Why Canada could become the next nuclear energy 'superpower'

Nadine Yousif
BBC News, Toronto

NexGen
NexGen's operation in Canada's remote Athabasca Basin

Uranium is making a comeback thanks to a renewed focus on nuclear energy as a climate crisis solution. Canada, rich with high-grade deposits, could become a nuclear “superpower”. But can its potential be realised?

Leigh Curyer had been working in uranium mining for nearly two decades when he noticed a striking shift.

In 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster in Japan badly damaged the world's view of nuclear power, and the price for the heavy metal - a critical component for nuclear fuel - cratered.

But the last five years has seen a reversal, with the global price of uranium spiking by more than 200%, becoming one of this year's top-performing commodities.

Mr Curyer, an Australian-born businessman, credits this to a changing attitude that began soon after Microsoft founder Bill Gates touted nuclear energy as “ideal for dealing with climate change” in 2018.

Four years later, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson pushed forward a policy of generating at least 25% of the country’s energy from nuclear.

Shortly after, the European Union voted to declare nuclear energy climate-friendly.

These events were “catalytic” for the uranium industry and a turning point for Mr Curyer's company NexGen, which is behind the largest in-development uranium mine in Canada.

His phone began to ring with calls from investors worldwide - something that “had never happened in my previous 17 years in the industry”, he said.

NexGen
Leigh Curyer is the head of NexGen, whose mine is the largest in development in Canada


NexGen, whose project is located in Canada's remote, uranium-rich Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan, is now worth nearly $4bn (£2.98bn), despite the fact that the mine won’t be commercially operational until at least 2028.

If fully cleared by regulators, NexGen’s project alone could push Canada to become the world’s largest producer of uranium over the coming decade, knocking Kazakhstan out of the number one spot.

Other companies have also rushed to Saskatchewan to capitalise on the boom, starting their own exploration projects in the region, while existing players re-opened dormant mines.

With its rich resources, Canada’s mining companies see the country playing a major role in the future of nuclear energy, meeting a demand for uranium that is poised to rise after nearly two dozen countries committed in COP28 climate conference to tripling their nuclear energy output by 2050.

Nuclear energy is often hailed for its low carbon emissions compared to other sources like natural gas or coal.

The World Nuclear Association estimates that 10% of power generated worldwide comes from nuclear sources, while more than 50% is still generated by gas or coal.

At this year's COP29, the focus has been on ramping up funding for nuclear projects in the wake of a recent UN report indicating that current policies and investments fall short of what is needed to slow global temperature rise.

Canada’s role in supplying the commodity is made more urgent by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly for the US, which had relied heavily on Russian-supplied enriched uranium to fire up its commercial nuclear reactors.

Mr Curyer believes his mine could prove to be “absolutely critical” to America’s nuclear energy future, as the US is now hunting for alternatives to Russia, including by ramping up exploration on its own soil.

Uranium can be found around the world, though it is heavily present in Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan.

But what makes Canada’s Athabasca Region unique is that its uranium is especially high grade, said Markus Piro, a professor of nuclear engineering at McMaster University.

Canada has set strict rules for the sale of its uranium to other countries, Prof Piro said, and mandates it only be used for nuclear power generation.

The country is also referred to as a “tier-one nuclear nation”, he said, due to its capability to produce nuclear fuel from the mining to the manufacturing stage.

Once mined, uranium is milled to produce what is called calcined yellowcake. It can then be enriched, if needed, at facilities overseas to create fuel for nuclear reactors.

“We’ve got a one-stop shop here in Canada, not every nation’s like that,” Prof Piro said.

Canada is currently the world’s second largest producer of uranium, accounting for roughly 13% of the total global output, according to the Canadian government. NexGen anticipates that once its mine is operational, it will boost that to 25%.

Meanwhile, Cameco, which has been mining uranium in Saskatchewan since 1988 that supplies 30 nuclear reactors around the world, re-opened two of its mines in late 2022 to increase output.    THAT SHOULD BE 1958


CEO Tim Gitzel told the BBC that he believes “Canada could be a nuclear superpower around the world”.

But enthusiasm around nuclear energy is not without its critics.

Some environmental groups worry nuclear projects are too costly and come with timelines that do not meet the urgency of the climate crisis.

Data from the UK-based World Nuclear Association shows that 65 nuclear reactors are under construction across 16 countries, most of them in China, and a further 90 are in the planning stages.

Some are expected to come online this year - others won’t be ready until at least the end of the decade.

Meanwhile, more than 100 nuclear plants have been closed in the last two decades around the world, including the sole nuclear power plant near New York City, which was retired in 2021 due to high operating costs and environmental and safety concerns.

Plants were also shuttered in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Quebec, Canada.

And not all of Canada is on board with the country’s uranium industry.

British Columbia sits on its own supply of uranium but has not allowed any nuclear plants or uranium mines to operate in the province since 1980.

Critics have also expressed concern about radioactive waste nuclear reactors leave behind for future generations.

Others fear another Fukushima-scale disaster, where a tsunami disabled three reactors, causing the release of highly radioactive materials and forcing mass evacuations.

“The risk is not zero, that is for sure” though it can be reduced, said Prof Piro.

“Even though amongst the general public there are mixed feelings about it, the reality is that it has produced very safe, very reliable and affordable electricity worldwide.”

The industry maintains the technology is both promising and viable.

Mr Gitzel of Cameco said the industry has learned from past safety errors.

“And the public is buying on,” he said. “I can tell you that we have in Canada great public support for nuclear power.”

A 2023 Ipsos poll indicates that 55% of Canadians support nuclear energy.
Advertisement

Getty Images
Uranium City, photographed in this 1975 photo, was once home to 2,500 residents

Still, pat uranium booms in Canada have turned into dramatic busts.

North of NexGen’s proposed mine stands Uranium City, once home to 2,500 residents in its mid-20th Century heyday. In 1982, a major local mining firm shuttered operations over high costs and a soft market for uranium.

Now, Uranium City’s population is 91 people.

But investors argue that there is a true global burgeoning demand for the commodity that poses a golden opportunity for Canada.

NexGen anticipates that construction on its mine - which is awaiting clearance from Canada’s federal nuclear regulator - will begin early next year.

Mr Gitzel says around 100 other companies are now actively exploring Saskatchewan for deposits.

As to when it will be on the market remains unclear.

Mr Gitzel cautioned that some companies have started explorations in the past that never reached production stage. The timeline to get mining projects approved in Canada can also be lengthy.

“Building a mine is going to take five to 10 years, and so far, the only ones in operation are ours, so we will wait and see how it plays out,” he said.

For Mr Curyer, it is crucial that his project and others are realised in the next four years, for both Canada and the world.

“Otherwise, there is going to be a shortage in uranium, and that will subsequently impact power prices,” he said.

Nuclear energy will play a vital role in Europe’s clean energy mix

Nuclear energy can reduce the need for costly power grid expansions and energy storage

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

 

image: 

• Europe isn't the only place in the world that is considering investments in nuclear energy. The photo shows a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector at the Vogtle Unit 4 plant on the Savannah River in Georgia, as it generated just enough electricity to connect to the grid for the first time. Vogtle Unit 4 came on line in late April 2024. The four units are now the single largest source of nuclear energy in the United States. Photo: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CC By 2.0

 

view more 

Credit: Photo: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CC By 2.0

We are now witnessing an energy revolution. We live in an age of electrification amid a climate crisis that demands clean energy solutions. Nuclear energy, an energy source that has faced skepticism for decades, might be key in solving this issue in conjunction with renewable energy sources.

The growing interest in nuclear energy signals a clear shift in the energy sector.

For instance, Microsoft is exploring a deal to reopen Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant at a price of around $100 per megawatt-hour for its electricity. While this price is higher than the levelized costs of solar and wind, it underscores the growing value of stable, year-round power.

This follows a trend among tech giants entering the nuclear energy space, driven by the desire for stable, emission-free power year-round.

A bigger role than previously anticipated

In a recent study of the European Power system to 2050, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) found that even costly nuclear energy can lead to a more affordable energy system overall. Most importantly, nuclear energy can reduce the need for costly power grid expansions and energy storage.

Moreover, it would lower environmental impacts, by reducing the amount of land needed for wind farms and solar energy farms, and can reduce air pollution. At the same time, nuclear energy can increase the value of renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

With more nuclear energy in the system, wind and solar resources are better utilized, reducing the share of renewable energy lost through curtailment. Moreover, solar power reaps higher returns on its electricity. Essentially, nuclear energy increases the value of installed renewables.

Toward the cheapest energy mix

Based on projected energy demand for achieving net-zero emissions through electrification, the NTNU researchers identified the optimal mix of technologies to minimize energy costs through 2050. They found that it didn't matter if Europe successfully builds cheap, standardized nuclear energy, or if Europe continues on a path of sluggish nuclear power plant construction because in both scenarios, nuclear energy will grow and play a crucial role in the green transition.

"A consumption pattern that requires increasing amounts of stable power will make nuclear energy more valuable as a part of the energy mix," the researchers said.

Standard reactor designs can reduce costs

Affordable nuclear energy means Europe succeeds with the kind of development seen in Abu Dhabi (Barakah).

Costs were minimized by selecting a standard reactor design before construction to prevent cost and schedule overruns. Additionally, building multiple reactors at the same site further reduced costs by leveraging significant learning gains between the first and fourth unit

If Europe could learn to deploy nuclear in this way, nuclear energy can continue to be the largest single source of zero-emission energy in Europe for years to come.

Learn from earlier mistakes

"Expensive nuclear energy will result if society fails to learn from recent projects like the Olkiluoto 3 project in Finland, which took 18 years to construct and bring on line," said Martin Hjelmeland, a  postdoctoral fellow in NTNU's Department of Electric Energy and first author of the study. "It also cost significantly more than anticipated."

In this first-of-a-kind project, only half of the design was completed before construction began, as well as regulatory intervention during construction that contributed to cost and time overruns. In the conservative scenario, where Europe does not manage to achieve the typical 6 to 8 years construction time, large volumes of nuclear energy will be outcompeted by onshore wind power, Hjelmeland said. However, nuclear energy will still maintain a prominent role in Europe’s energy landscape.

"Our research also shows that nuclear energy could even become relevant in hydropower-abundant countries like Norway," said Jonas Kristiansen Nøland, an associate professor in NTNU's Department of Electric Energy and a co-author of the paper. "This will depend on several uncertain factors. Cost levels will be critical, but it also hinges on the extent of onshore wind development and the need for stable power driven by the electrification of heavy industry or the establishment of energy-intensive data centers for artificial intelligence."

Europe faces significant energy challenges, and nuclear energy may play an important role in solving many of these issues, the researchers say. For this to happen, Europe must reconsider its approach to nuclear energy, learn from past mistakes, and adopt a balanced energy policy that treats nuclear energy on par with other low-carbon energy sources. By doing so, we can ensure we have the tools necessary to tackle the challenges that lie ahead effectively.

Reference: Martin Hjelmeland, Jonas Kristiansen Nøland, Stian Backe, Magnus Korpås. The role of nuclear energy and baseload demand in capacity expansion planning for low-carbon power systems, Applied Energy, Vol. 377, Part A, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124366.

  

The Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates, under construction in 2017. Photo: Wikiemirati. CC BY-SA 4.0

Journal

Applied Energy

DOI

10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124366 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Article Title

The role of nuclear energy and baseload demand in capacity expansion planning for low-carbon power systems

The Future of Nuclear Power is Wrought with Challenges

By Gail Tverberg - Nov 12, 2024

The world is facing a growing shortage of uranium, the essential fuel for nuclear power plants.

The US is heavily reliant on Russia and its allies for enriched uranium, creating geopolitical risks.

Recycling spent nuclear fuel is expensive, complex, and faces significant environmental and security challenges.


It is easy to get the impression that proposed new modular nuclear generating units will solve the problems of nuclear generation. Perhaps they will allow more nuclear electricity to be generated at a low cost and with much less of a problem with spent fuel.

As I analyze the situation, however, the problems associated with nuclear electricity generation are more complex and immediate than most people perceive. My analysis shows that the world is already dealing with “not enough uranium from mines to go around.” In particular, US production of uranium “peaked”about 1980 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Chart prepared by the US Energy Information Administration showing US production of uranium oxide.

For many years, the US was able to down-blend nuclear warheads (both purchased from Russia and from its own supply) to get around its uranium supply deficit.Figure 2. Chart from ArmsControl.org showing estimated global nuclear warhead inventories, 1945 to 2023.

Today, the inventory of nuclear warheads has dropped quite low. There are few warheads available for down-blending. This is creating a limit on uranium supply that is only now starting to hit.

Nuclear warheads, besides providing uranium in general, are important for the fact that they provide a concentrated source of uranium-235, which is the isotope of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. With the warhead supply depleting, the US has a second huge problem: developing a way to produce nuclear fuel, probably mostly from spent fuel, with the desired high concentration of uranium-235. Today, Russia is the primary supplier of enriched uranium.

The plan of the US is to use government research grants to kickstart work on new small modular nuclear reactors that will be more efficient than current nuclear plants. These reactors will use a new fuel with a higher concentration of uranium-235 than is available today, except through purchase from Russia. Grants are also being given to start work on US production of the more highly enriched uranium fuel within the US. It is hoped that most of this highly enriched uranium can come from recycling spent nuclear fuel, thus helping to solve the problem of what to do with the supply of spent fuel.

My analysis indicates that while advanced modular nuclear reactors might theoretically be helpful for the very long term, they cannot fix the problems of the US, and other countries in the West, nearly quickly enough. I expect that the Trump administration, which will start in January 2025, will see this program as a boondoggle.
[1] Current problems with nuclear electricity generation are surprisingly hidden. World electricity generation from nuclear has been close to flat since 2004.Figure 3. World Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

Although there was a dip in world generation of nuclear electricity after the tsunami that affected nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, otherwise world production of nuclear electricity has been nearly flat since 2004 (Figure 3).Figure 4. US Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

US nuclear electricity production (Figure 4) shows a similar pattern, except that production since 2021 is down.
[2] The total amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants is limited by the amount of uranium fuel available to them.

I believe that a major reason why the electricity supply from nuclear has been quite flat since 2004 is because total nuclear electricity generation is limited by the quantity of uranium fuel that is available for the nuclear reactors that have been built.


The price of uranium can perhaps rise, but this doesn’t necessarily add much (or any) supply very quickly. It takes several years to develop a new uranium mine.

In theory, reprocessing of spent fuel to produce uranium and plutonium is also possible, but the amount of that has been performed to date is small. (See Section [6].)
[3] The World Nuclear Association (WNA) published Figure 5 that hints at the world’s uranium supply problem:Figure 5. World uranium production and reactor requirements (metric tons of uranium) in a chart by the World Nuclear Association.

The black line showing “reactor requirements” (Figure 5) is in some sense comparable to world generation of nuclear electricity (Figure 3). Both figures show fairly flat lines since about 2004. This relationship hints that there has not been a significant improvement in the efficiency of electricity generation using uranium fuel in the past 20 years.

Figure 5 shows a huge gap between the production of uranium from the various countries and “reactor requirements.” The single largest source of additional supply has been down-blended uranium from nuclear bombs. The EIA reports that the US purchased a large number of nuclear warheads from Russia between 1995 and 2013 for this purpose under the Megatons to Megawatts program. The EIA also reports that for the period 2013 to 2022, a purchase agreement was put in place allowing the US to purchase commercial origin low-enriched uranium from Russia to replace some of down-blended nuclear warhead material. In addition, the US had some of its own nuclear warheads that it could blend down. It was the availability of uranium supply from these various sources that allowed US nuclear electricity generation to remain relatively flat in the 2004 to 2023 period, as shown on Figure 4.

The US’s own uranium extraction reached a peak about 1980 and is now close to zero (Figure 1). The world’s supply of warheads is now over 85% depleted, leaving very little stored-away, highly enriched uranium to blend down (Figure 2)


A hidden problem is the fact that uranium production available today is largely from Russia and its close affiliates. The data underlying Figure 5 shows that uranium production in 2022 is dominated by close allies of Russia (55% of the total coming from Kazakhstan (43% of total), Uzbekistan (7% of total), and Russia (5% of total)). The US (at almost 0%), plus production of its close affiliates, Canada and Australia, provided only 24% of world uranium. This imbalance between Russia and its affiliates, and the US and its affiliates, should be of concern.
[4] The current conflict between the US and Russia adds to nuclear problems.

The US is trying to impose sanctions on Russia. The EIA reports:

“The origin of uranium used in U.S. reactors will likely change in the coming years. In May [2024], the United States banned imports of uranium products from Russia beginning in August [2024], although companies may apply for waivers through January 1, 2028.”

This seems to imply that a transition away from Russian uranium dependence must be made in only a little over three years. This is a short time frame, given the difficulty in making such a transition.

EIA data show that in the year 2023, the US sourced only 4.6% of uranium supplies from the US. (This could be partly or mostly down-blended nuclear warheads). Material purchased from Russia comprised 11.7% of uranium. Kazakhstan provided 20.6% of uranium purchased, and Uzbekistan provided 9.5%. Among US allies, Canada provided 14.9%, and Australia 9.2%.
[5] The WNA does not hint at any uranium supply problems.


The WNA is an advocate for nuclear energy; it cannot suggest that there is any problem with uranium supplies. WNA has the opinion that if there is a shortage of uranium, prices will rise, and more will become available. But even if prices rise, it takes several years to bring new mines into operation. Prices need to stay high, or companies will not pursue what appear to be opportunities.Figure 6. Historical uranium prices in chart by Trading Economics.

Readers of OurFiniteWorld.com have seen that oil prices tend to spike and collapse. They don’t stay high for very long because if prices stay high, the end products made with oil tend to become unaffordable. I expect a similar problem occurs with uranium.

The necessary price threshold for high uranium extraction that is mentioned by the WNA is $130/kg in 2021. By coincidence, when a translation is made to dollars per pound using 2024$, this corresponds quite closely to the current price line on Figure 6. Indeed, prices do sometimes bounce high. The problem is getting them to stay as high as the dotted line for long enough to support the multi-decade life of a mine. Economists were forecasting a price of $300 per barrel oil a few years ago, but they have been disappointed. The price is under $75 per barrel now.

The country with the most potentially recoverable uranium is Australia. It produced only 9% of the world’s uranium in 2022, but is reported to have 28% of the world’s remaining reserve. Consistently higher prices would be needed for Australia to start opening new mines.

It is also possible that more uranium supply might become available if improved extraction techniques are developed.


The world seems to be past peak crude oil. By itself, the peak oil issue could limit new uranium extraction and transport.
[6] Recycling of spent fuel to recover usable uranium and plutonium has been accomplished only to a limited extent. Experience to date suggests that recycling has many issues.

It is possible to make an estimate of the amount of recycling of spent fuel that is currently being performed. Figure 3 in Section [1] shows about 65,000 metric tons of uranium are required to meet the demands of existing nuclear power generation, and that as of 2022, there was about an annual shortfall in supply of about 26%. Based on what information I have been able to gather, existing recycling of uranium and plutonium amounts to perhaps 6% of the overall fuel requirement. Thus, as of 2022, today’s recycling of spent fuel could perhaps shave this shortfall in uranium supply to “only” 20% of annual nuclear fuel requirements. There is some recycling of spent fuel, but it is small in relation to the amount needed.

There seem to be several issues with building units to recover uranium from spent fuel:Higher cost than simply mining more uranium
Pollution problems from the recycling plants
Potential for use of the output to make nuclear warheads
Potential for nuclear accidents within the plants
Remaining radioactivity at the site at the end of the reprocessing plant’s life, and thus the need to decommission such plants
Potential for many protestors disrupting construction and operation because of issues (2), (3), (4), and (5)

The US outlawed recycling of spent fuel in 1977, after a few not-very-successful attempts. Once the purchase of Russian warheads was arranged, down-blending of warheads was a much less expensive approach than reprocessing spent fuel. Physics Today recently reported the following regarding US reprocessing:

“A plant in West Valley, New York, reprocessed spent fuel for six years before closing in 1972. Looking to expand the plant, the owners balked at the costs required for upgrades needed to meet new regulatory standards. Construction of a reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, was halted in 1977 following the Carter administration’s ban.”

Japan has been trying to build a commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant at Rokkasho since 1993, but it has had huge problems with cost overruns and protests by many groups. The latest estimate of when the plant will actually be completed is fiscal year 2026 or 2027. The plant would process 800 metric tons of fuel per year.

The largest commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant in operation is in La Hague, France. It has been in place long enough (since 1966) that it has run into the issue of decommissioning an old unit, which was started as a French military project. The first processing unit was shut down in 2003. The International Atomic Energy Administration says, “The UP2-400 decommissioning project began some 20 years ago and may be expected to continue for several more years.” It talks about the huge cost and number of people involved. It says, “Decommissioning activities represent roughly 20 per cent of the overall activity and socio-economic impact of the La Hague site, which also hosts two operating spent fuel recycling plants.”

The cost of the La Hague reprocessing units is probably not fully known. They were built by government agencies. They have gone through various owners including AREVA. AREVA has had huge financial problems. The successor company is Orano. The currently operating units have the capacity to process about 1,700 metric tons of fuel per year. The 1700 metric tons of reprocessing of spent fuel from La Hague is reported to be nearly half of the world’s operating capacity for recycling spent fuel.

I understand that Russia is working on approaches that quite possibly are not included in my figures. If so, this may add to world uranium supply, but Russia is not likely to want to share the benefits with the West if there is not enough to go around.
[7] The concentration of the isotope uranium-235 is very important in making fuel for the proposed new modular nuclear reactors.

Uranium-235 makes up 0.72% of natural uranium. Wikipedia says, “Unlike the predominant isotope uranium-238, it [uranium-235] is fissile, i. e., it can sustain a nuclear reaction.” In most reactors used today, the concentration of uranium-235 is 3% to 5%.

According to CNN, the plan in building advanced modular small reactors is to use fuel with a 5% to 20% concentration of uranium-235. Fuel at this concentration is called high assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. The expectation is that power plants with this type of fuel will be more efficient to operate.

Producing higher concentrations of uranium-235 tends to be problematic unless nuclear weapons are available for down-blending; warheads use high concentrations of uranium-235. Now, with reduced availability of nuclear warheads for down-blending, other sources are needed in addition. CNN reports that the only commercial source of HALEU is Russia. The EIA reports that the Inflation Reduction Act invested $700 million to support the development of a domestic supply chain for HALEU.
[8] The US is trying to implement many new ideas at one time with virtually no successful working models to smooth the transition.

Strangely enough, the US has no working model of a small-scale nuclear reactor, even one operating on conventional fuel. A CNBC article from September 2024 says, Small nuclear reactors could power the world, the challenge is building the first one in the US.

The new small-scale nuclear projects we do have are still at a very preliminary stage. In June 2024, Bill Gates wrote, “We just broke ground on America’s first next-gen nuclear facility. Kemmerer, Wyoming will soon be home to the most advanced nuclear facility in the world.” The plan is for it is to become operational by 2030, if it has access to HALEU fuel.

With respect to how far along the ability to make HALEU from spent fuel is, an October 2024 article in Interesting Engineering says, “US approves new facility design concept to turn nuclear waste into reactor fuel:”

“The facility whose conceptual design has been approved will be located at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It will help turn used material recovered from DOE’s former Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II reactor) into usable fuel for its advanced nuclear power plant. . . The plan is to recover approximately 10 metric tons of HALEU from EBR-II fuel by December 2028 using an electrochemical process that was perfected over the years at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).”

Assuming this can be done, it will be a step forward, but it is nowhere near being an at-scale, commercial project that can be done economically by other companies. The volume of 10 metric tons is tiny.

Starting at this level, it is difficult to see how reactors with the new technology and the HALEU fuel to feed them can possibly be available in quantity before 2050.
[9] It is difficult to see how the cost of electricity generated using the new advanced modular nuclear reactors and the new HALEU fuel, created by reprocessing spent fuel, could be low.

As far as I can see, the main argument that these new modular electricity generation plants will be affordable is that they will only generate a relatively small amount of electricity at once —about 300 megawatts or less, or about one third of the average of conventional nuclear reactors in the US. Because of the smaller electricity output, the hope is that they will be affordable by more buyers, such as utility companies.

The issue that is often overlooked by economists is that electricity generated using these new techniques needs to be low cost, per kilowatt-hour, to be helpful. High-cost electricity is not affordable. Keeping costs down when many new approaches are being tried for the first time is likely to be a huge hurdle. I look through the long list of problems encountered in recycling spent fuel mentioned in Section [6] and wonder whether these issues can be inexpensively worked around. There are also issues with adopting and installing the proposed new advanced modular reactors, such as security, that I have not even tried to address.

The hope is that somehow, the whole process of building the advanced modular nuclear reactors and creating the HALEU fuel can be standardized and can be organized in such a way that economies of scale will set in. It seems to me that reaching this goal will be difficult. In theory, perhaps such a goal can be reached in 2060 or 2070, but this is not nearly soon enough, given the world’s current shortage of uranium from mines.
[10] The Trump administration will likely drop or substantially change the current program for advanced modular nuclear reactors.

The US plan that is discussed in this post has been developed under the Biden administration. This group was voted out of power on November 5. The Democratic administration will be replaced by a new Republican administration, headed by Donald Trump, on January 20, 2025.

I would not be surprised if the advanced modular nuclear generation plan disappears, almost as quickly as the currently subsidized offshore wind program, which Trump has vowed to end. The two programs have many things in common: Both programs provide an excuse for more US debt; they provide many jobs for researchers; and the devices that they relate to can be purchased in fairly small increments. But the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity is likely to be high with either program. In some sense, as they are currently envisioned, they will not efficient ways to produce electricity. A major problem is the lack of fuel for the new modular reactors, and the slow ramp-up time to obtain this fuel.

I expect that under Trump, the sanction against purchasing HALEU from Russia might be replaced with a tariff. That way the US could have the benefit of HALEU, purchased from Russia, but at a higher price. This would allow research to continue, if desired.
[11] If solutions cannot be found, electricity generation from nuclear is likely to gradually disappear.

Over time, the world’s self-organizing economy tends to eliminate its more inefficient parts. When I look at the past experience with nuclear, what I see seems to be another example of the self-organizing economy squeezing out the inefficient parts of the economy (Figure 8):Figure 7. Nuclear electricity generation by part of the world, based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

In this chart, “Advanced Economies, ex US” are defined as members of the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), excluding the US. “Later Entrants” are non-OECD members, excluding Russia and Ukraine. They include China, India, Indonesia, and many other lower-income countries. Many of these countries are in East Asia.

What I see is that the relatively “flat” overall nuclear electricity production has been accomplished, to a significant extent, by the “Advanced Economies, ex US” dropping back in their use of nuclear electricity at close to the same time the “Later Entrants” have rapidly been increasing their use of nuclear electricity. The Later Entrants can make goods for sale in international markets much more cheaply than the Advanced Economies, ex US through their efficient use of cheap energy (often from coal) and their lower wages. This more efficient approach gives the Later Entrants an “edge” in buying the uranium that is available.

I expect to see more of this pattern of squeezing out in the future. In fact, new and recently re-opened nuclear plants will need to compete existing nuclear generation units for available uranium.

Given the way squeezing out takes place, very few people will realize that there is a problem with uranium fuel. It will just be that leaders of some parts of the world, as well as some parts of the US, will start emphasizing stories about how dangerous nuclear energy is. Instead of nuclear, they will emphasize electricity generation from wind and solar and allow these approaches to “go first” when they are available. The result will be wholesale electricity prices that will be far too low for nuclear power plants, much of the time. It will be these low wholesale electricity prices that push nuclear power out.

Thus, unless there truly are breakthroughs in recycling spent fuels, or in uranium mining, electricity generation using nuclear energy may gradually slip away from many parts of the world currently using it.

By Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World

US support for nuclear higher in 2024 than year earlier, survey finds

Friday, 8 November 2024

More than half of the respondents to a US survey believe nuclear energy is an essential part of the solution to climate disruption and energy security. The ecoAmerica Climate Perspectives Survey, from the Anthropocene Institute, has seen US citizens' concerns about nuclear energy decrease over its seven-year series.

ecoAmerica says support for nuclear has risen over seven years of surveys (Image: ecoAmerica)

The poll found 55% of Americans to be either “strongly” or “somewhat" supportive of nuclear power - a 3-point rise from 2023 and a 6-point rise from 2018, but down from 2022's peak of 61%.

The most important reasons cited for supporting nuclear energy included economic benefits, pollution reduction, reliability and energy independence. The majority of respondents also believed that US nuclear power plants should be kept running until "lower-cost renewable energy" becomes available (70%) or as long as they are cost-effective in the long term (68%). And although the majority of respondents express some concerns about nuclear energy - for example, about health and safety, waste disposal and weaponisation - the number of respondents expressing such concerns has fallen since the first survey in 2018. The exception to this is concern over costs of nuclear power plants: the percentage of respondents citing cost as a concern has risen slightly, from 65% in 2018 to 68% in 2024.

Support for nuclear was not divided along party political lines, with those identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats less divided on support for nuclear R&D than for other energy sources: 56% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans said that the USA should spend more on next-generation nuclear R&D, a 6-point difference, whereas the poll found much wider point differences between the parties on R&D spending on oil, coal and gas, ranging from a 12-point difference for gas to a 21-point difference for oil.

"Nuclear energy is increasingly being adopted worldwide to solve climate disruption, with 25 countries signing the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 and 14 major banks and financial institutions committing to finance the expansion," said Guido Nuñez-Mujica, director of data science for Anthropocene Institute. "It is no wonder, since nuclear energy protects air quality, consumes only a small land footprint, and produces minimal waste that can be reused. In addition, the existing spent fuel could power the United States for a whole century. Nuclear energy offers a path of hope, especially for nations trying to increase their quality of life without worsening our climate crisis."

The survey was designed by ecoAmerica and conducted online from 24 July-9 August. A total of 1011 complete adult responses were received, and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey was used to weigh the national general population and reflect the demographic composition of the USA. The margin of error for the sample is +/-3%.

Fuel debris sample extracted from Fukushima Daiichi reactor

Thursday, 7 November 2024

Tokyo Electric Power Company announced it has successfully completed the trial removal of a sample of fuel debris from the primary containment vessel of unit 2 at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

The grasped fuel debris sample (Image: Tepco)

On 19 August, Tepco announced that it planned to remove a few grams of melted fuel debris from the unit on 22 August. The operation was expected to last about two weeks using a telescopic device equipped with a gripper tool. The device can extend up to 22 metres and access the debris through a penetration point in the primary containment vessel (PCV). However, as Tepco was carrying out the operation, workers noticed during the final checking process that the order of the first section of the push pipe was different from the planned order, which meant other sections could not be connected correctly. This led to a delay in the collection of a sample of fuel debris.

As preparations were being made for another attempt, on 17 September it was discovered that cameras on the end of the telescopic device were not functioning correctly. The replacement of these cameras led to a further delay.

On 30 October, Tepco announced that it had managed to grasp a sample of fuel debris using the gripper tool.

Unit 2 internal investigation/trial retrieval plan overview (Image: Tepco)

On 6 November, it confirmed that the dose rate of the sampled fuel debris is less than 24 mSv/h (at a distance of 20cm), which is the criteria for proceeding with debris retrieval, thus the grasped sample was inserted into a transportation box.

On Thursday 7 November, the side hatch of the enclosure (a metal box that contains the telescopic device and the robotic arm) was opened and the transportation box was removed from inside the enclosure. The box was then placed within a DPTE (Double Porte pour Transfert Etanche) container. "The fuel debris trial retrieval work is deemed to have been completed when the transportation box is inserted into the DPTE container," Tepco said.

The company plans to transport the fuel sample within the DPTE off-site to be analysed in detail at off-site analysis facilities. The findings are expected to assist in the full-scale removal of fuel debris.

In Fukushima Daiichi units 1 to 3, the fuel and the metal cladding that formed the outer jacket of the fuel rods melted, then re-solidified as fuel debris. There is an estimated total of 880 tonnes of fuel debris in units 1-3. To reduce the risk from this fuel debris, preparations are under way for retrieving it from the reactors. The current aim is to begin retrieval from unit 2 and to gradually enlarge the scale of the retrieval. The retrieved fuel debris will be stored in the new storage facility that will be constructed within the site.

The removal technique, which is being used for the first time in unit 2, will be gradually extended to unit 3, where a large-scale recovery is expected in the early 2030s

Three Mile Island's Clean Energy Comeback Fueled by Tech Giant Demand

By Felicity Bradstock 

- Nov 08, 2024,

Three Mile Island's Unit 1, dormant since 2019, is being reopened and refurbished in a $1.6 billion project backed by Microsoft.

The project highlights a growing trend of tech companies seeking nuclear power to meet their ambitious carbon neutrality goals and increasing energy demands.

The reopening of Three Mile Island could mark a turning point in the perception and utilization of nuclear power in the U.S.


Three Mile Island, the site of one of the world’s most famous nuclear accidents, is set to reopen several years after its closure. On September 20th, Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and Microsoft announced that they had reached a deal that would mean the reopening of the 835 MW Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. Unit 2 has been shut down since its partial core meltdown in 1979 and is currently being decommissioned. However, as Unit 1 was not damaged during the accident, it continued operating until 2019, when it eventually closed for financial reasons.

At 4 am on March 28, 1979, an automatically operated valve in the Unit 2 reactor mistakenly closed, which shut off the water supply to the main feedwater system – the system that transfers heat from the water circulating in the reactor core. This prompted the reactor core to shut down automatically. However, a series of equipment and instrument malfunctions, human errors in operating procedures, and mistaken decisions over several hours led to major water coolant loss from the reactor core, which resulted in a partial core meltdown.

Constellation expects the refurbishment of the plant to cost around $1.6 billion. When operational, Three Mile Island is capable of powering over 700,000 homes and employs around 700 or more people. Microsoft has signed an agreement to buy the facility’s entire output for twenty years, for $800 million a year. Following the announcement, Constellation’s stock rose 22 percent.

The nuclear company hopes the plant will be ready to relaunch in 2028. To achieve this, the firm must gain approvals from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the PJM grid manager for transmission access. The site’s name will be changed to the Crane Energy Centre, and it is expected to receive a license to extend operations to 2053.

For decades, following three prominent nuclear disasters – Three Mile Island, Chornobyl, and Fukushima, the public perception of nuclear plants was extremely poor. People worried that the accidents of the past could happen again, and they might be even worse next time. However, thanks to improvements to nuclear safety and the strengthening of international industry regulations in recent years, people are once again seeing the potential for nuclear power, particularly as part of a green transition.

Joseph Dominguez, the CEO of Constellation Energy, is confident that the company will get Three Mile Island back up and running. Dominguez stated, “Twelve months from now, Constellation will have started on the path towards building new reactors.” This move has the potential to wave in a new nuclear era, as no reactor that was set to close permanently has been brought back online in the U.S. before. In addition, only three new reactors have been developed in the past 25 years.

Nuclear power continues to contribute around 19 percent of the U.S. electricity mix, and it is increasingly being viewed as the best clean energy source for meeting the rising electricity demand spurred by the rollout of complex technologies, such as artificial intelligence. Just like Microsoft, other tech giants are looking to work with nuclear energy companies to ensure their access to abundant clean energy to power operations. Google and Amazon recently struck deals with start-ups developing smaller nuclear reactors, in the hope that they will provide them with clean power by the 2030s.

Microsoft committed to being “carbon negative” by 2030, but its emissions rose by 29 percent between 2020 and 2023. The growing demand for electricity to power data centres is making it increasingly difficult for tech companies to stick to their ambitious climate pledges. While many are increasingly using renewable energy sources to power operations, they require such vast amounts of energy that nuclear power would make a much bigger dent in the demands of these companies.

In mid-October, Constellation ordered a $100-million main power transformer to support the reopening of Three Mile Island. The transformer is expected to be the largest single piece of equipment needed to be replaced to restart the plant. Other major renovation investments include the reactor's turbine, generator, and cooling systems.

Despite being mainly untouched since it shut down in 2019, the plant is said to be well-maintained. Constellation’s Vice President of Generation, Bryan Hanson, stated, “I have walked the facility top to bottom, every floor… The plant is in great condition.” The company believes that the reactor vessel does not require any repairs, and the steam generators, which can be very costly, were replaced about 15 years ago.

The renovation and planned reopening of Three Mile Island could wave in a new nuclear era in the U.S., encouraged largely by the increase in electricity demand brought about by the commercial deployment of advanced technologies. As U.S. companies aim to decarbonise operations, they are looking for innovative ways to ensure a steady supply of clean electricity to support data centre operations, and nuclear energy companies are more than happy to support the reinvigoration of the nuclear power sector.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

Poland to cooperate with Japan and the Netherlands on nuclear

Friday, 8 November 2024

Poland's Ministry of Industry and Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry have signed a memorandum to promote Polish-Japanese cooperation in the nuclear sector. Meanwhile, the Polish and Dutch nuclear regulators have agreed to cooperate.

(Image: Polish Ministry of Industry)

A memorandum of understanding on cooperation on nuclear energy was signed by Marzena Czarnecka, Poland's Minister of Industry, and Shinji Takeuchi, Japan's Deputy Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry in Warsaw on 7 November.

"The signed memorandum confirms the interest in bilateral cooperation between both countries for the development of nuclear energy as a technology that allows achieving the goals of energy transformation and has a positive impact on energy security," the Polish ministry said. "The signed agreement also encourages cooperation at the level of economic entities and industrial technologies. Leading companies in the Japanese nuclear sector show interest in developing cooperation with European companies."  

It noted the agreement includes cooperation with the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum International Cooperation Centre (JICC), which operates under Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). JICC carries out activities supporting the development of competencies of countries implementing nuclear energy through the exchange of information, expert missions and the organisation of workshops, conferences and seminars in areas such as: human resources development, social communication, nuclear safety and preparation of the necessary infrastructure for nuclear projects.

"This cooperation allows Poland to build nuclear skills and competencies, which is crucial for the implementation of the Polish Nuclear Power Programme," the Polish ministry said.

Polish, Dutch regulators to cooperate
 

On the same day, a cooperation agreement was signed between Poland's National Atomic Energy Agency (PAA) and the Dutch Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ANVS).

(Image: PAA)

The agreement - signed by PAA President Andrzej Głowacki and ANVS Chairperson Annemiek van Bolhuis - opens up the possibility of exchanging information on best practices in the field of supervision of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes between the regulators.

It assumes joint activities in the organisation of technical meetings, training and exchange of documentation necessary to prepare the nuclear regulator for activities related to the licensing process of new nuclear technologies.

"In Poland and the Netherlands, interest in the use of new nuclear technologies is growing, causing increased challenges for national institutions supervising their safe use," PAA said.

Polish nuclear plans
 

Poland currently has large-scale plans to develop nuclear energy capacity. In September 2021, it was announced that six large pressurised water reactors with a combined installed capacity of 6-9 GWe could be built by 2040 as part of the country's plan to reduce its reliance on coal. According to the adopted schedule, the construction of the first nuclear power plant will start in 2026, with the first reactor - with a capacity of 1.0-1.6 GWe - being commissioned in 2033. Subsequent units will be implemented every 2-3 years. The coastal towns of Lubiatowo and Kopalino in Poland's Choczewo municipality in the province of Pomerania were named as the preferred location for the country's first large nuclear power plant.

In November 2022, the Polish government announced the first plant, with a capacity of 3750 MWe, will be built in Pomerania using AP1000 technology from the US company Westinghouse. An agreement setting a plan for the delivery of the plant was signed in May last year by Westinghouse, Bechtel and Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe.

In November last year, Poland's Ministry of Climate and Environment issued a decision-in-principle for the country's second large nuclear power plant. Two South Korean-supplied APR1400 reactors are planned in the Patnów-Konin region

TVEL and AllWeld cooperation agreement

 on decommissioning and waste

 management

Friday, 8 November 2024

Russia's TVEL and South Africa's AllWeld Nuclear and Industrial have signed a memorandum of cooperation in the field of decommissioning and radioactive waste management

.

Image: African Energy Week)

The agreement was signed at African Energy Week 2024 in Cape Town by Eduard Nikitin, director for decommissioning of nuclear facilities and radioactive waste management at TVEL, which is part of Rosatom, and Mervyn Fisher, director general of AllWeld Nuclear and Industrial.

The proposed cooperation areas include the development of infrastructure for radioactive waste management - storage and disposal - as well as the design and creation of equipment needed in this area in South Africa.

Nikitin said: "Rosatom has enormous experience and expertise in the field of decommissioning nuclear facilities and radioactive waste management, including ... proprietary technologies and a broad scientific research programme. This experience is certainly in demand in all countries of the world that have nuclear energy, uranium mining industry or experience in operating research reactors. The signing of the memorandum with South African partners opens up new opportunities for the implementation of joint projects both in South Africa and beyond."

Allweld describes itself as "one of the oldest established, and longest-running engineering solutions companies in South Africa" serving nuclear and other energy industries in the country since 1962.

South Africa has two nuclear reactors at the Koeberg nuclear power plant generating about 5% of its electricity - the first reactor began operating in 1984 - and the country is planning to launch a bidding process for 2.5 GWe of new nuclear capacity. The 2008 National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute Act led to the establishment in 2014 of the National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute, which is responsible for radioactive waste disposal in South Africa. There is a national repository for low and intermediate-level waste at Vaalputs in the Northern Cape province and used fuel is stored at Koeberg.

Oklo cleared to begin site characterisation for first-of-a-kind plant

Friday, 8 November 2024

The completion of the environmental compliance process means Oklo Inc can now begin site characterisation for its first commercial advanced fission power plant in Idaho.

Oklo's preferred site for its first Aurora powerhouse at INL (Image: Oklo)

Completion by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) of the process addressing DOE requirements for the site and the resulting Environmental Compliance Permit, following on from the recent finalisation of a Memorandum of Agreement with the DOE, initiates site characterisation activities, Oklo said.

"These approvals represent pivotal steps forward as we advance toward deploying the first commercial advanced fission plant," Oklo CEO and co-founder Jacob DeWitte said. "With this process complete, we can begin site characterisation."

California-based Oklo received a site use permit from the DOE in 2019 to build and operate a prototype of its Aurora reactor - which will be a commercial power plant selling power to customers - at INL: according to company information, it intends to deploy its first commercial unit before the end of the decade. It also intends to build a facility to fabricate fuel for the liquid metal-cooled fast reactor plant at the same site. The DOE approved the Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility in September.

The memorandum of agreement finalised with DOE's Idaho Operations Office in September grants Oklo access to conduct site investigations at its preferred site, focusing on geotechnical assessments, environmental surveys and infrastructure planning.

The Aurora powerhouse is a fast neutron reactor that uses heat pipes to transport heat from the reactor core to a supercritical carbon dioxide power conversion system to generate electricity. It uses metallic fuel to produce about 15 MWe as well as producing usable heat, and can operate on fuel made from fresh HALEU or used nuclear fuel.

World Nuclear News