[ RadSafe ] NPT, Reprocessing & Mining Issues

Dan W McCarn hotgreenchile at gmail.com
Thu Oct 2 17:25:43 CDT 2008 

Dear Philip:

Spot market and long-term contract price are somewhat different.  The
average long-tern contract price currently is higher than spot.  I'm glad to
see that my old friend, Dick Clement of Powertech, seems to be keeping his
drill rigs busy in Colorado.

Dan ii

 

  _____  

From: Philip Egidi [mailto:pvegidi at smtpgate.dphe.state.co.us] 
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:13 PM
To: Dan W McCarn; Daren' 'Perrero; radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: Ken' 'Peterson
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] NPT, Reprocessing & Mining Issues

 

Good points all, however, I would add that uranium is down to about $53.00
per pound this week, down from about $65 just in June.  Compare that to
$138/lb in July 2007 (thanks to the speculators).  This is the slowest boom
I have seen.  Add to that all the uncertainty about credit in the markets,
etc., and it becomes less likely that financing at affordable rates will be
available in the short term.

 

Reprocessing will require serious research and investment since the previous
methods in the US yielded copious amounts of high level mixed waste, and
considerable amounts of pollution.  Until it can be demonstrated that it can
be done safely in this country, reprocessing will have an uphill battle.
The up front costs to design and build the infrastructure without a
guarantee of success makes it highly risky in the market place.  

 

Of course, (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) since it appears we are
going towards a socialized democracy (at least this week), perhaps the
government would be willing to spread those risks out among all the
taxpayers for "the common good."  Now if we could just get them to fix, I
mean subsidize, Social Security, our ageing infrastructure, and
transportation industries, we'd be set. 

 

While you point out examples of perceived foot dragging on licensing, in
Colorado we have fixed time frames in Statute to turn uranium milling
applications around in a timely manner.  We have no control over the timing
of the appeals process, so that may extend time frames.  Methinks the market
is the primary obstacle, not State regulators (of course I am a little
biased on that since I are one).

Phil Egidi

>>> Dan W McCarn <hotgreenchile at gmail.com> 10/2/2008 3:27 PM >>>
Dear Daren:

Yes, that is my recollection as well.  I think that Carter's ban on
reprocessing was intended to send a signal to the rest of the world
regarding the NPT and non-proliferation, but also that the cost of a full
nuclear fuel cycle (as apposed to once-through) did not make it an
economically attractive possibility. Recall also that U-Nat (U3O8) peaked at
$40 / lb U3O8 which was considered almost breakeven for a full fuel cycle.
Since the price of U-Nat fell to about $7.50 / lb U3O8 shortly after 1980,
there was no chance in the 80s or 90s through 2003 to reconsider the
economics of a full fuel cycle.  Perhaps in light of the current long-term
contract price of U3O8 is now about $80 / lb, some economic consideration
will be again given to reprocessing fuel.

Inventory, Licensing & Politics:
An argument can be perhaps made that the artificial scarcity of uranium
makes reprocessing a viable possibility in the near future.  Given the
depleted state of inventories, by artificial scarcity, I mean that the
licensing and permitting times for new mining operations have been
unreasonably long lately; permitting a single exploration well this summer
in Mexico took over 3 months.  This issue has been, in part, reflected by
the 6th US Appeals Court this summer regarding NRC's ability to issue a
uranium mining license, but has a political backdrop that should make
potential investors uneasy at the long projected times until production
(positive cash flow) can reasonably be achieved.  State officials, however,
seem to have taken advantage of the uncertainty by delaying very basic and
normal aspects of prospection.  Some of you may recall the 6th Appeals Court
decision regarding the NRC and the State of Utah about an interim storage
facility.  The court then considered Utah's requirements excessive and that
the NRC had full authority to license and regulate.

State officials have also delayed energy exploration in other sectors as
well including oil shale by tying-up exploration permits.

Since fuel destined for Yucca Mountain can still be safely retrieved for the
next 50+ years or more, reprocessing is still a viable option when the
economics become favorable.

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Perrero, Daren
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:59 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Cc: Peterson, Ken
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] RE: SCIENTIST PRESIDENT

Wasn't it during Carter's administration that, via the SALT talks, his
directive was issued that there would be no reprocessing of nuclear
fuel?

Daren Perrero
The opinions expressed are mine, all mine....
I'm with the government, I'm here to help you.
Daren.Perrero(a)Illinois.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Edmond Baratta
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Peterson, Ken; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RE: SCIENTIST PRESIDENT

I think Jimmy was a Nuclear Engineer.

Ed Baratta

edmond0033 at comcast.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peterson, Ken" <KPeterson at MarinetteMarine.com>
To: <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RE: SCIENTIST PRESIDENT




I don't think that is the answer:  Jimmy Carter was a physicist....

And so is Andrea Merkel, and while I consider her an order of magnitude 
brighter than either Presidential Candidate (and 10 orders of magnitude 
brighter than either VP), I don't know if you can call the current state
of 
Germany Nirvana - except maybe during Oktoberfest....

Ken Peterson
LCS Sustainment
Marinette Marine Corp.
1600 Ely St.
Marinette, WI 54143
715-735-9341


________________________________________________________________________
_

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sam Iverstine <sam_iverstine at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] [RadSafe]Mission to Mars---Fission Propulsion
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Message-ID: <3389.91310.qm at web50108.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Space exploration was the main impetus that got myself and many other 
scientists interested in science [I actually thought becoming a health 
physicist with nuclear navy background would qualifiy me to do work on 
spacecraft]. Even if the space exploration challenge is pie in the sky,
it 
still motivates me to this day to do better science. Perhaps
over-extended 
space exploration will motivate a generation of scientists and the US
will 
one day have a scientist president (vs. lawyer) and we will all achive 
nirvanna and have Plato's philosopher-king as our leader.

Cheers!

Sam Iverstine, MS, CHP

*********************************************************************
Export Controls and Restrictions:

Information including any attachments contained in this electronic 
submission may contain information or technology the export or re-export
of 
which is restricted by U.S. export laws and regulations.  By viewing
this 
e-mail and any attachments, the recipient agrees to the following:  (1)
the 
recipient's use of this e-mail and any attachments shall comply with all

applicable laws, rules and regulations, including, without limitation,
U.S. 
export laws and regulations, and (2) the recipient may not transfer or 
otherwise export or re-export any information or technology contained in

this e-mail or any attachment except in full compliance with the export 
controls administered by the U.S.
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list