November 10, 2009

Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html?_r=1&ref=business&pagewanted=print


MOSCOW — What’s powering your home appliances?

For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it’s fuel from 
dismantled nuclear bombs, including Russian ones.

“It’s a great, easy source” of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an 
analyst at Renaissance Bank and an expert in the Russian nuclear 
industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the 
cold war.

But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn’t secured soon, the 
pipeline could run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as 
some American utilities and their Russian suppliers.

Already nervous about a supply gap, utilities operating America’s 104 
nuclear reactors are paying as much attention to President Obama’s 
efforts to conclude a new arms treaty as the Nobel Peace Prize committee 
did.

In the last two decades, nuclear disarmament has become an integral part 
of the electricity industry, little known to most Americans.

Salvaged bomb material now generates about 10 percent of electricity in 
the United States — by comparison, hydropower generates about 6 percent 
and solar, biomass, wind and geothermal together account for 3 percent.

Utilities have been loath to publicize the Russian bomb supply line for 
fear of spooking consumers: the fuel from missiles that may have once 
been aimed at your home may now be lighting it.

But at times, recycled Soviet bomb cores have made up the majority of 
the American market for low-enriched uranium fuel. Today, former bomb 
material from Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American 
nuclear reactors, while another 5 percent comes from American bombs, 
according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade association 
in Washington.

Treaties at the end of the cold war led to the decommissioning of 
thousands of warheads. Their energy-rich cores are converted into 
civilian reactor fuel.

In the United States, the agreements are portrayed as nonproliferation 
treaties — intended to prevent loose nukes in Russia.

In Russia, where the government argues that fissile materials are 
impenetrably secure already, the arms agreements are portrayed as a way 
to make it harder for the United States to reverse disarmament.

The program for dismantling and diluting the fuel cores of 
decommissioned Russian warheads — known informally as Megatons to 
Megawatts — is set to expire in 2013, just as the industry is trying to 
sell it forcefully as an alternative to coal-powered energy plants, 
which emit greenhouse gases.

Finding a substitute is a concern for utilities today because nuclear 
plants buy fuel three to five years in advance.

One potential new source is warheads that would become superfluous if 
the United States and Russia agree to new cuts under negotiations to 
renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires on Dec. 5.

Such negotiations revolve around the number of deployed weapons and 
delivery vehicles. There is no requirement in the treaty that bomb cores 
be destroyed. That is negotiated separately.

For the industry, that means that now, as in the past, there will be no 
direct correlation between the number of warheads decommissioned and the 
quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, also used in weapons, 
that the two countries declare surplus.

(This summer, Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia 
agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles of 500 to 1,100 and a limit 
on deployed warheads as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 
2,200 nuclear warheads and the Russians 2,800.)

Mr. Medvedev has reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to a 2000 agreement to 
dispose of plutonium, and both countries plan to convert that into 
reactor fuel as well.

An American diplomat and an official with a federal nuclear agency in 
Washington have confirmed, separately, that the two countries are 
quietly negotiating another agreement to continue diluting Russia’s 
highly enriched uranium after the expiration of Megatons to Megawatts, 
using some or all of the material from warheads likely to be taken out 
of the arsenals.

The government officials were not authorized to publicly discuss these 
efforts.

This possible successor deal to Megatons to Megawatts is known in the 
industry as HEU-2, for a High Enriched Uranium-2, and companies are 
rooting for it, according to Jeff Combs, president and owner of Ux 
Consulting, a company tracking uranium fuel pricing.

“You can look at it like a couple of very large uranium mines,” he said 
of the fissile material that would result from the program.

American reactors would not shut down without a deal; utilities could 
turn to commercial imports, which would most likely be much more expensive.

Enriching raw uranium is more expensive than converting highly enriched 
uranium to fuel grade.

To make fuel for electricity-generating reactors, uranium is enriched to 
less than 5 percent of the isotope U-235. To make weapons, it is 
enriched to about 90 percent U-235.

The United States Enrichment Corporation, a private company spun off 
from the Department of Energy in the 1990s, is the treaty-designated 
agent on the Russian imports. It, in turn, sells the fuel to utilities 
at prevailing market prices, an arrangement that at times has angered 
the Russians.

Since Megatons to Megawatts has existed, American utilities operating 
nuclear power plants, like Pacific Gas & Electric or Constellation 
Energy, have benefited as the abundance of fuel that came onto the 
market drastically reduced overall prices and created savings that were 
ultimately passed along to consumers and shareholders.

Nuclear industry giants like Areva, the French company; the United 
States Enrichment Corporation and Nuclear Fuel Services, another 
American company; and Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, 
are deeply involved in recycling weapons material and will need new 
supplies to continue that side of their businesses.

In the United States, domestic weapons recycling programs are smaller in 
scale and would be no replacement for Megatons for Megawatts. The 
Nuclear Fuel Services, in Erwin, Tenn., in 2005 began diluting uranium 
from the 217 tons the government declared surplus; so far 125 tons have 
been processed. It is used at the Tennessee Valley Authority plant.

The American plutonium recycling program is also well under way at a 
factory being built at the Energy Department’s Savannah River site in 
South Carolina to dismantle warheads from the American arsenal; a type 
of plutonium fuel, called mixed-oxide fuel, will come on the market in 2017.

In total, the 34 tons to be recycled there are expected to generate 
enough electricity for a million American homes for 50 years.

-- 
================================
George Antunes, Political Science Dept
University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204 
Voice: 713-743-3923  Fax: 713-743-3927
Mail: antunes at uh dot edu

***********************************
* POST TO [email protected] *
***********************************

Medianews mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.etskywarn.net/mailman/listinfo/medianews

Reply via email to