if it had to make a decision, Rogers said, "I'm betting on nuclear."
The companies are studying the possibility of building the plant at the existing Portsmouth facility, site of a former uranium enrichment facility owned by the Department of Energy and operated by USEC Inc. that ceased operation in 2001. The Portsmouth site is also home to USEC's American Centrifuge Plant. Other members of the new alliance, officially dubbed the Southern Ohio Clean Energy Park Alliance, include USEC and the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative.
Pay attention, folks. We all know that nuclear energy is going to play a much bigger part in the next generation of American energy, and this is a model I suspect we will see again. Having an enrichment facility next to your nuclear reactor certainly makes sourcing and transport easier, and the appeal will not be lost on other nuclear hopefuls.
Piketon, Ohio may (relatively) soon become one of the nuclear power capitals of the United States. Duke Energy announced a new alliance with French giant AREVA and UniStar Nuclear Energy that hopes to build a 1,650 MWe nuclear plant in Piketon, Ohio.
The reactor would employ AREVA's EPR technology, making it the French firm's fifth American EPR project in the works. Other than that, the details are sparse. The companies provided no timeline or cost figures, though observer estimates range from $6.4 billion to $10 billion. Yet Duke CEO Jim Rogers expressed confidence in funding the project in a period where large financing is hard to come by. "I am confident I can fund it," Rogers told The New York Times. "Most of our fleet in Ohio, which is coal-fired, will be retired over the next 15 to 20 years, and we're going to need to replace it, and this plant will be a good candidate to replace that capacity." Rogers said that the participating companies would likely provide about 95% of the funding, perhaps looking to the government for the remainder.
The project suggests a turning point for Duke Energy, a major producer of both coal and nuclear power. Rogers told Reuters last month that it is not likely to begin any new coal-fired power plant projects until carbon capture and storage technology is better developed, which could take 10 to 15 years. Asked which technology Duke would choose if it had to make a decision, Rogers said, "I'm betting on nuclear."
The companies are studying the possibility of building the plant at the existing Portsmouth facility, site of a former uranium enrichment facility owned by the Department of Energy and operated by USEC Inc. that ceased operation in 2001. The Portsmouth site is also home to USEC's American Centrifuge Plant. Other members of the new alliance, officially dubbed the Southern Ohio Clean Energy Park Alliance, include USEC and the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative.
Pay attention, folks. We all know that nuclear energy is going to play a much bigger part in the next generation of American energy, and this is a model I suspect we will see again. Having an enrichment facility next to your nuclear reactor certainly makes sourcing and transport easier, and the appeal will not be lost on other nuclear hopefuls.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Uranium One Ties In With Russia To Maintain Position In Kazakhstan
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
What is to become of Uranium One? This was the question that all uranium industry observers were wondering as the news unfolded that Kazatomprom Chief Mukhtar Dzhakishev had been arrested, charged with illegally selling Kazakh uranium properties to foreign countries.
Among the properties under investigation is Kharasan-1, the nation's largest uranium mine in which Uranium One holds a 30% interest. The company also has large shares in two other Kazakh mines, South Inkai and Akdala. Despite the inquiries, new Kazatomprom President Vladmir Shkolnik called the company's deals with Uranium One "inalterable." Yet Uranium One stock took a 40% hit following news of Dzhakishev's arrest and has yet to recover.
While having its assets thrown into jeopardy by the Dzhakishev affair (and, for that matter, the whole murky state of Kazakhstan's uranium business) might tempt some to draw back from the country and pursue opportunities elsewhere, Uranium One chose to go in even deeper.
Uranium One on Monday announced a deal with Russian uranium corporation Atomredmetzoloto worth about $585 million for a 50% stake in the Karatau mine. The payment comes in the form of $90 million in cash plus 117 million shares (worth about $295 million), giving ARMZ a 16.6% stake in the Canadian company. An additional $60 million in cash is due to ARMZ between 2010 and 2012. The deal gives the Russian firm rights to buy either half of Karatau's production or 20% of Uranium One's total production, depending on which amount is greater. The agreement also includes negotiation rights for ARMZ's 50% share of the Akbatsu mine.
Uranium One expects to pay for the deal with money from a private placement by a consortium of Japanese companies (Tokyo Electric Power Company, Toshiba, and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation) for a 19.95% stake.
The Russia deal is indicative of Uranium One's strategy amidst Kazatomprom's upheaval: to solidify its position in the country to weather this period of turmoil and emerge with a strong presence in the nation's lucrative uranium sector. Even if it means taking the unusual step of giving a stake to Russia, with whom western companies are usually engaged in a tug of war for dominance. In addition to propping Uranium One up after its massive stock plunge, Russia's powerful influence in the region might lend the company some stability and political clout in the shady world of Kazakh's resource politics.
The agreement has already done some good for Uranium One. According to CEO Jean Nortier, Karatau is expected to produce 3.3 million pounds of uranium this year, boosting the company's output by 35%. The addition of Karatau spurred UBS to raise Uranium One stock from "neutral" to "buy."
What is to become of Uranium One? This was the question that all uranium industry observers were wondering as the news unfolded that Kazatomprom Chief Mukhtar Dzhakishev had been arrested, charged with illegally selling Kazakh uranium properties to foreign countries.
Among the properties under investigation is Kharasan-1, the nation's largest uranium mine in which Uranium One holds a 30% interest. The company also has large shares in two other Kazakh mines, South Inkai and Akdala. Despite the inquiries, new Kazatomprom President Vladmir Shkolnik called the company's deals with Uranium One "inalterable." Yet Uranium One stock took a 40% hit following news of Dzhakishev's arrest and has yet to recover.
While having its assets thrown into jeopardy by the Dzhakishev affair (and, for that matter, the whole murky state of Kazakhstan's uranium business) might tempt some to draw back from the country and pursue opportunities elsewhere, Uranium One chose to go in even deeper.
Uranium One on Monday announced a deal with Russian uranium corporation Atomredmetzoloto worth about $585 million for a 50% stake in the Karatau mine. The payment comes in the form of $90 million in cash plus 117 million shares (worth about $295 million), giving ARMZ a 16.6% stake in the Canadian company. An additional $60 million in cash is due to ARMZ between 2010 and 2012. The deal gives the Russian firm rights to buy either half of Karatau's production or 20% of Uranium One's total production, depending on which amount is greater. The agreement also includes negotiation rights for ARMZ's 50% share of the Akbatsu mine.
Uranium One expects to pay for the deal with money from a private placement by a consortium of Japanese companies (Tokyo Electric Power Company, Toshiba, and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation) for a 19.95% stake.
The Russia deal is indicative of Uranium One's strategy amidst Kazatomprom's upheaval: to solidify its position in the country to weather this period of turmoil and emerge with a strong presence in the nation's lucrative uranium sector. Even if it means taking the unusual step of giving a stake to Russia, with whom western companies are usually engaged in a tug of war for dominance. In addition to propping Uranium One up after its massive stock plunge, Russia's powerful influence in the region might lend the company some stability and political clout in the shady world of Kazakh's resource politics.
The agreement has already done some good for Uranium One. According to CEO Jean Nortier, Karatau is expected to produce 3.3 million pounds of uranium this year, boosting the company's output by 35%. The addition of Karatau spurred UBS to raise Uranium One stock from "neutral" to "buy."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Nuclear Vision Gleams in an Otherwise Shortsighted GOP Nuclear Plan
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
Last week, the Republican Party introduced the American Energy Act, an energy plan to rival the cap-and-trade based Democratic plan. We recently wrote about the awkward and unfair treatment of nuclear within the Democratic energy bill currently under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. So with word that the GOP plan saw a greater role for nuclear, we were anxious to see how the AEA would measure up.
A greater role indeed!
The GOP plan sets the lofty target of 100 new reactors over the next two decades. We could name about a hundred reasons why this will not happen, but for the sake of space, we'll just name two: financing and regulatory processes. Putting the Republicans’ eagerness and hyperbole for the moment, let’s consider the rest of the plan.
The AEA sets forth a number of ideas for restructuring American nuclear policy ranging from intriguing to long overdue:
Sounds good so far, right?
Unfortunately, this little gem of vision is seated within an overarching energy plan that is at best misguided and at worst ignorant and irresponsible. The thrust of the AEA is based in an almost messianic faith in capital-B Business, that somehow the market will naturally produce the ideal energy mix if only enough regulations are removed.
Accordingly, the Act stands firmly against any cap on greenhouse gas emissions and proposes an "all-of-the-above" approach to power generation that embraces all energy sources. This includes encouraging a continued head-on pursuit of dirty sources like oil and coal, and would authorize additional oil drilling offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's a plan that has less to do with crafting a shrewd energy policy than it does with traditional party allegiance to big business.
Nuclear energy is a technology of the future, but the plan proposed by the GOP is tragically retrogressive.
Last week, the Republican Party introduced the American Energy Act, an energy plan to rival the cap-and-trade based Democratic plan. We recently wrote about the awkward and unfair treatment of nuclear within the Democratic energy bill currently under consideration by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. So with word that the GOP plan saw a greater role for nuclear, we were anxious to see how the AEA would measure up.
A greater role indeed!
The GOP plan sets the lofty target of 100 new reactors over the next two decades. We could name about a hundred reasons why this will not happen, but for the sake of space, we'll just name two: financing and regulatory processes. Putting the Republicans’ eagerness and hyperbole for the moment, let’s consider the rest of the plan.
The AEA sets forth a number of ideas for restructuring American nuclear policy ranging from intriguing to long overdue:
- Streamline the construction of new plants, including initiatives to clear some of the red tape surrounding the reactor licensing process and the creation of a National Nuclear Energy Council to standardize policy
- Establish a backup uranium reserve from the Department of Energy's inventory
- Turn efforts back toward the creation of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
- Explore spent fuel recycling
- Suspend tariffs on foreign-produced reactor components for a five-year period
Sounds good so far, right?
Unfortunately, this little gem of vision is seated within an overarching energy plan that is at best misguided and at worst ignorant and irresponsible. The thrust of the AEA is based in an almost messianic faith in capital-B Business, that somehow the market will naturally produce the ideal energy mix if only enough regulations are removed.
Accordingly, the Act stands firmly against any cap on greenhouse gas emissions and proposes an "all-of-the-above" approach to power generation that embraces all energy sources. This includes encouraging a continued head-on pursuit of dirty sources like oil and coal, and would authorize additional oil drilling offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's a plan that has less to do with crafting a shrewd energy policy than it does with traditional party allegiance to big business.
Nuclear energy is a technology of the future, but the plan proposed by the GOP is tragically retrogressive.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
No Lack of Partners for Jordan’s U, Nuke Programs
This article originally appeared in Fuel Cycle Week #331, 6/10/09
By Roger Murray, Special Correspondent, Fuel Cycle Week
Spearheaded by a recently established Higher Committee for Nuclear Strategy, Jordan is gearing up to embark on the development of civilian nuclear power capacity and the exploitation of the country’s large estimated uranium reserves.
Jordan hopes to have the first nuclear plant up and running by 2015/16 and aims to supply a third of the country’s electricity from nuclear by 2030. In doing so, the government hopes to reduce oil and gas imports, which currently account for 95% of the country’s energy requirements, while providing power for large-scale water desalination plants. The nuclear power program, together with plans to mine local uranium deposits, will provide substantial business opportunities for foreign vendors, component suppliers, construction companies, and global mining firms.
The Times reported on May 15 that Jordan’s nuclear committee “has begun a series of talks about finance, construction, foreign involvement and loans.” The newspaper added that King Abdullah II had taken “a close, personal interest” in the program and that Kazakhstan had been invited to assist in mining uranium.
Rio Tinto + JAEC
Multinational resource groups have already started knocking on the door, noted the king who commented, “for the first time in our history we are sitting on a commodity that people are interested in.” France is reported to have offered to mine uranium in exchange for providing technical assistance in building Jordan’s first nuclear power station, and offers of assistance have also been made by Canada, China and South Korea.
In February, Anglo-Australian resources group Rio Tinto signed a memorandum of understanding with the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) for exploration and mining of uranium, thorium and zirconium. The 18-month agreement covers the funding by Rio Tinto of exploration in three different areas of Jordan, the state-owned Petra news agency reported.
The understanding sets out general terms for defining the areas where uranium and other nuclear metals can be found, in preparation for signing specific exploration and mining agreements with Rio Tinto. The official statement added: “A consortium between the two sides will be established at a later stage, boosting prospects of further cooperation in the future.”
U Potential Unconfirmed
Nick Cobban, Rio Tinto’s principal advisor for media relations, told FCW on May 26 that the partnership with JAEC is presently based “on very early stage prospecting.” He added, “It may take several years to determine if there are economic resources of uranium to justify mining in the three areas covered by the agreement with JAEC.”
This cautiously realistic perspective contrasts with widespread media reports that Jordan is sitting on huge deposits of uranium, some of which are contained in the country’s extensive phosphate rock resources, Jordan’s primary export. Two years ago the government announced that known primary deposits contained some 80,000 tonnes uranium, although how much is economically-recoverable was not specified, plus some 130,000 tonnes of U3O8 extractable from the country’s 1.2 billion tonnes of phosphate reserves.
Enter Russia
But western industrial mining groups and nuclear power suppliers already face competition from Russia. A bilateral cooperation agreement was signed in Moscow by Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, and Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission chief Khaled Toukan.
The wide-ranging agreement will initially run for ten years, and covers cooperation in exploration and development of uranium deposits; engineering and construction of commercial nuclear plants, research reactors and water desalination plants; and nuclear fuel services and supply.
By Roger Murray, Special Correspondent, Fuel Cycle Week
Spearheaded by a recently established Higher Committee for Nuclear Strategy, Jordan is gearing up to embark on the development of civilian nuclear power capacity and the exploitation of the country’s large estimated uranium reserves.
Jordan hopes to have the first nuclear plant up and running by 2015/16 and aims to supply a third of the country’s electricity from nuclear by 2030. In doing so, the government hopes to reduce oil and gas imports, which currently account for 95% of the country’s energy requirements, while providing power for large-scale water desalination plants. The nuclear power program, together with plans to mine local uranium deposits, will provide substantial business opportunities for foreign vendors, component suppliers, construction companies, and global mining firms.
The Times reported on May 15 that Jordan’s nuclear committee “has begun a series of talks about finance, construction, foreign involvement and loans.” The newspaper added that King Abdullah II had taken “a close, personal interest” in the program and that Kazakhstan had been invited to assist in mining uranium.
Rio Tinto + JAEC
Multinational resource groups have already started knocking on the door, noted the king who commented, “for the first time in our history we are sitting on a commodity that people are interested in.” France is reported to have offered to mine uranium in exchange for providing technical assistance in building Jordan’s first nuclear power station, and offers of assistance have also been made by Canada, China and South Korea.
In February, Anglo-Australian resources group Rio Tinto signed a memorandum of understanding with the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) for exploration and mining of uranium, thorium and zirconium. The 18-month agreement covers the funding by Rio Tinto of exploration in three different areas of Jordan, the state-owned Petra news agency reported.
The understanding sets out general terms for defining the areas where uranium and other nuclear metals can be found, in preparation for signing specific exploration and mining agreements with Rio Tinto. The official statement added: “A consortium between the two sides will be established at a later stage, boosting prospects of further cooperation in the future.”
U Potential Unconfirmed
Nick Cobban, Rio Tinto’s principal advisor for media relations, told FCW on May 26 that the partnership with JAEC is presently based “on very early stage prospecting.” He added, “It may take several years to determine if there are economic resources of uranium to justify mining in the three areas covered by the agreement with JAEC.”
This cautiously realistic perspective contrasts with widespread media reports that Jordan is sitting on huge deposits of uranium, some of which are contained in the country’s extensive phosphate rock resources, Jordan’s primary export. Two years ago the government announced that known primary deposits contained some 80,000 tonnes uranium, although how much is economically-recoverable was not specified, plus some 130,000 tonnes of U3O8 extractable from the country’s 1.2 billion tonnes of phosphate reserves.
Enter Russia
But western industrial mining groups and nuclear power suppliers already face competition from Russia. A bilateral cooperation agreement was signed in Moscow by Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of Rosatom, and Jordanian Atomic Energy Commission chief Khaled Toukan.
The wide-ranging agreement will initially run for ten years, and covers cooperation in exploration and development of uranium deposits; engineering and construction of commercial nuclear plants, research reactors and water desalination plants; and nuclear fuel services and supply.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Nuclear Power Straddles Renewable Line in Senate Energy Bill
By Jacob Mazer, Assistant Editor, Fuel Cycle Week
The treatment of nuclear energy in the Senate Energy Committee's renewable electricity standard bill reflects the technology's curious status in ideas about America’s Energy Future: accepted with a tacit acknowledgment of its utmost importance in reshaping the current paradigm, but an ineffable hesitance to fully commit.
The RES bill is set to play an important part in the development of new electricity generation, mandating a gradual increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources in utilities’ electricity output.
The current draft of the bill sets a target of 3% between 2011 and 2013, growing to 15% between 2021 and 2039. The committee voted down an amendment proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would have included nuclear generation as a renewable source. However, the committee did approve an amendment brought by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that exempts new nuclear capacity from the baseline that the renewable obligation is calculated against. Existing nuclear capacity is included in the baseline.
Should the bill become law, the inclusion of Murkowski's language will certainly be helpful to companies planning nuclear projects, relieving them of the obligation to take on renewable projects for every increase in nuclear output. In some ways, it could even act as an incentive to pursue nuclear over coal or gas projects. But refusing to include nuclear among the renewables reveals, I suspect, not only a policy preference but also a particular framework in which traditional renewables technologies and nuclear power are viewed—one that is rooted in impressions and superstitions that may or not reflect the facts.
Is nuclear renewable? Fast-breeder technology is, creating new fissile material as it burns plutonium fuel. Russia, China, Japan, and India all have fast breeder reactor programs, though the U.S. shut down its own program in the early 80's.
But perhaps a better, more relevant question is how to balance “renewable” with “clean” and “achievable.” Renewable energy sources like solar and wind have a crucial part to play in the development of a post-coal and oil dependent power grid. But as Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) protested, what of regions like the American South that have neither the wind of the Midwest or the sun of the Southwest? And doesn't it seem strange to give preference to CO2-producing biofuels over emissions-free nuclear, especially when our urgent goal is to cut greenhouse gases?
Unfortunately, for many people “nuclear” does not have the same feel-good ring to it that “renewable” does. Rather, the technology remains fraught with associations bred from ignorance and paranoia, like the notion that building a nuclear plant is equivalent to planting an atom bomb in the back yard (a week of nuclear weapons-related tension with North Korea probably did little to quell this tendency). And so, despite an understanding of its necessity, nuclear energy remains the ugly step-child of America’s Energy Future.
The treatment of nuclear energy in the Senate Energy Committee's renewable electricity standard bill reflects the technology's curious status in ideas about America’s Energy Future: accepted with a tacit acknowledgment of its utmost importance in reshaping the current paradigm, but an ineffable hesitance to fully commit.
The RES bill is set to play an important part in the development of new electricity generation, mandating a gradual increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources in utilities’ electricity output.
The current draft of the bill sets a target of 3% between 2011 and 2013, growing to 15% between 2021 and 2039. The committee voted down an amendment proposed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that would have included nuclear generation as a renewable source. However, the committee did approve an amendment brought by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) that exempts new nuclear capacity from the baseline that the renewable obligation is calculated against. Existing nuclear capacity is included in the baseline.
Should the bill become law, the inclusion of Murkowski's language will certainly be helpful to companies planning nuclear projects, relieving them of the obligation to take on renewable projects for every increase in nuclear output. In some ways, it could even act as an incentive to pursue nuclear over coal or gas projects. But refusing to include nuclear among the renewables reveals, I suspect, not only a policy preference but also a particular framework in which traditional renewables technologies and nuclear power are viewed—one that is rooted in impressions and superstitions that may or not reflect the facts.
Is nuclear renewable? Fast-breeder technology is, creating new fissile material as it burns plutonium fuel. Russia, China, Japan, and India all have fast breeder reactor programs, though the U.S. shut down its own program in the early 80's.
But perhaps a better, more relevant question is how to balance “renewable” with “clean” and “achievable.” Renewable energy sources like solar and wind have a crucial part to play in the development of a post-coal and oil dependent power grid. But as Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) protested, what of regions like the American South that have neither the wind of the Midwest or the sun of the Southwest? And doesn't it seem strange to give preference to CO2-producing biofuels over emissions-free nuclear, especially when our urgent goal is to cut greenhouse gases?
Unfortunately, for many people “nuclear” does not have the same feel-good ring to it that “renewable” does. Rather, the technology remains fraught with associations bred from ignorance and paranoia, like the notion that building a nuclear plant is equivalent to planting an atom bomb in the back yard (a week of nuclear weapons-related tension with North Korea probably did little to quell this tendency). And so, despite an understanding of its necessity, nuclear energy remains the ugly step-child of America’s Energy Future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
