Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Clinton Era Deal Killed US Uranium Production

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jan 9, 2024.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,537
    12,055
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    so now we are offering up major subsidies to try and get it kickstarted again, unintended consequences but major impacts as the US is encouraging nuclear power to help curb global emissions but the only producer of the uranium required is Russia

    Biden Offers Companies Millions To Help U.S. Break Russia's Monopoly On A Vital Resource (msn.com)

    The U.S. used to produce most of its own reactor fuel. As part of the 1990s, a Clinton-era deal encouraged the struggling post-Soviet Russia to dismantle its nuclear weapons, however, the U.S. agreed to buy any reactor fuel made from weapons. The cheap supply of Russian fuel put U.S. enrichers out of business, with the last facility closing down a decade ago.
    ............................
    Canada, Kazakhstan and Australia ― the top three suppliers of uranium to the U.S., respectively ― are all looking to increase mining. France’s state-owned uranium company, Orano, announced plans in October to increase enriched fuel production by 30%. Three new uranium mines entered into production in Arizona and Utah in just the past few months.

    But next-generation reactors that need HALEU suffer from a classic chicken-versus-egg problem. Who can confidently invest in building a first-of-a-kind reactor that needs Russian fuel while the U.S. is trading barbs with Moscow? Who can confidently invest in enriching fuel for reactors that don’t currently exist and are not yet even licensed in the U.S.?

    The federal government is providing an answer to both by pumping billions into propping up advanced reactors and fuel production in hopes they can advance simultaneously in time for the projected start of the new nuclear rollout at the start of the 2030s.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. l_boy

    l_boy 5500

    12,919
    1,727
    3,268
    Jan 6, 2009
    While I’d love to see progress on nuclear it seems most of the news is bad while there is so much good news on all other forms of energy.
     
  3. ncargat1

    ncargat1 VIP Member

    14,415
    6,300
    3,353
    Dec 11, 2009
    God willing, no one will. Let 3rd world countries poison their ground, their people and everything that poison touches. We don't need even more of it in the United States.
     
  4. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    31,537
    12,055
    3,693
    Aug 26, 2008
    so I take it you are not a fan of the next gen nuclear plants? or do you differentiate between the two?

    what other form of base load energy production do you prefer?
     
  5. tampagtr

    tampagtr VIP Member

    17,561
    2,791
    1,618
    Apr 3, 2007
    No, no, no. Jeffrey Lewis has debunked this nonpoint. It's silly.
     
  6. ncargat1

    ncargat1 VIP Member

    14,415
    6,300
    3,353
    Dec 11, 2009
    I prefer anything that does not require mining and processing of uranium. I am favor of almost anything that does not require massive vaults for 1000s of years to store the waste, and not just the nuclear fuel, but damn near every part of an irradiated reactor.

    I have said this for years and will repeat it. If you are willing to live in the shadow of a nuclear power plant, be it uranium powered, thorium salt powered or other, I would not be the person to tell you no. But I will be damned if I will do it, nor will I let one come to my neighborhood. I am not a nuclear plant expert nor pretend to be one, so I am not on the cutting edge of nuclear power plants. However, I have been around them, worked and lived in "The Atomic City" and have seen more cases of brain tumors induced from exposure by living and working near "safe nuclear reactors" to fill 10 lifetimes.

    Alternatively, we DO NOT possess the technology safetly operate nuclear power. Nor do we possess the technology to create enough efficiency to exclusively utilize alternate forms of power generation beyond natural gas powered stations. So, use natural gas as long as we need to. Augment with hydro-electric, solar and wind where practical, but until those mature and storage capacity greatly advances, those will all be limited.

    I am currently 66 miles from an antiquated nuclear power generation station that was dubbed "The Most Unsafe Reactor in America". I also still have my hard copy of the 2005 National Academy of Sciences publication demonstrating that there is no amount of radiation leaked, or otherwise created and escapes a nuclear power plant (a common occurrence most ignore) that is safe for humans. In nearly 20 years and a ton of industry bribing of government regulators, still no one has refuted that study with actual data.

    After working at Oak Ridge National Lab and having an insider exposure to recklessness of the US atomic/nuclear programs and the gross bribing and corruption that runs the Nuclear Regulatory Agency, I will take a HARD PASS on any type of power generation by uranium, thorium or any other mined, manipulated and transported radioactive materials.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2024
    • Informative Informative x 2