Gold/Mining/Energy | What is Thorium


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: thorium who wrote (451)5/25/2007 10:15:57 PM
From: marcos   of 825
 
Check out the CMF - stockcharts.com 

.. just kept getting greener through the two down days ... on much lower volume the stock sold off quite moderately, even recovered a little today, it's as if selling has slacked off, the next volume increase is most likely to be spurred by buyers ... hard to say, ya never know, usual qualifiers apply, but it looks fine to me

Your synopsis of players and motivations in re the merger et al sounds like so many other situations of the kind - out with the old, and in with the new, takes time to get on track ... and definitely yes, a serious contract with some cash flow to it will change things, remove the fear of dilution for survival and replace it with something quite hopeful ... next week for that would be just fine -g-

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke5/27/2007 4:14:36 PM
   of 825
 
slightly off topic....Our nuclear future: Will new economic realities make plant construction profitable?


From the Huntsville Times
al.com 

Our nuclear future: Will new economic realities make plant construction profitable?

Sunday, May 27, 2007
By BRIAN LAWSON
Times Business Writer, brian.lawson@htimes.com


With concerns growing about greenhouse gas emissions, fuel costs taking a bigger bite out of operations budgets and a track record of good performance, TVA's nuclear power ambitions, once wildly uneconomical and nearly dead, are finding new life.

The utility, which provides power in seven states, including North Alabama, has $24 billion in debt, mostly from a canceled nuclear plant building spree into the early 1980s, but the economics of nuclear power have changed.

There is talk of a nuclear renaissance by the utility industry, with new reactor designs being considered and the never-completed Bellefonte plant near Scottsboro as one of two sites selected for potential use by a industry consortium that includes TVA. That project, dubbed NuStart, will seek a construction and operating permit beginning next year with hopes for a license being granted by 2011.

TVA has indicated strong interest in finishing the Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar in Tennessee, a $2 billion to $3 billion project, on the heels of the completion of its restart project of the 22-years-idle Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry near Athens.

TVA's restart of its Unit 1 reactor, after a five-year $1.8 billion project, is being watched closely, as the plant would mark the first reactor start-up in the U.S. since TVA's Watts Bar Unit 1 in 1996.

Browns Ferry Unit 1 went on line early Tuesday morning and was shut down early Thursday after efforts to fix a small hydraulic leak failed and some 600 gallons of non-radioactive hydraulic fluid spilled in the plant's turbine building.

TVA is taking a very deliberate - meaning several weeks - approach to the restart of Unit 1, raising the power level, testing systems, and bringing the power back down, with the goal of connecting back to the power grid full time this summer.

Unit 1, like Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry, is set to produce up to 1,155 megawatts of power, enough to light 650,000 homes.

It is too early to tell if there will be more nuclear plants in the future, but the nuclear industry is making plans in that direction. Melanie Lyons, spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, said 15 companies are considering some 33 plants around the country. There is licensing and permitting and financing that must take place, but Lyons said the NEI would like to see construction start on a new plant in 2010.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear energy specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a former TVA employee, said there are signs that point in both directions for future nuclear plant construction. He said the fact that TVA restarted Unit 1 speaks for itself. But, he added, if new reactors were as cost-effective as has been suggested, TVA would have likely put in a new reactor, for similar costs, instead of restarting a reactor that began operating in 1973.

"Because of that, if it's an indication of a revival, it is more likely existing plants having a longer lifetime," Lochbaum said. "I'm not so much convinced that it means a whole bunch of new plant construction. The price is still fairly high."

What's different?

Ironically, the same kinds of environmental concerns that gave nuclear power a black eye are helping fuel its reconsideration.

Greenhouse gas emissions, driven by sources such as large coal plants, are now regarded as a major concern by scientists and environmentalists. Since nuclear power doesn't have much in the way of emissions, it is being touted by the nuclear industry as a clean alternative to coal and natural gas plants and finding less public resistance as a result, according to industry surveys.

Jack Bailey, president of TVA's nuclear generation development, said the economics of clean air regulations are helping drive TVA's future planning for power generation. Bailey said TVA's coal plants, with an average age of 50, could run almost indefinitely, if the utility is willing to continue to pour money into the clean air technologies that would be required to keep them running.

"With nuclear against coal and gas, nuclear looks as competitive as any of the other alternatives," Bailey said. "There is not the risk of clean air regulations, and we are developing nuclear options in the event more regulations are imposed."

Along with environmental pressure, the facts that TVA already has permits for its large nuclear plant sites and much construction there is completed remove many of the costs and uncertainties central to any new nuclear plant construction.

That TVA can build, or rebuild, a reactor at a site like Browns Ferry also enables it to simply add to the existing work force at the plant, rather than establish a whole new staff, Bailey said.

Another factor is that while nuclear fuel costs have risen significantly in the past few years, Bailey said, fuel costs are a small part of the operations costs of a nuclear plant. When coal or natural gas prices rise, as has also been the case, the pinch is sharper because fuel is a much bigger piece of the operating costs for those kinds of plants, he said.

But TVA's nuclear program was not simply beset by cost overruns, the utility also had management problems at its plants, as cited by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Management problems and safety problems don't inspire public confidence, but the utility has turned around its performance record in the past decade.

TVA officials stress their commitment to doing things the right way and spending the millions of dollars annually for maintenance to operate the nuclear plants safely.

Ashok Bhatnagar, TVA Nuclear's senior vice president for nuclear operations, said TVA's restarts of Units 2 and 3 at Browns Ferry in the 1990s helped inform the process for Unit 1. The same kind of intense planning and troubleshooting would be employed at Watts Bar as well, he said.

"We start with the value of really detailed planning," Bhatnagar said. "We looked at this (Browns Ferry Unit 1) project five years ago and engaged in a very detailed planning and estimating process. There was a very good business case. It already had an operating license for the reactor, therefore the restart would be very predictable from a licensing standpoint. We had significant experience on Units 2 and 3, and they enjoyed excellent performance after restart."

Looking forward, back

The rods that power a nuclear plant are obviously radioactive and will remain that way for a very long time. As more nuclear power is generated, so is more waste. A central repository for the waste was supposed to have been created at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that site has had a series of problems, and its expected opening by 2010 is in considerable doubt.

TVA will continue to store its spent fuel rods on site, in pools or in dry cask storage, but the long-term problem remains.

There is the fact that the reactors TVA is running aren't getting any younger. There are plenty of new parts and components and much attention to maintenance, Bhatnagar said, but in any aging system, more problems tend to crop up.

Critics of the Unit 1 restart and the growing number of older plants getting licensed to run longer, including Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, maintain that letting the plants run longer and producing a higher rate of power invite potentially serious problems. He said the design of the reactors at Browns Ferry was flawed from the beginning and dismisses the recent years of good performance from Units 2 and 3, as "trying to drive a car using the rearview mirror."

Gunter said safety concerns remain, and he is surprised that the older reactors are being hailed as the start of a new era.

"It's like putting a Chevy Corvair back on the road and calling it a Prius," Gunter said.

TVA obviously sees it differently.

TVA's Bhatnagar said the utility has worked very hard to establish processes and procedures to ensure safety. He said the work at Unit 1 has shown the effectiveness and the consistency of TVA's management.

"What a really rewarding experience it's been for the people at Browns Ferry," he said. "The employees are elated. There is a deep sense of satisfaction in bringing the unit back to service. It was a lot of hard work, by very skilled technicians, excellent engineers and operators over a long period of time to bring this project to reality on time.

"There is a real sense of accomplishment."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Yorikke who wrote (472)5/27/2007 4:25:40 PM
From: russet1 Recommendation   of 825
 
Whacked out Sunday thought,...

Imagine hooking up a wave generator to our fingers.

Typing could generator power to run the computer.

And we could masturbate our way to energy self sufficiency :-[)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Yorikke who wrote (472)5/27/2007 8:43:52 PM
From: Yorikke   of 825
 
another slightly off-topic...Nuclear Industry Leaders Identify Challenges

Nuclear Industry Leaders Identify Challenges on Road to U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance

MIAMI, May 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Financial, regulatory and communications challenges are among those that still must be met to bring the emerging "nuclear energy renaissance" to fruition, Nuclear Energy Institute leaders told hundreds of industry executives assembled at NEI's three-day annual conference here.

"The outlook for nuclear energy is bright and growing brighter. But that is not the whole story," said NEI board Chairman John Rowe, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants.

The industry has proven its ability to operate nuclear power plants on a sustained basis at high levels of safety and efficiency at a time when demand for reliable electricity from clean-energy technologies is increasing. Despite this favorable situation, "significant regulatory, financial and infrastructure challenges stand between where we are and where we need to be," Rowe said.

He cited used nuclear fuel management, financing of capital-intensive projects, and future work force needs as among the key challenges facing the industry. In separate remarks during the conference's opening session, NEI President and CEO Frank L. "Skip" Bowman identified a need for improved communications to solidify political and public support among people and entities who are increasingly - but sometimes tenuously - embracing nuclear energy.

"Yes, we see growing support for nuclear energy because it is a carbon-free technology, but it is not unqualified or unambiguous support," Bowman said. "There are solid steps we can take - must take - to shore up that support, to make it less ambiguous, more solid, more sustainable."

More than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. They provide more than 70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants into the atmosphere, including renewable technologies and hydroelectric power plants.

As the nation looks to strengthen its energy security, meet future electricity needs and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, 16 energy companies and consortia over the past 18 months have announced their intention to file license applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as 30 new nuclear power plants.

"We are at long last moving to a time when generating companies will make business decisions to build new nuclear plants. I firmly believe that we will need 20 to 30 new plants by 2030 if we have any hope of addressing climate change and enhancing our energy security," Rowe said.

Against this backdrop, the federal government should develop an interim storage alternative for used nuclear fuel pending licensing and construction of the long-delayed geologic repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev.

"We must accept that the operation of a permanent disposal facility will not happen soon. We must establish a process under which the federal government takes title to spent fuel and moves it from reactor sites to one or more federal locations for consolidated interim storage," Rowe said.

On new nuclear plant financing, Rowe cautioned that "capital projects of this magnitude" typically are undertaken by companies with market values many times larger than even the largest U.S. electric power company.

The industry will have to summon the courage both to tell federal officials that the investment incentives contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are not sufficient and to admit to itself that, in the long run, "the federal government cannot and will not be the financier of first or even last resort," he said.

"While the federal government must play a role in providing the initial incentives to jump-start the industry, including most particularly a robust and workable loan guarantee program, over the long term both state regulators and the industry will have to step up if we are to successfully build the nuclear capacity the nation needs."

Bowman noted that states like Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia just this year have passed legislation encouraging new plant construction by providing higher assurance of investment recovery.

Nonetheless, he said, the industry must do a better job answering questions - in areas like safety, used fuel management and economics - that skeptics often raise when discussing increased reliance on nuclear energy.

"We must do a better job at engaging thoughtful people in a factual discussion. We must train and empower our people as ambassadors for nuclear energy," he said.

The theme for this year's conference, "The Changing Climate for Nuclear Energy," reflects the need to better manage shifting political and policy environments, Bowman said.

"Growing numbers of people want to believe that nuclear power should be a larger part of our nation's energy portfolio. It's up to us to give them reasons to believe. That's our biggest challenge."

The theme also reflects increasing concerns about the scientific phenomenon of global warming, said Bowman, a retired Navy admiral who recently served on a Military Advisory Board that examined the national security implications of climate change. The panel concluded that, even if the likelihood of catastrophic climate change is low, the potential consequences are immense and have negative implications on national security.

"We can add energy security impacts to the national security and military impacts, because we're dangerously dependent for energy on parts of the world most likely to experience political instability and social collapse, and whose values do not coincide with our own," Bowman said.

He lamented the findings of a Government Accountability Office study that revealed federal support for renewable, fossil and nuclear energy research and development has fallen by more than 85 percent in real terms from 1978 through 2005.

"We are deluding ourselves if we believe we have taken even the first steps necessary to address our energy and environmental challenges," Bowman said. "Only aggressive deployment of a portfolio of technologies - energy efficiency, renewables, advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration and nuclear energy - will reduce the upward trend in carbon dioxide emissions."

Nuclear energy "has the smallest environmental footprint of any major source of energy available today or likely to be available in the next 100 years," he noted.

---

The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available at nei.org 

Website: nei.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: russet who wrote (473)5/27/2007 8:46:11 PM
From: Yorikke   of 825
 
"And we could masturbate our way to energy self sufficiency :-[)"

What makes you think YOU could do that? Rhetorical....please don't bothering explaining....

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Yorikke who wrote (475)5/27/2007 11:09:41 PM
From: russet   of 825
 
It's all about the size of the wave of course :-[)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Yorikke who wrote (474)5/29/2007 12:42:57 PM
From: Diamond Daze   of 825
 
Last night on Showtime I was watching "Terror Cell" a Showtime series original.
I noticed the terrorists in the episodes were building a “dirty bomb” out of spent nuclear fuel rods. Seems that Hollywood gets the implications of what could happen. Thorium Powers Technology can reprocess all these spent fuel rods.
Food for thought…DD

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke5/30/2007 2:57:55 AM
   of 825
 
...another bit of rumbling along the net...like bits of gravel slipping off the side of volcano.....

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

THORIUM MAY BE THE SOLUTION TO MANY PROBLEMS
antigreen.blogspot.com 

An email from Michael Martin-Smith [lagrangia@lagrangia.karoo.co.uk]

Last year I made, slightly tongue in cheek, the suggestion in an open letter to Ha'aretz that the confrontation over Iran's nuclear programme could be defused by offering to help that country develop reactors powered by Thorium rather than Uranium 235. I even proposed, that if Iran herself were to undertake the R&D as a nationalistic programme, the Iranians would not only achieve their nuclear ambitions, but also would win a technological/ commercial lead which they could legitimately exploit in the global economy. Furthermore, since a Thorium reactor would produce much lower levels of waste than present day reactors, and no Uranium or Plutonium, Iran would, by going down this path, achieve nuclear power generation without having to constantly deny an intention or even possibility of manufacturing nuclear weapons at all! Israeli leaders could give their Air Force Commanders a well earned break, and ease their fingers twitching, as they now are, nervously over their little red buttons.

Also, with much lower intensity of its nuclear wastes, the idea of a "dirty" terrorist bomb would be essentially nullified, since evidence is that low levels of waste do NOT justify the expensive and disruptive contamination exercise as carried out at Chernobyl, and which would be the principal aim of the putative terrorists of Al Qa'eda et al. In our radiation phobic culture, the frenzied reaction to such a "weapon" would be far more destructive of lives and welfare than an attitude of benign comparative neglect followed by regular medical checks; no I131, no carcinoma of thyroid, should simplify matters.Follow up studies at and near Chernobyl after 20 years suggest that such an approach would have worked as well as all the dislocation; with a Thorium based reactor,or an attempted terrorist "dirty bomb" based on Thorium generated wastes, this would be true a fortiori. A good response to terrorists is to refuse to be terrorised?

Come back, Terry Thomas and David Niven - such divine nonchalance would be a tonic to us all... I was delighted to learn in another recent article that within two-three years, scientists at Imperial College in London, together with counterparts in the USA, are to further investigate and develop the potential for Thorium based reactors.

Recent work at the Technion Institute in Israel, with collaboration at Russia's Kurchatov Institute, on the safe and economic glassification of low level wastes suggest that by 2010 or so , we may have at last learned how to "close the loop" in safe nuclear power generation - safer production, no risk of terrorism/proliferation, and safe disposal of fewer and less radioactive wastes.

Thorium, I understand, is actually more plentiful for miners than is Uranium, and would bring India (a major site of deposits) a considerable boon in economic development. An opportunity to save Iran's face, and avert the looming confrontation with its nuclear ambitions, bring wealth and development to a still struggling India, free us from Mid East oil, combat carbon dioxide emissions without penury or hyper-regulation, and buy time for Helium 3 based nuclear fusion and advanced space based solar power over the next 50 years or so? Such an opportunity is rare indeed; too good to be true? - I suspect not. But too good to be taken up - very likely!!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke5/31/2007 4:01:58 AM
   of 825
 
China opens nuclear power industry to private, foreign investors


Domestic and foreign companies will be allowed to invest in China's nuclear power generating projects but cannot hold a controlling stake, a senior official with the State Commission of Science and Technology for National Defense Industry said on Wednesday.

China is keen to boost development of the nuclear power industry.

Wang Yiren, head of the commission's No.2 system engineering department, said China is considering opening the nuclear fuel sector to foreign investors.

The country's draft nuclear energy law is being revised, Wang added.

According to China's longer-term development plan for the nuclear power industry, nuclear power capacity will increase to 40 million kw in 2020, with construction work beginning on at least three nuclear power generating units in each of the coming 10 years.

Currently, there are 10 commercial nuclear power generating units operational in China, including the No.1 unit at Tianwan nuclear power station in east China's Jiangsu Province, which came onstream on May 17. Their combined installed capacity stands at eight million kw.

The other nine units included Qinshan, Dayawan, and No 2 and 3 phases of Qinshan and Ling'ao. Four units are being built as the second phase of the Ling'ao project in south China's Guangdong Province and the second phase of the Qinshan project in eastern China's Zhejiang Province.

According to Wang Yiren, China's nuclear industry generated 54.8 billion kw/h of electricity last year, less than 2 percent of the nation's total.

The government wants the nuclear industry to contribute 4 percent of the nation's energy needs by 2020.

Wang said the Chinese government has strict controls on uranium ore prospecting and mining but allows foreign experts to assist Chinese geological authorities in their prospection efforts.

Wang noted uranium was mainly distributed in two huge inter-continental metallogenic zones, which both traverse the Chinese mainland. This is encouraging for China's chances of finding uranium.

China now has 300-plus research institutions and production firms devoted to nuclear technology, employing approximately 50,000 people.

Source: Xinhua

english.people.com.cn 

People's Daily Online --- english.people.com.cn 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke5/31/2007 2:25:30 PM
   of 825
 
Explained: Nicholas Burns' visit to Delhi

The Rediff Special/ Sheela Bhatt in New Delhi
rediff.com 

May 31, 2007

The untiring and affable United States Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is in New Delhi to close the nuclear cooperation deal, for which negotiations have been on for more than 20 months, amidst huge protests from both sides.

While Burns had said the deal is 90% done, the Indian side has been mum.

That's because, when Burns checked in on Thursday in New Delhi, the Indian still maintained that only 75 to 80 per cent of their demands were met.

The deal, which was on fast track since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George W Bush signed it on July 18, 2005, has been slowed down with the two sides negotiating the 123 Agreement, which will eventually take India out of the sphere of nuclear apartheid.

Of late, the parleys have been so intense that one of the recent meetings in Cape Town, South Africa, lasted seven hours, uninterrupted.

With the discussions considered to be in the last stages, a lot of criticism and last minute appeals have been surfacing now and then. However, the Prime Minister's Office is aware that protests as of today are not as shrill as they were earlier.

Sources in the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party claim that senior leaders Lal Kishenchand Advani and Arun Jaitely are not entirely against the deal even while Brajesh Mishra is influencing former prime minister Atal behari Vajapyee.

However, a highly-placed source in the MEA claims that, "The 123 Agreement will have all that was promised by Prime Minister Singh to the Parliament on August 17."

The source, not wanting to be named for this report, said: "People who are criticising the deal should understand that the deal is not only negotiated by M K Narayanan, S S Menon, Shyam Saran or S Jaishankar. On the table, Anil Kakodkar and two distinguished scientists of the Department of Atomic Energy are always present.

"R B Grover, the former head of Light Water reactors at BARC, is a nuclear scientist having vast experience. He is Kakodkar's close ally since many years, while N Raghuraman is also a technical expert with an international exposure. Both these scientists are part of the team who is negotiating 123 Agreement.

The Indian diplomats and Indian scientists are working together to clinch the best possible bargain for India."

So, in the final stage will India get what it wants?

The source in the MEA says that the last minute negotiations are not all about whether the 123 Agreement will allow India the option to test nuclear capacity again or not. Nor is it about the issue of reprocessing of nuclear fuel. There are other issues also, which haven't come in the public domain for which the bargaining is still on.

The source said: "In the sound and fury for and against the deal, an important thing to note is that the talks never broke down. The top leadership -- President Bush and PM Singh -- never backed out. Not even behind closed doors."

Yes, Dr Singh was defensive in the later part of 2006, as evident from his speeches in Parliament but he never asked to block the deal or talks, claims a source close to PM Singh.

In essence, Foreign Secretary Menon will have to nail whatever has been laid out by Saran's team in the last 20 months.

A member of the negotiating team, while talking off the record, said, "While Indian diplomats respect Dr Kakodkar for his pragmatism and dignity and salute Dr M R Srinivasan for inking the Tarapur deal for fuel supply -- it's the perfectly written deal -- India failed to continue getting the fuel.

"These deals are important, but more important are the powers the nation wields in international arena."

Another diplomat added: "After all, what matters is the power possessed by the country on the international platform with the combination of economic growth and military strength. "

The source in MEA also pointed out that the Hyde Act or the 123 Agreement can be "managed" but the real tough legislation is the US Atomic Energy Act.

China and Iran, in private conversations with the countries concerned with India's nuclear status, are quoting the US Atomic Energy Act to pose a challenge to India.

On the Indian side, not just the deal but even the negotiations are being severely criticised because the US wants India to separate the civil and weapons-making nuclear establishments which once done, is almost, an irreversible and risky process. Also, the US is reluctant to award India maneuvering capabilities to use the spent fuel in its own advantage.

The Indian critics say that the US is only interested in capping India's capacity to make bombs and actually dragging India to sign NPT. Another major charge is that the US will influence India's foreign policy once India becomes dependent for fuel supply on other countries.

This can have serious implications on India's security considerations vis-?-vis China and Pakistan.

But, those defending the deal claim that "deals are all about give and take."

Take the nuclear fuel now, when you want to grow and grow fast, they say. Import dual technology that is impossible to get now, come out of the sanctions regime and tough conditions that do not allow India's high-technology sector of weapons, space and engineering to grow, they argue.

Accept big-time investment, take the US businessmen on board now, and then, develop the thorium-based technology to produce energy, they emphasise.

These arguments are made by people who believe in Manmohan Singh's economics.

They think India wants money and not bombs to tackle the problems of poverty and agriculture. They argue that India already has the minimum nuclear deterrent and can silently push the scientists to activate the nuclear research.

Most importantly, Russia, France, UK and Australia have said that none of them can provide fuel or nuclear power plants without the US giving them the green signal.

So, the refrain goes, when you have to deal with the US, and why not deal faster and close the deal when India-friendly Bush is around? And, who knows what the Democrats will demand, if and when they come to power?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.