|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
USEC Calls for New Power Plant Fueled “Exclusively” by Former Nuclear Weapon Material By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — The head of the U.S. Enrichment Corp. — the sole U.S. producer of enriched uranium — proposed last week the development of a new nuclear power plant that would be powered solely by fuel produced from material taken from nuclear weapons (see GSN, March 26). USEC President and Chief Executive Officer William Timbers outlined his proposal for the “Isaiah Nuclear Energy Plant,” named after the biblical prophet who called for swords to be turned to plowshares, during a May 4 speech in New York before the Business Council for the United Nations. The new plant would be created in the United States through a “private-sector initiative backed by the government” and would include a 1,000-megawatt reactor to be powered “exclusively” by fuel produced through the blending down of highly enriched uranium (HEU) taken from nuclear warheads, Timbers said. The reactor’s initial core would contain fuel produced from 3 metric tons of weapon-grade highly enriched uranium, which would amount to the elimination of more than 100 nuclear weapons, Timbers said. Each refueling would use fuel produced from about 25 additional warheads, he said, adding that over the lifetime of the reactor the equivalent of “more than 2,000 nuclear warheads” would be eliminated through conversion into Isaiah reactor fuel. Isaiah could be the first in a series of “five, 10, 20 or any number” of new nuclear power plants in the United States to be powered by fuel produced in part by material taken from nuclear weapons, Timbers said. He added that such plants would serve both energy and nonproliferation needs. “These power reactors could be generating thousands of megawatts of electricity and eliminating thousands of potential nuclear weapons at the same time,” he said. In a telephone interview today with Global Security Newswire, Greenpeace International senior adviser Tom Clements said the proposal was merely an attempt by the nuclear power industry to obtain government subsidies for construction of new nuclear power plants. He accused the industry of attempting to “cloak” the issue as one of nonproliferation, and he said the debate over the construction of new nuclear power plants in the United States would probably revolve around cost concerns. While he did not quote a specific dollar amount, USEC spokesman Charles Yulish said the Isaiah plant’s cost would be roughly equivalent to facilities now in operation. Nuclear reactors in the United States are already able to use fuel from recycled nuclear weapons. Yulish told GSN that there should be a “mutual alliance” between the nuclear power industry and the nonproliferation community. USEC is already involved in another project that seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons by converting nuclear warhead materials into civilian nuclear fuel — the U.S.-Russian Megatons to Megawatts program. The effort, which took effect in 1994, seeks to remove 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from Russian nuclear weapons for conversion to civilian nuclear power plant fuel by 2013. USEC, the U.S. commercial agent for the program, has said the effort to date has eliminated the equivalent of 8,000 nuclear warheads and has provided enough nuclear fuel to power a city the size of Boston for about 300 years. The Isaiah reactor “would build upon a pretty impressive record,” Timbers said. “It’s worth repeating that nuclear warheads that were once aimed at American targets are generating electricity to light and power those communities. What a change from the days of duck and cover and bomb shelters,” he said. Yulish said that Timbers “broached” the idea of the Isaiah plant during a conversation last fall with Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency chief Alexander Rumyantsev, who said that Russia was interested in the proposal. USEC has also been in discussions with U.S. agencies such as the National Nuclear Security Administration, which have also expressed interest, though “not with a capital I,” Yulish said. In his speech last week, Timbers also discussed a nuclear nonproliferation proposal put forward separately by the Bush administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency — a freeze on the development of uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing facilities. While describing the proposal as “bold and challenging” Timbers also said that the international commercial nuclear fuel industry must be involved along with government and international agencies in any discussions on new restrictions (see GSN, April 26). “If you have a global industry that already works quite well, and is safeguarded, you don’t want to damage it while trying to fix a different situation,” he said. Timbers said the private sector is capable of providing necessary “assurances” to countries seeking to build enrichment or reprocessing facilities that they could obtain nuclear power plant fuel if they abandon their efforts. Such assurances could include the creation of fuel reserves; the allocation of physical assets; or the creation of cross-producer guarantees, which would involve various uranium enrichment companies agreeing to support each other’s contracts. Timbers added that the private sector could also “back up” guarantees offered by nations with “appropriate materials and value.” “We feel that the nuclear fuel supply issues, for countries that are prepared to give up the pursuit of uranium enrichment, can be resolved. It can be done,” Timbers said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
