How Russia’s invasion is affecting U.S. nuclear

E&E News ^ | 03/14/2022 | Hannah Northey

[TigerLikesRoosterNew]

How Russia’s invasion is affecting U.S. nuclear

By Hannah Northey | 03/14/2022 06:20 AM EST

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is raising questions about the cost and flow of fuel to existing and yet-to-be commercialized advanced U.S. reactors touted by advocates as a tool for tackling climate change.

President Biden didn’t target the nuclear sector when he issued an executive order this month to block imports of Russian crude and natural gas.

But as the war drags on for a third week, the White House is consulting with the nuclear sector about the potential impact of imposing sanctions on Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned atomic energy company, according to Bloomberg, which cited anonymous sources familiar with the matter.

The White House did not immediately confirm talks with the nuclear industry.

Sanctions on Rosatom, sources told E&E News, could pose long-term challenges for the United States’ fleet of more than 90 reactors running on low-enriched uranium.

While the existing plants have enough fuel for the next six to eight months and possibly longer, experts say sanctions on Russian imports could raise the global cost of low-enriched uranium and rile U.S. plants sensitive to cost swings. Russia supplies 20 percent of the low-enriched uranium needed to run American nuclear plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Others say the larger concern may sit with advanced reactor demonstrations expected to come online around 2028 that will require high-assay, low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. That’s because Russia is the only viable commercial supplier globally and other firms are years away from readily providing such fuel, they say.

[buckalfa]

Thank you Shillary!

[aces]

They have control of our nukes with the beastie crew in the wh

[Socon-Econ]

The Democrats are a bigger threat to our nuclear power than Putin.

[EEGator]

Didn’t we used to have production facilities in Tennessee and Washington?

[Spktyr]

The Washington site was closed because apparently someone decided that disposing of radioactive waste was best handled by burying it where it could leak to ground water, among other problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

This didn’t help the cause of nuclear power in the US.

Oak Ridge is still there, but it was never big on production, they were more R&D type stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory

[EEGator]

Thank you.

[Tell It Right]

Russia bribing Hillary for Uranium One has whole new meaning now. It transferred control of 20% of U.S. uranium reserves to Russia.

[goodnesswins]

Yeah...putting nuke waste right next to a major river is such a smart idea.../S

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that the Dept of Energy needs to develop safe, Thorium based reactor designs. A small, medium, and large sizing. Futher, plan on using these designs on or near military bases and government complexes to provide local power that is “off grid”. This would supply power to the base in the event of a grid down type event.

These designs could also be used by the coal industry to use coal as a basis for conversion to fuels. A couple of such plants could then be purposed to supply fuels to our military and first responders as alternatives to the traditional petroleum refining.

[TigerLikesRoosterNew]

There must be some technological barrier to make this commercially viable. It has been talked about for a long time but no Thorium-based nuclear power plant in operation yet.

[taxcontrol]

I would say politics instead of technological. India seems to be leading the effort to create production Thorium reactors.

According to Wiki:
Indian government is also developing up to 62 reactors, mostly thorium-based, which it expects to be operational by 2025. India is the “only country in the world with a detailed, funded, government-approved plan” to focus on thorium-based nuclear power.