DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle FCIX2008 ExpansionExpansion ofof WorldWorld TWFN Auditorium FuelFuel CycleCycle FacilitiesFacilities NRC 17 June 2008 Steve Kidd, Director of Strategy & Research 2 The nuclear fuel cycle Conversion Mining Enrichment Uranium Fuel Plutonium fabrication Waste Reprocessing Nuclear Power Plant 3 Cost of 1 kg of enriched uranium Uranium 9 kg U308 $25 per lb 495 Conversion 7.6 kg U $13 per kg 99 Enrichment 7 SWU $135 per SWU 945 Fabrication 1 kg $300 per kg 300 Total $1839 Need about 20 tonnes of enriched uranium for an average large reactor refuel, so cost will be about $40 million Total front end world market is now worth about $15 billion annually 4 Will the future look like this? Help, we need Sorry, more! we are out of material. 5 6 supply WNA worldreactorsandreference case 100000 120000 140000 160000 20000 40000 60000 80000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Requirements Lower Requirements Reference Requirements Upper Primary Uranium Reference HEU Downblended Reference DOE Sales,Reference DOE Tails Re-enrichment, Reference Western &Reference TailsRe-enrichment Russia, Lower Reference & Upper Recycling, Russian LEU Export Reduction Inventory Reference & Upperr Ex-Military Lower& MOX, Reference 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 WNA implied requirement for primary uranium production 160000 140000 120000 100000 tonnes U80000 60000 40000 20000 7 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Requirements Lower minus Secondary Upper Requirements Reference minus Secondary Upper Requirements201 Upper5 minus Secondary Upper 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Spot uranium prices – current 8 9 Western worlduranium demand&supply 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 0 Reactor Requirements Reactor Africa South Gabon Australia 1945 1948 1951 1954 1957 1960 1963 1966 USA Namibia Canada 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 France Others Niger 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 Global distribution of uranium resources 10 Major uranium operations Rabbit Lake Angarsk (Cameco) Russia (Russian Govt) Key Lake (Cameco, Cogema) McLean (Cameco) Springfields (BNF) Blind River Kazakhstan Crow Butte (Cameco) Pierrelatte (Areva) Jouac (Cameco, Kepco Res.) (Cogema) Highland Uzbekistan Metropolis (Cameco) (Honywell) Christensen Ranch Arlit + Akouta (Cogema, Fuel Internat.) (Cogema, State of Niger, OURD) Ranger (Rio, Cameco, Cogema, JAURDC) Rossing Converters (Rio, State of Iran, State of Sth Africa) Vaal Reefs Beverley Olympic Dam (General Atomics) (Anglo) (WMC) 11 World uranium production 2006, tU Canada 9862 Australia 7594 Kazakhstan 5279 Niger 3431 Russia 3262 Namibia 3067 Uzbekistan 2260 USA 1762 Others 3009 Total 39526 12 Top uranium mines 2006, tonnes U McArthur River 7200 Ranger 4026 Rossing 3077 Krasnokamensk 2900 Olympic Dam 2868 Rabbit Lake 1972 Akouta 1869 Arlit 1565 13 Companies producing uranium, 2006, tU Cameco 8038 KazAtomProm 4929 Rio Tinto 4870 Areva 4466 TVEL 3262 BHP Billiton 2868 Navoi 2260 Others 8883 Total 39526 14 Uranium production by mining method, 2006 Open pit 41% Underground 24% In situ leaching (ISL) 26% By-product 9% Total 100% 15 New Uranium Production by Country tonnes U (Projected startup, time to capacity will vary) 14,000 14,000 Russia 12615 US Kazakhstan 10,500 Africa 10,500 7,000 7,000 6075 3800 3,500 3,500 1300 385 0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007E 2008 Planned 16 Potential Future Production – Africa Annual Production Capacity - tonnes U 340 850 3270 1270 17 420 1100 Year represents projected start Ezulwini Buffelsfontein ~3650 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+ Trekkopje 5000 Kayelekera Langer Heinrich Expansion Valencia Bakouma - -up date; time to reach full capacity will vary RystKuil 1240 Imouraren 3800 Dominion Expansion Extension Rossing Potential Future Production – Australia Annual Production Capacity - tonnes U 0 0 0 7 5 5 ? ? Crocker Well Four Mile Ranger Extension ODM Expansion ODM Crocker Well Four Mile Ranger Extension ODM Expansion ODM 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+ Year represents projected start-up date; time to reach full capacity will vary 18 Potential Future Production – Canada Annual Production Capacity - tonnes U 1270 690-1385 McArthur Expansion ? 19 Year represents projected start Rabbit Lake Extension 6925 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+ 3075 -up date; time to reach full capacity will vary 2700 ? Cigar Lake (2011 earliest) Midwest Michelin Kiggavik 20 Year represents projected start projected Year represents Year represents projected start projected Year represents ? ? 2 Inkai Expansion 0 Potential FutureProduction– Kazakhstan Inkai Expansion 0 -Annual ProductionCapacity tonnes U 0 7 Irkol 50 1000 each 2008 2009West 2010Mynkuduk 2011 2012 2013+ South Zarechoye Inkai 2 Inkai 00 0 Kharasan 1 1 Kharasan 1 00 0 -3 00 - 0 - up date; time to reach full capacity will vary will full capacity reach to time date; up up date; time to reach full capacity will vary will full capacity reach to time date; up Kharassan 2 2 Kharassan 2 00 0 Budenvskoye expansion 2 Budenvskoye expansion 00 0 21 Year represents projected start projected Year represents Year represents projected start projected Year represents Potential Future Production – Production Potential Future Russia Annual Production Capacity -Annual ProductionCapacity tonnes U 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+ Khiagda 1000 - - up date; time to reach full capacity will vary will full capacity reach to time date; up up date; time to reach full capacity will vary will full capacity reach to time date; up Dalur Expansion 290 Elkon Deposits 50 00 Priargunsky Expansion 2000 Khiagda Expansion 1000 Potential Future Production – US Annual Production Capacity - tonnes U 250 ~ 770 385 22 Year represents projected start Christensen Ranch 540 White Mesa Mill/Mines ~385 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013+ Hobson Mill 150-385 -Wyoming Mines 800 Mill - Uranium 1 -up date; time to reach full capacity will vary Shootaring Gas Hills US ISR Cameco 800-1000 Honda Roca Uranium production plans of Kazakhstan 2006 5,279 tU 2007 6,637 tU 2008 9,500 tU 2009 15,000 tU 2010 18,000 tU 2011 19,000 tU 2015 onwards 25,000 tU per annum 23 Industry organisation in Kazakhstan • Continuing production from old mining areas – 3,000 – 4,000 tU per year • Joint ventures with Cameco (Inkai) and Areva (Katco) – each up to (eventually) 4000 tU per year • Investments by Uranium One in Akdala, South Inkai and Kharasan–1 deposits – up to 4,000 tU per year • Joint ventures with Japanese partners • Supply arrangements with other Japanese partners (could supply 40% of Japanese U demand – 5,000 tU) • Joint ventures with Russia • Further expected investments and supply arrangements with Korea and China 24 ISL mining 25 ISL mining - wellfield 26 ISL operation - process plant 27 Junior uranium companies - activities Uranium production 4 Mine 16 developm ent 83 Acquisiton of know n deposits 271 Exploration 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 28 Junior uranium companies – location of activities 11 Europe 17 Asia 19 Latin America 41 Africa 50 Unite d States 78 A u stralia 135 Canada 0 50 100 150 29 Future of secondary supplies • Can be regarded as previous uranium production, held off the market for an extended period • Will remain an important element in nuclear fuel supply • Ex-military materials – further HEU down- blending? • Government inventories • MOX and RepU fuel 30 MOX and RepU fuels • Reprocessing plants separate uranium and plutonium from used fuel • RepU is re-enriched by centrifuges or blending to produce fresh fuel • Extracted plutonium is introduced as the primary fissile element in MOX fuel • Major reprocessing plants in France and UK with one nearing completion in Japan • Could return as a major force – MOX plant in US, GNEP etc 31 UF6 conversion capacity, tU Cameco Canada 14,000 COMURHEX France 14,500 CNNC China 3,000 ConverDyn USA 15,000 Rosatom Russia 15,000 Westinghouse UK 6,000 Total 67,500 32 UO2 conversion capacity, tU Argentina 160 Canada 2700 China 200 India 435 Korea 400 Romania 150 Total 4045 33 Conversion – now and future • Market for conversion to UF6 has been quite tight • Clear shortfalls when plants have been “down” • Regional imbalance in supply – need for transport • Springfields facility in UK didn’t close as originally scheduled in 2006 – some relief to supply • Investment in expanded and new facilities • Possible increased access to surplus Russia capacity • Continued need for secondary supplies – particularly from down-blended Russian HEU 34 Enrichment - basics • 90% of current power reactors need fuel where the U-235 isotope is above the natural 0.71% (typically 3-5%) • Two main technologies – gaseous diffusion and centrifuges • Investment in laser enrichment so far unrewarded by commercial application • Large front-end expense for utilities • Effort expended is measured in separative work units (SWUs) • Significant part of capacity was historically developed for military requirements 35 Enrichment – supply • Four large suppliers of primary enrichment services – USEC, Eurodif (Areva), Urenco and Rosatom • USEC and Eurodif use gas diffusion • Urenco and Rosatom use centrifuges • JNFL and CNNC also primary suppliers • Heavy current investment in new centrifuge plants by USEC and Urenco in US and by Eurodif in France (and eventually US too) • Will SILEX prove commercially viable? 36 Enrichment capacities, 000 SWUs CNNC China 1,000 Eurodif France 10,800 JNFL Japan 1,050 Rosatom Russia 25,000 Urenco Germany 1,800 Netherlands 3,500 UK 3,700 USEC USA 11,300 Total 58,150 37 Georges Besse II Early 2008 (source :
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Low Enriched Uranium from France ITC Sunset Review Hearing
    Low Enriched Uranium From France ITC Sunset Review Hearing Daniel W. Klett Capital Trade Incorporated September 10, 2013 AREVA Presence in the U.S. Market is Significant AREVA's U.S. Market Share 25% 20% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Prehearing Staff Report at Table 11-10. Prepared by Capital Trade, Inc. Centrifuge Enrichment Is Capital Intensive and but Capacity can be Added Incrementally • "With centrifuge technology it is easy to add capacity with modular expansion, but it is inflexible and best run at full capacity with low operating cost." -Uranium Enrichment, World Nuclear Association (updated July 2013). • "While gaseous diffusion plants have the advantage of being less capital intensive than gaseous centrifuge plants, there appear to be a number of important advantages of the gaseous centrifuge facilities that render them technologically superior to the gas diffusion facilities, especially the more up-to-date centrifuge technologies. These include lower electrical costs, higher capacity utilization rates, and the ability to incrementally add gaseous centrifuge capacity based on market needs/' - Prehearing Staff Report at IV-11. Prepared by Capital Trade, Inc. AREVA's Georges Besse II Plant Will Outstrip Its Georges Besse I (Eurodif) Plant's Production by 2014 Enrichment: controlled technology transition EURODIF GBII Sales out of Inventories End of the legacy contract with EDF (2011-2012) Eurodif Georges BesseI PRODUCTION (SWUs) June 2012: Eurodif is shut down 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 A AREVA Overview - December 2012 p.106 Performance and objectives by BG ARE V A AREVA's Georges Besse II Plant Has Significant Capacity and the Ability to Expand That Capacity • "It will have a production capacity of 7.5 million SWU (Separative Work Units), which could be increased to 11 million SWU." - AREVA Press Release: Enrichment: Inauguration ofthe Georges Besse II Plant (December 14, 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • The French Nuclear Dream: Promises for Disillusion
    The French nuclear dream: promises for disillusion Nuclear energy might be marginal on a world-wide scale, but see how successful it can be in France, from an economical, industrial or environmental perspective! In view of such benefits, why not follow the French path? The idea deserves consideration: what lies behind the repetitive vulgate of an industry selling its technical and economical success, claiming that it guarantees French energy independency, protects the climate, controls its waste and preserves the environment, that it is safe against terrorism, etc.? What is the reality of the French nuclear experience in terms of industrial policy, safety, proliferation, waste management or economy? This chapter explores, on each of these issues, the gap between the talks and the facts. Global Chance Nuclear Power: the great illusion 34 Overview The nuclear industry in France – An overview French scientists contributed to the main stages in the discovery of radioactivity and its properties. Right after the Second World War, the country embarked on a nuclear development programme – initially military and then civil. The nuclear industry’s organisation is still heavily based upon the structures created at this key period, even if their status has developed. The Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique (CEA – Atomic Energy Commission), set up in 1946, was charged with overseeing the research and development, up to the industrial stage, of all the processes necessary for the military programme and subsequently for nuclear electricity generation, including the uranium extraction and fuel manufacture (upstream) stages and the management of spent fuel and waste (downstream). A branch of the public research body CEA was created to manage all its industrial activities, mainly through the Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema – General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company set up in 1976.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Orano December 31
    CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Orano December 31, 2019 Consolidated statement of income December December (in millions of euros) Note 31, 2018 31, 2019 (*) (**) REVENUE 3,787 3,623 Cost of sales (2,991) (3,007) GROSS MARGIN 796 617 Research and development expenses (101) (97) Marketing and sales expenses (39) (38) General expenses (112) (103) Other operating income 5 107 344 Other operating expenses 5 (183) (206) OPERATING INCOME 468 517 Share in net income of joint ventures and associates 14 (19) (10) Operating income after share in net income of joint ventures and 449 506 associates Income from cash and cash equivalents 24 24 Gross borrowing costs (222) (176) Net borrowing costs 7 (198) (152) Other financial income 865 191 Other financial expenses (627) (1,017) Other financial income and expenses 7 238 (826) NET FINANCIAL INCOME 40 (978) Income tax 8 (36) (70) NET INCOME FOR THE PERIOD 452 (542) NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO OWNERS OF THE PARENT 408 (544) NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO NON-CONTROLLING 44 2 INTERESTS (*) Application of IFRS 16 as of January 1, 2019 (see Note 1.3.1). (**) The comparative figures as of December 31, 2018 have been restated to take into account the change in the presentation of end-of-lifecycle operations (see Notes 1.3.1 and 36). Orano consolidated financial statements December 31, 2019 2 Comprehensive income December December (in millions of euros) Note 31, 2019 31, 2018 (*) Net income 452 (542) Other items not recyclable to the statement of income (57) 26 Actuarial gains and losses on employee benefits (54)
    [Show full text]
  • Impact on Exports and Nuclear Industry Could Not Be Determined
    4 r %,I * lVU/ (1333( BY Ti-iECOMPTROLLER GENERAi - Report ToThe Congress OF THEUNITED STATES U.S.Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy: Impact On Exports And Nuclear Industry Could Not Be Determined The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978 es- tablished new measures to prevent the diver- sion to weapons use of peaceful nuclear ex- ports. It also created a policy to confirm US. reliability as a nuclear supplier. GAO did not identify any export sales lost as a result of the Act, but did find indications that nonproliferation policiescan influenceex- port sales. Based on available data, GAO could not determine the impact of the Act on the competitiveness of U.S. nuclear exports. How- ever, U.S. companies are at some disadvantage because importers perceive that implementa- tion of the Act may result in delayed export licenses. The United States dominated the nuclear ex- port market through the early 1970s. How- ever, foreign competitors, some aided by U.S. technology transfers, emerged to monopolize home markets and compete for third-country business. Further, the market has been de- pressed since 1974 and prospects for U.S. nuclear power plant exports have dimmed 113371 greatly. However, U.S. companies continue to view exports as important to sustain produc- tion capacity. m-8042 SEPTEMBER 23.1980 . * For sale by: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Telephone (202) 783-3238 Members of Congress; heads of Federal, State, and local government agencies; members of the press; and libraries can obtain GAO documents from: U.S. General Accounting Office Document Handling and Information Services Facility P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • ASN Report Abstracts on the State of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection in France in 2007 M
    ASN report abstracts on the state of Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection in France in 2007 M 4 REGULATION OF NEW INSTALLATIONS THE NEW ASN The opposite is however the case with the other reactor-relat - ed fields, with the large French power reactor, Civaux 2, Rapidly expanding regulatory activity being completed about ten years ago. The last French research reactor (Orphée) was commissioned in the early ASN is devoting an ever-larger part of its work to regulating nineties. ASN has therefore made considerable efforts to new installations: EPR type reactor under construction at define a supervision and monitoring policy for new con - Flamanville, Georges Besse II enrichment plant in Tricastin, structions, that it formalised for the Flamanville 3 project. ITER fusion reactor, Jules Horowitz research reactor (RJH), The TSN Act now also gives ASN the ability to clarify the AGATE effluent treatment plant and MAGENTA fissile mate - authorisation decrees by means of technical requirements. rials store in Cadarache, ICEDA waste interim storage instal - ASN is currently working on drafting these requirements. lation on the EDF’s Bugey site, DIADEM irradiating waste interim storage installation and GAMMATEC industrial irra - Using the supervision and monitoring of new installations diator in Marcoule. This regulation kicks in at a very early to improve the safety of existing facilities stage in the design, in fact as of definition of the safety Finally, ASN makes use of the safety assessment work being options, so that ASN can influence the safety case choices. performed on new installations with the support of IRSN, in The practice of ASN issuing opinions on the safety options is order to improve the safety of existing facilities: in this way, henceforth enshrined in the regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • AREVA NC 2 Contents
    Expanding the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure by Building a New Uranium Enrichment Facility Pre-application Meeting with the NRC May 21, 2007 1 Participants X Michael McMurphy, Executive Sponsor X Sam Shakir, General Manager, Strategic Enrichment Program X Nicolas DeTurckheim, Project Director, George Besse II X George Harper, Technical Director X Bob Poyser, Project Manager, Site Selection X Antoine Genevois, Project Legal Council X Jim Curtiss, Winston & Strawn X Tyson Smith, Winston & Strawn AREVA NC 2 Contents 1. Overview of AREVA Michael McMurphy 2. AREVA’s Enrichment Operation Nicolas DeTurckheim 3. Why the U.S. Needs Additional Enrichment Capacity Sam Shakir 4. Overview of the New U.S. Project George Harper 5. The Project Structure Sam Shakir 6. Site Selection Bob Poyser 7. International Government Agreements Jim Curtiss 8. Licensing Approach Sam Shakir 9. Tails Management Sam Shakir 10.Proposed Pre-Application Schedule Sam Shakir 11.Wrap Up Sam Shakir AREVA NC 3 Our Long Term Business Objectives X Meet our strategic business plan of expanding the U.S. commercial nuclear infrastructure to ensure safe and secure supply of CO2 free nuclear energy X Provide domestic US supply to meet the growing demand for enrichment services X Our aim: Build a new enrichment facility in the U.S. using the ETC centrifuge technology Start production in 2013 Initial plant capacity of 3 million SWU per year AREVA NC 4 Key Considerations X Key considerations for this significant investment in US infrastructure 1.Short and predictable licensing process 2.Customer commitments to plant output 3.Supportive host state and community 4.Access to US tails disposal route AREVA NC 5 Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in France
    Nuclear Power in France Dr. Luc H . Geraets Vice President, GDF SUEZ Nuclear Activities May 13, 2010 1 Nuclear Power in France (and Belgium) Dr. Luc H . Geraets Vice President, GDF SUEZ Nuclear Activities May 13, 2010 2 Agenda 1. Nuclear in France ()(and Belgium) in a nutshell 2. Early steps 3. From GCR to PWR 4. Fuel cycle 5. Wastes 6. Decommissioning 7. Research & Development 8. Nuclear capacity maintenance and growth 9. Economics 10. Human Resources & Public Acceptance 11. Risks Conclusions 3 Agenda 1. Nuclear in France ()(and Belgium) in a nutshell 2. Early steps 3. From GCR to PWR 4. Fuel cycle 5. Wastes 6. Decommissioning 7. Research & Development 8. Nuclear capacity maintenance and growth 9. Economics 10. Human Resources & Public Acceptance 11. Risks Conclusions 4 Nuclear Power in France in a nutshell 75% o f Frenc h e lec tr ic ity from nuc lear or ig in France world largest net exporter of power 9 Low cost of generation 9 Huge benefit on the trade balance (MEUR 3,000/year) Development of nuclear technology and exports 9 Reactors 9 Fuel products and services New build of Generation III under way 5 Nuclear in Belgium: GDF SUEZ nuclear legacy and legitimacy Stakeholder in Western first commercial PWRs 9 BR 3 (1962-1987) 9 Chooz A (1967-1991) Operato r o f 7 reacto r s in B el gi um (3 at Tihange and 4 at Doel) Tihange The Group capacities : 5 930 MW 9 Belgium 4 060 MW 9 France 1 170 MW (ChoozB and Tricastin) 9 Germany 700 MW (Unterweser, Gundremmingen B&C, Krümmel) Stre ngt hs 9 Independent from suppliers & vendors.
    [Show full text]
  • France's Nuclear Failures
    France’s Nuclear Failures The great illusion of nuclear energy greenpeace.org Catalysing an energy revolution The French nuclear Contents industry’s key players: 3 Introduction The Commissariat à l’Énergie Atomique (CEA – Atomic Energy 4 France’s nuclear ‘success story’: Commissariat) was established as a public corporation in 1946 and charged with overseeing research and development, up to a 50-year history of failures the industrial stage, of all processes necessary for the military 6 Climate change and energy security: programme and subsequently for nuclear electricity generation, including uranium extraction, fuel manufacture and nuclear power’s marginal contribution management of spent fuel and waste. Currently, CEA is a large French research organisation working mainly on energy and 8 Economics: defence technology. the underestimated costs of nuclear power A branch of the CEA was created to manage all its industrial 10 Safety: activities, mainly through the Compagnie Générale des Matières lessons learned or lessons still to come? Nucléaires (Cogema – General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976. In 2001, this merged 12 Security: with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva secrecy and unpredictable scenarios group. Currently, 96% of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. 14 Waste and decommissioning: Electricité de France (EDF) was established in 1946 through complex issues, unresolved problems nationalisation of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of 16 Proliferation: the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear imperialism, world at risk nuclear reactors in service in France.
    [Show full text]
  • Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status
    Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: 8 History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel A research report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials February 2010 Research Report 8 International Panel on Fissile Materials Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, Walt Patterson, Gennadi Pshakin, M.V. Ramana, Mycle Schneider, Tatsujiro Suzuki, Frank von Hippel www.fissilematerials.org February 2010 © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials ISBN 978-0-9819275-6-5 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License. To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM i 1 Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Frank von Hippel 1 2 Fast Breeder Reactors in France Mycle Schneider 17 3 India and Fast Breeder Reactors M. V. Ramana 37 4 Japan’s Plutonium Breeder Reactor and its Fuel Cycle Tatsujiro Suzuki 53 5 The USSR-Russia Fast-Neutron Reactor Program Gennadi Pshakin 63 6 Fast Breeder Reactors in the United Kingdom Walt Patterson 73 7 Fast Reactor Development in the United States Thomas B. Cochran, Harold A. Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel 89 Contributors 113 Fast Breeder Reactor Programs: History and Status Figures Overview: The Rise and Fall of Plutonium Breeder Reactors Figure 1.1 Plutonium breeding. 3 Figure 1.2 History of the price of uranium. 6 Figure 1.3 Funding in OECD countries. 7 Figure 1.4 Dose rate of separated transuranics.
    [Show full text]
  • 3Rd French National Report on Implementation of the Obligations of The
    3rd French national report on implementation of the obligations of the Convention on nuclear safety - Issued for the 2005 Peer review meeting - English version – Original report in French July 2004 Content Table of contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................5 1. General introduction.............................................................................................................................5 2. Main changes with respect to the 2nd French report.............................................................................7 2.1 Changes in nuclear safety supervision in 2002 .............................................................................7 2.2 Changes in the content of the third report with respect to the second report.................................7 2.3 Topical safety issues in France in 2004.........................................................................................7 3. Nuclear national policy and practices.................................................................................................12 3.1 General policy..............................................................................................................................12 3.2 Nuclear power plants...................................................................................................................12 3.3 Nuclear research reactors ...........................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Activity Report 2018 Summary
    Annual Activity Report 2018 Summary PROFILE SNFP INFORMATION ONǭTHEǭSHARE E ditorials 2 6 CAPITAL 103 Business card 4 6.1 Structure and evolution ofǾtheǾCompany’s Business model 6 share capital 104 6.2 Allocation of capital andǾvotingǾrights 105 MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION 107 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE YEAR 9 7 7.1 Statutory Auditors 108 1 1.1 Highlights of the year 10 7.2 Review of regulated agreements 1.2 Other highlights of the year 11 andǾcommitments 109 7.3 Injunctions and fi nes forǾanti-competitive practices 111 SITUATION AND ACTIVITIES 7.4 Observations of the Works Council 111 2 OF THE COMPANY AND ITSǭSUBSIDIARIES DURING THE 7.5 Payment terms 112 7.6 Information on loans granted to other PAST YEAR SNFP 13 companies covered byǾarticlesǾ 2.1 Simplifi ed organization chart of the group – L.Ǿ511-6 andǾR. 511-2-1-1-II ofǾtheǾFrench Subsidiaries, interests and branch offi ces 14 Monetary andǾFinancial Code 112 2.2 The group’s businesses 16 2.3 Research and Development activities 28 2.4 Financial position of the Company and the APPENDICES TO THE ANNUAL group during the past year 29 8 ACTIVITY REPORT 113 2.5 Foreseeable developments and future 8.1 Consolidated fi nancial statements – prospects 39 YearǾendedǾDecemberǾ31, 2018 114 2.6 Signifi cant events since the date of closing 40 8.2 Company fi nancial statements – Year ended DecemberǾ31, 2018 187 8.3 Statutory Auditors’ report on the RISKS AND SAFEGUARDS SNFP 41 consolidated fi nancial statements for the 3 3.1 Risk mapping and risk management year ended DecemberǾ31, 2018 209 processes 42 8.4 Statutory
    [Show full text]