this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
219 points (97.4% liked)

World News

32510 readers
493 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Not exactly breaking news (article is from June 14, 2023), but as it's not known or discussed widely, I thought its ok to post.

I'm also adding a short commentary (that can be used as a summary) from Urs P. Gasche, published on the independent news site infosperber.ch. (Translated with GPT, left-out parts reference the nyt-article)

In the USA, electricity is consumed and wasted as if Russia were not waging war against Ukraine. Every year, American energy corporations transfer around a billion dollars to the Russian Rosatom corporation for cheap enriched uranium. [...]

Rosatom belongs to the Russian state and produces low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants and highly enriched uranium for military purposes. The USA imports about a third of the enriched uranium needed for nuclear power plants from Russia. It is cheapest there. "The US payments go to a subsidiary of Rosatom, which in turn is closely intertwined with the Russian military apparatus," [...]

In order to halve the US's CO2 emissions, the capacity of nuclear power plants would need to be doubled, estimates the US Department of Energy. The company TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates, plans to enrich uranium one day in a decommissioned coal mine in the US state of Wyoming. A centrifuge factory is also planned in Ohio. "But years will pass and more state subsidies are needed," [...]

In the meantime, the USA could reduce their power consumption with savings programs, calls to the economy and households, and financial duties, in order not to finance the Russian war machinery as much as possible. However, such a savings policy, which is useful anyway, is not popular in the USA. As a result, Democrat Joe Manchin III, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, had to resign resignedly:

"We cannot make ourselves hostages to nations that do not share our values, but that is exactly what has happened."

Europe, on the other hand, has taken action: most countries voluntarily forego a lot of cheap Russian oil and even completely on Russian natural gas, so that Russia receives as little foreign currency as possible. In doing so, the countries of Europe accept high prices and inflation with all its consequences.

top 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 36 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The US could instead build a reactor to reprocess "spent nuclear fuel" and use it again for about the same price.

[–] AnotherPerson@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sauce me Daddy, that sounds HOT.

[–] Jourei@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Naturally they called it something horny sounding

[–] fleabomber@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Google thorium reactors. Apparently as a bonus, the half life is in the hundreds of years as opposed to thousands. The latest skeptics guide to the universe just did a bit in it.

[–] Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

isnt china already working on building one,
or am i mixing something up

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

India (unless China joined in). Because coincidentally they have a buttload of thorium deposits but not much uranium.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thorium is left over from mining rare earth elements.

The U.S. made that practice illegal and they are scrambling to get rare earth metals.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mining rare earth minerals laced with thorium. In China, you can store the thorium in a pile on site after the minerals are extracted.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And you're saying the US has banned mining thorium?

To be clear, India's thorium is still mostly in the ground.

[–] MisterD@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty much. It's radioactive so the policy experts banned it as far as tailings for mining other minerals.

[–] Galluf@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That's just flat out wrong. Reprocessing is significantly more expensive at current uranium prices.

And so many states would throw up tons of roadblocks for reactors shipping their used fuel offsite to a central reprocessing facility.

[–] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Canada has an abundance of raw material.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The us could also use other energy sources...

[–] lasagna@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

If only stupidity generated power then perhaps we'd have endless energy.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the USA buys the uranium in part due to nuclear proliferation reasons.

[–] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They could just not buy uranium at all...

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then who buys the uranium?

I'm saying that the USA buys the uranium to keep others from buying it.

[–] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And we're just ignoring the whole weapons proliferation side of things?

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that actually a realistic concern? I don't know much about it, but I don't see how reprocessing is any more dangerous than importation.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 year ago

It is. Any time you have the facilities to pull nuclear waste apart pulling plutonium out becomes a risk.

[–] natryamar@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah isn't weapons grade plutonium a byproduct of recycling nuclear fuel?

[–] Galluf@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, not directly. You'd have to divert it and only irradiate it for short periods of time (30 days rather than the 18 to 24 month cycles that current plants have).

Proliferation isn't a significant concern for reprocessing within the US. It's primarily a concern for other non nuclear weapons countries that start it because they can then create nuclear weapons.

The US has no need to do that. They have more plutonium than they need for current weapons and it has a half life in the hundreds of thousands of years so it will last forever.

[–] ThreeHalflings@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Storage of easily enriched material to prevent theft is a concern, especially given the number of incidents with jokers photographing themselves inside nuclear facilities and the results of FBI testing of nuclear site security protocols.

Additionally, given the ridiculously long half life of the products, you get into conversations about what happens on the thousands of years time scale in which it's not reasonable to think that any given state remains politically stable.

[–] wagesof@links.wageoffsite.com 1 points 1 year ago

No, but the technology and equipment required for the reprocessing can be converted to plutonium creation with little effort.

[–] Umbra@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, Russia is the biggest exporter of nuclear fuel.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

It's honestly kind of hilarious how people are continually shocked to discover that a globalised market doesn't just mean everyone wears Levi's.

[–] geissi@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I thought that was Kazakhstan?

[–] Umbra@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago

Maybe uranium ore but it needs to be enriched and processed to be ready for use in nuclear reactors.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Remember that time we bought titanium from them during the Cold War?

[–] miles@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I love U 235

load more comments
view more: next ›