Reaching Out to the Next Generation

source: www.iaea.or.at

IAEA Hosts Hundreds of Students at Vienna HQ, Among Other Initiatives

Staff Report

12 December 2008

The IAEA is extending its reach to the next generation of potential nuclear practitioners. Approximately 2,500 students from all over the world visit the Agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria each year.

Students from high school up to the graduate level have the opportunity to learn about the IAEA’s work in the areas of safeguards and verification, nuclear science and applications, and nuclear safety and security. During their visits students get insight into the IAEA's critical work in less known yet all-important areas such as food security, health and child nutrition.

For example, the IAEA recently hosted a group of 25 Hungarian high school students, who were chosen from 2 small towns - Paks and Komlo. They were enthusiastic about the visit, and also got the chance to report on their vision of nuclear power.

IAEA staff from the Nuclear Energy and Public Information divisions dedicated an entire day to explaining and expounding upon the IAEA’s work in developed and developing countries around the world.

Ambassador and Resident Representative of Hungary, Ms. Györgyi Martin Zanathy and representative of the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority, Mr. Miklós Csuvár, both made presentations during the 28 October event. A Hungarian TV crew was also on hand and filmed the proceedings.

Oszvald Glöckler, Nuclear Power Engineer with the IAEA says, “This event is part of our effort to support education on issues of energy and international cooperation.”

The IAEA also has other outreach activities geared towards young people. It offers some job opportunities under a Junior Professional Officer programme, which gives young professionals a chance to gain work experience in an international environment.

The IAEA also accepts a limited number of interns each year. Internships are awarded to persons studying toward a university degree or who have recently received a degree. Interns are chosen from a number of fields including natural sciences, engineering, administration and management as well as the social sciences.

The IAEA has long been involved in the academic development of young people. Along with the Organisation For Economic Cooperation and Development´s Nuclear Energy Agency, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA has supported the World Nuclear University (WNU) Summer Institute since its inception in 2005. Each year, the Institute invites about 100 WNU Fellows from approximately 35 countries. They are selected on several criteria, including leadership potential.

These young professionals are educated in a broad range of activities, which include nuclear energy issues, team-building and leadership exercises, where some of the world’s notable experts in the field will tutor and lead the Fellows through the programme.

Nuclear Safety´s Long Horizon

Nuclear Installation Safety Takes Stage at Conference in India
Staff Report
17 November 2008
source: www.iaea.org

Potential newcomers to the world of nuclear electricity production are getting close attention this week in India. An international conference on topical nuclear safety issues in Mumbai will help them focus on what IAEA experts describe as "a hundred year horizon".

"Many new entrants are embarking on nuclear power," points out Mamdouh El-Shanawany, Head of the IAEA´s Safety Assessment Section. "It requires a 100-year commitment from the beginning to the end."

The conference provides an excellent opportunity for new and experienced nuclear power countries to learn about the infrastructure required for building and maintaining a safe and productive nuclear energy programme. The infrastructure includes legal, regulatory, technological, human and industrial support. The conference brings together top nuclear regulators from among the 145 IAEA Member States.

"You cannot design, construct, operate and eventually decommission a nuclear plant without proper safety infrastructure. Therefore, new entrants need to build their nuclear safety infrastructure 5-10 years before embarking on nuclear power," says Mr. El-Shanawany.

This year´s International Conference on Topical Issues in Nuclear Installation Safety will be held in Mumbai, India from 17-21 November 2008. The theme is Ensuring Safety for Sustainable Nuclear Development.

See Story Resource for more information.

Tvel pushes Russian nuclear energy with Slovak deal

Russia's nuclear industry has boosted its influence in the heart of Europe following a deal to supply more than half of Slovakia's electricity. The EU electricity generator says Russian nuclear fuel's now not just cheaper but safer than Western rivals.

Russian nuclear fuel leader Tvel beat off America's Westinghouse in the $630 million deal which will supply Slovakia with 57% of its electricity.

Paolo Ruzzini, CEO of Slovanske Elektrarne said Tvel was cheaper and safer than the US offer.

“All the items - first of all the safety level, the reliability that we have built up and of course the competitiveness of the overall process.”

Tvel's the world number three producer after Westinghouse and Areva. It already makes fuel here for the French giant. Yury Olenin, President of Tvel says as the nuclear industry grows, the number of players will fall.

“Synergies are being forced by the investment required for such high-tech development. Soon there'll be just a few big players, and they'll work together.”

Nuclear's star is on the rise. The Slovakian side tipped it to almost double to a quarter of Europe's energy mix over the next 12 years. On Monday India said Russia was favourite to build its 2 new reactors.

Tvel already supplies England, Germany and China as well as Iran. The firm complains privately that's despite French-lobbied restrictions on EU uranium imports.

This is uranium dioxide, the highly toxic core of Russian nuclear success. Experts say it's one of the few hi-tech sectors where Russia is truly world-class. Tvel's target now is to raise global market share from 17% to 25% by 2020.

Electricity generation from nuclear energy: IAEA, USDOE pledge support

Written by Ebele Orakpo

Monday, 17 November 2008

President Umaru Yar’Adua in the bid to improve electricity supply which is crucial to the realisation of Vision 20-2020, has reiterated the need for Nigeria to generate electricity from nuclear power plants. Electricity plant As a result, a five-day national workshop on Security of Radioactive Sources in Land and Marine Transport was organised by the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, and United States Department of Energy (USDOE). The workshop which was held at the Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Ikeja, Lagos was the 33rd public engagement the NNRA has organised over the past seven years for different operating organisations dealing with sources of ionizing radiation and nuclear materials in the country. A representative of the US Department of Energy (USDOE), Mark Hawk, in his goodwill message noted that Nigeria is the first country to hold a national workshop on security of radioactive sources in land and marine transport. He stated that USDOE and IAEA are pleased to work with countries in the area of training, pledging the readiness of the US Department of Energy and IAEA to support Nigeria in this area.

Mr. Vincent Nkong-Njock, of the IAEA in his address said the workshop was very timely “in the wake of many events that happened worldwide in 2001 which prompted the IAEA and member-states alike to act swiftly by coordinating the response of the international community to the threats caused by illicit trafficking of nuclear and radioactive materials and it is also expected to foster a better understanding of the nature of the threats of potential malevolent use, on ways to diminish the likelihood of such threats occurring and on the necessary measures for preparedness and response in case they do actually occur.”

Declaring the workshop open, chairman of the occasion, the Commandant-General, National Security and Civil Defence Corps, Dr. John Abolurin, represented by the Deputy Commandant-General, National Security and Civil Defence Corps, Sulleiman Bello said the objective of the workshop was to sensitise handlers, transporters, Clearing and Forwarding agents and users of radiation sources on ensuring safety and security during transportation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and other regulations made pursuant to it.

He noted that movement of nuclear material and radioactive sources of significance are now common place in Nigeria, stating that in 2003, “we moved fissile materials to the Research Reactor in Zaria. Furthermore, in 2006, we also moved more than 300,000 Ci of radioactive materials to the Gamma Irradiation Facility in Sheda. Additionally, many high-risk radioactive sources are transported around the country on a daily basis for various uses especially in the petroleum industry, which is the largest importer and user of radioactive materials in the country. Thus, the role of transporters will ever become more crucial.”

In his keynote address, the Director-General of NNRA, Prof. Shamsideen Elegba noted that “this national project will involve the transportation of nuclear fuel into the country and within the country by water, by rail and by road. Nigeria is already a party to all the international conventions and treaties dealing with safety and security of radioactive sources and nuclear materials. This is part of our preparation for a successful nuclear power project,” he said.

According to the organisers, “the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority has the statutory responsibility under the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act 19 of 1995, for nuclear safety and radiological protection regulation. The NNRA is, therefore, empowered to categorise and license activities involving the handling and transportation of radioactive sources.

Our national experience since the inception of the agency has shown that radiological incidents and accidents, especially loss of control of radioactive sources, have occurred most frequently during transportation. This thus forms the weakest link in the chain of Import-Export-Use-Transport-Export of radioactive sources.”
source: www.vanguardngr.com

Nuclear energy is clean and efficient

source: www.desmoinesregister.com

President-elect Barack Obama needs to include nuclear energy in his plans to address our energy needs. While he says he supports the use of nuclear power, his comments that we should not build new plants until we solve the waste problem require a political solution.

Scientifically we know how to have less waste and treat what waste there is. The weapons proliferation fears of the 1970s created the political barrier to executing this strategy. The volume of nuclear waste is more than a million times smaller than the waste from burning coal and has been stored at plants across the country since the beginning of U.S. nuclear power in 1958.

The volume of waste produced since then in its current form would cover one football field to a depth of 20 feet - not a huge problem. What is not so easily solved is our need for more electricity, which the Department of Energy predicts will grow by 25 percent by 2030.

That much power cannot be effectively produced with alternatives because we just cannot build that many windmills (that produce power only when there is the right amount of wind) and certainly not with fossil fuels (that we are trying to avoid because of climate change and air pollution).

I have been an environmental professional since 1997, and there are no sustainable primary-power options with carbon emissions to the environment as low as nuclear. We can even build reactors to create more fuel than they use - truly, a renewable-fuel source. There are applications submitted for more than 30 new nuclear plants that utilities want to build. These need to move forward.

We need to start building the facilities that will deliver clean, abundant and domestic energy. And we should build 200, not 30.

- Thomas Draur, Johnston

West queries IAEA aid for Syria during atomic probe

Fri Nov 14, 2008
source: www.reuters.com

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - Western powers have questioned an International Atomic Energy Agency offer to help Syria look into building a nuclear power plant while it is under investigation for alleged covert atomic activity, diplomats said on Friday.

But they said that whether the United States and close allies act to bar the "technical cooperation" project at an IAEA governors meeting in two weeks -- a rare and politically divisive step -- will depend on the findings of the agency's first investigative report on Syria due next week.

Diplomats tracking the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday that traces of uranium turned up in some test samples taken by IAEA inspectors from a Syrian site Washington says was a nascent atomic reactor before it was bombed by Israel in 2007.

The IAEA declined comment pending the report.

Syria has said the site was a disused military building and that U.S. intelligence driving the IAEA investigation is fabricated. It suggested that the uranium particles came with munitions Israel dropped on the site.

Some diplomats and analysts said the traces were more likely to have come from uranium that was at some stage of processing for fuel, but the origin remained unclear.

The IAEA was expected to caution that the findings warranted further investigation before conclusions could be drawn.

Vienna diplomats, who asked for anonymity, said the mere fact Syria was being probed over nuclear proliferation concerns meant that approving the nuclear power plant study now could send the wrong message.

A restricted IAEA document obtained by Reuters listed a proposal for a "technical and economic feasibility study and site selection" for a power station at a cost of $350,000 from 2009 through 2011.

OTHER PROJECTS NOT IN DISPUTE

This was one of eight draft technical cooperation (TC) projects in Syria of the sort the IAEA does in many member states seeking to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

TC plans come up for ratification by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors every November. Such projects must be approved by consensus.

The other seven projects listed for Syria had innocuous medical, farming or safety applications and diplomats said these would face no objections.

The United States, Britain and France -- among the biggest contributors of funding for IAEA aid projects -- aired the issue of power plant study in a meeting of Western diplomatic missions accredited to the IAEA, diplomats said.

"Eyebrows were raised and questions were posed about the timeline for this power plant study, whether it's premature before other issues are resolved," said one European diplomat.

"There was some question as to whether it would be appropriate first to assess Syria's energy needs," said another.

But diplomats said many delegations on the global governing body were loath to "politicize" IAEA technical aid without urgent reasons and Western powers were awaiting the IAEA report before deciding a course of action.

In a rare step, the board stripped Iran of some TC projects two years ago. But, unlike Syria, Iran had already been found by the IAEA to have hidden proliferation-sensitive activity and had come under U.N. sanctions which prohibited such IAEA aid.

Nuclear Recycling Could Be Emerging Technology in America

Nov 18, 2008 12:57 PM

source: www.kndo.com

Nuclear recycling is done in France, Japan, and now it's starting in Canada, but not in the U.S. When President Carter was in office he signed an order to ban nuclear recycling technology, but later President Reagan over turned it.

Today, there are many interests from American companies and the federal government. Companies like Energy Northwest think it's vital for the nuclear power industry.

At Energy Northwest gray domes hold all of the old nuclear fuel that they have used in the last 25 years.

"It's the only operating nuclear power station in the Pacific Northwest and it produces about enough electricity to run the city of Seattle," said Brad Peck, Energy Northwest Executive Project Manager.

Nuclear power from this plant has no green house gas emissions and the left over waste could all fit in a building the size of a convenience store.

"Nuclear power and the increase of cost of uranium in recent years has meant that the cost of fuel has gone up which makes recycling used fuel that much more attractive," said Peck.

Right now there is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear fuel.

"There's been talk of reprocessing for many years at this point no one has come forward with an application for a reprocessing facility in the U.S," said Michael Layton, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There are a lot of issues people have with nuclear energy, but out of the 104 nuclear plants in America that have been running for 30 years, there has not been one related death.

"I think as we take this next step and start recycling and close what we call the fuel cycle we will be much better off and we will see nuclear power take on a true renaissance," said Peck.

If a company wanted to build a nuclear fuel recycling facility they would have to get a license from the NRC. It would be a similar process that is needed to build a nuclear reactor. In the U.S. there are 30 applications to build new nuclear plants.

Crisis opens the door to a new nuclear era

Source: www.al.com

Thursday, June 26, 2008

FINALLY, THE nation is moving back to the future of alternative energy.

It took a new energy crisis and the emergence of climate change as a global issue to persuade U.S. leaders to embrace — in some cases, warily — nuclear power. Unfortunately, the lingering effects of Three Mile Island Syndrome lasted almost 30 years, causing the country that originally harnessed the atom to fall well behind Europe and Japan in developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy.

But with the price of carbon-based energy soaring and the search for ways to cut carbon emissions intensifying, nuclear power advocates have suddenly found powerful new allies in Washington, including the two men vying for the presidency.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, recently called for a major expansion of the nuclear power industry. Sen. McCain wants to see 45 new nuclear facilities come on line by 2030.

Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. McCain's likely Democratic foe, seems to be slowly warming up to nuclear power. During a meeting with the nation's governors last week, he said nuclear power was "not a panacea," but added that it was worth investigating with an eye toward future development.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement, but it's an improvement over the traditional anti-nuclear militancy of his party's left wing. Congressional Democrats also are quietly moving toward a more pro-nuclear stance. Many environmental activists aligned with the Democrats now realize there is no other energy alternative that has the potential to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2005 energy bill passed by Congress re-opened the door to nuclear power by providing federal loan guarantees to help companies with the massive cost of building new reactors. Currently, proposals for 15 new reactors are moving through the regulatory pipeline.

That falls far short of what the country needs to reduce pollution and escape dependence on foreign energy resources. According to a government study, if the U.S. power industry expanded its nuclear footprint to the same size as France's nuclear power industry, which provides 80 percent of that country's electricity, CO2 emissions in the United States would fall to the level specified by the Kyoto climate treaty.

Currently, nuclear plants supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The presidential candidates and congressional leaders should set a goal of more than doubling that percentage in the next 20 years.

Congress can help by removing regulatory obstacles and speeding up the glacial process of licensing nuclear facilities. In licensing and regulating nuclear plants, the government should take into account that the commercial nuclear power industry has a better safety record than any other power-generating industry.

The lack of nuclear waste disposal sites is the biggest obstacle to the growth of the nuclear industry. Obstructionists continue to block the development of a national waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Nuclear advocates may be stymied if they fail to make an all-out push for the Yucca Mountain project.

Fifty years ago, nuclear power was considered the wave of the future. But a lot of Americans are just now finding out that it's the cleanest, most efficient alternative to fossil fuels.

With the Three Mile Island hysteria finally behind us, the nation is ready to go nuclear, big-time.

The G 20 and the GCC Agenda

17/11/2008

When the world's powers gather together during the month of November in the United States to begin a series of meetings to discuss the global financial crisis, the Gulf Cooperation Council states (GCC - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) will be an important component of the discussion. While Saudi Arabia will be an active direct participant, the other GCC states will be keen listeners. To be sure, these states are impacted by the financial crisis just as much as other countries despite having large financial reserves based on their position as the world's most significant oil producers. In fact, the GCC states are likely to face a certain degree of pressure for an anticipated constructive role they will be expected to play. For example, US President Bush has already been suggesting that he is looking forward to the involvement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the summit. Similarly, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for the Gulf States to contribute to a new fund facility being created within the International Monetary Fund.

In this context, it is important to remember that the GCC states have traditionally played a stabilizing role whether in terms of financial markets through their investment decisions or by maintaining price equilibrium and stable supplies to the world's energy markets. This position will not change. However, it is important that the discussions on the current financial crisis not be limited to the present economic agenda only but that the meeting also considers the broader political context in which this crisis is occurring and being handled. For the GCC countries this is an important item on the overall agenda and it will be necessary for other participating countries, including the United States, to comprehend that solely seeing the position of the GCC states in economic terms is no longer sufficient.

The reason for a broader agenda is that the current global financial crisis cannot and should not be seen in isolation. It is indeed the culmination and manifestation of a series of interrelated unresolved problems, which have led to accumulated tensions in the international political, security and economic system, tensions that are causing deep fractures in the system itself. One way to compare the situation is to relate it to how earthquakes occur. Here, tectonic plates are constantly in movement, getting closer or farther from each other. Such movements create growing stress at the points of juncture between plates, stress which must be released either through multiple smaller adjustments (small earthquakes) or through a major, sometimes catastrophic event.

Today, we are witnessing a major earthquake whose epicenter is in the United States and in the financial system, but its origins are not exclusively in either of the two.

The global system has accumulated stress in many of the plates that constitute it. This includes the following, not necessarily exhaustive, list:

The international trade plate has seen rapid progress towards globalization, with shifting production of material goods from the traditional industrial countries to new emerging countries, creating greater and greater trade imbalances with growing problems for employment in the industrial countries and the progressive disappearance of industry. These trends are not sustainable, in the sense that if one extrapolates them into the future, one comes to a vision which is paradoxical and clearly unacceptable. So, something must be done: not necessarily a complete reversal of liberalization, but surely a less ideological implementation of free trade, with exceptions and a degree of state re-involvement in the economy. Signs of that are already evident.

The international energy system is characterized by a huge imbalance in the level of per capita energy consumption between the US and the rest of the industrial countries; between the industrial countries and the emerging countries; between even the emerging countries and the poorer countries, including almost the whole of Africa, where billions of people do not have access to commercial energy at all. Available reserves of fossil fuel together with environmental considerations clearly tell us that the current pattern of energy consumption in the industrial (and the GCC) countries is unsustainable. Something must change very radically if one wishes to be able to envision an acceptable scenario of the future.

The international security system has been characterized by the unchallenged and unchallengeable supremacy of a single superpower, but whose immense military might has proven totally ineffective to achieve the objectives that matter. The US has not been able to win the war either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and has found its hands tied with regard to Iran. As a result, the US is looking like a useless superpower - it has the might to destroy the world but cannot impose its will unilaterally. This is an untenable position in the long run. The non-proliferation file will probably be one on which things must change quite rapidly. Faced with the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy and the impossibility of keeping nuclear ambitions in check in Iran or North Korea or elsewhere, the nuclear powers will either have to admit defeat or finally accept a substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenals. A complete rethinking of the US military strategy in the coming months and years is one aspect that can be anticipated.

The international financial system is the easiest to understand just now. For years, the system has been based on deregulation and the massive encouragement of indebtedness for US consumers and enterprises, paralleled by growing government debt and trade deficit - all based on the thinking that this was the rest of the world's problem, not the US's. The rest of the world was expected to be forever happy to buy US assets - and it has been by and large, except that the system within the US itself at some point collapsed. It is very interesting that the crisis originated out of the mortgage market, not out of a global crisis of confidence in the US economy or the US dollar. That the US financial posture was untenable has been evident for years - but the IMF and everybody else hoped for a soft landing. Instead, the soft landing has turned into a crash with the result that the international financial system will have to obviously be established on new bases.

All of the above only substantiates the claim that one cannot simply tackle the financial crisis without at the same time also addressing some of the political issues. For the GCC states, this means that they must concentrate on a few key points:

Get from the United States a clear commitment that they will support regional integration – within the GCC and with the rest of the Arab countries. The US has been systematically sniping at the GCC and this must stop. In line with the above, the GCC states should seek a commitment to honestly work towards a regional security system that is based on progressively building mutual trust rather than on the military presence of the US in the region.

Get assurances that the trade system will be redesigned in a way that is not contrary to the interests of the GCC countries. This means a combination of openness to international trade with tolerance of state intervention which is geared to achieving developmental objectives. While this is very difficult to articulate in practice, the general idea is clear.

Get assurances that a major effort will be made to put the non-proliferation train back on track, which includes negotiating a substantial cut in the arsenal of the nuclear powers and putting pressure on all countries to become parties to the NPT

Get assurances that the new international financial system will not tolerate systematic imbalances, not even in the US, and that international investment will be free within well understood rules. There should be no discrimination against Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

Ask for US support for the four key diplomatic initiatives of Saudi Arabia with respect to regional crises:

King Abdullah's peace plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

King Abdullah's diplomatic initiative to start a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

The Saudi position towards a united Iraq in which all components share in power.

The engagement of Iran in a regional context.

All of the above are essential points and they represent a comprehensive framework that the GCC states should pursue as the discussion about resolving the present global financial crisis proceeds. Isolated and single point solutions will not work and it is time to adopt a broader approach.

Economics of Nuclear Technology

Author: Pranav Bhat

Nuclear Technology can also be used to produce ELECTRICITY which is very important according to economical condition of a country. Nuclear plant can produce more electricity than thermal or hydro electric plant.
Isotope produced using Nuclear Technology is used in many chemical and pharma companies.

1)Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
2)Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants.
3)In assessing the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are taken into account.

The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

External costs

The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in mid 2001 - ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include global warming.
The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.

Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost has been reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

The cost of fuel

From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it.
But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

Comparing electricity generation

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power.
Decommissioning costs are estimated at 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.
The back-end of the fuel cycle, including spent fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of spent fuel rather than reprocessing. The $18 billion US spent fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.
French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.
The cost of nuclear power generation has been dropping over the last decade. This is because declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and maintenance costs, while the plant concerned has been paid for, or at least is being paid off. In general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than
for coal- or gas-fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but once the plant is built the variables are minor.
In the past, long construction periods have pushed up financing costs. In Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance the new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in a little over four years.
Overall, OECD studies in teh 1990s showed a decreasing advantage of nuclear over coal. This trend was largely due to a decline in fossil fuel prices in the 1980s, and easy access to low-cost, clean coal, or gas. In the 1990s gas combined-cycle technology with low fuel prices was often the lowest cost option in Europe and North America. But the picture is changing.

Future cost competitiveness

The OECD does not expect investment costs in new nuclear generating plants to rise, as advanced reactor designs become standardised.
The future competitiveness of nuclear power will depend substantially on the additional costs which may accrue to coal generating plants. It is uncertain how the real costs of meeting targets for reducing sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed to fossil fuel plants.
Overall, and under current regulatory measures, the OECD expects nuclear to remain economically competitive with fossil fuel generation, except in regions where there is direct access to low cost fossil fuels.
In Australia, for example, coal-fired generating plants are close to both the mines supplying them and the main population centres, and large volumes of gas are available on low cost, long-term contracts.
A 1998 OECD comparative study showed that at a 5% discount rate, in 7 of 13 countries considering nuclear energy, it would be the preferred choice for new base-load capacity commissioned by 2010 (see Table below). At a 10% discount rate the advantage over coal would be maintained in only France, Russia and China.

FACTORS FAVOURING URANIUM
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

REPROCCESSING & MOX

There are other possible savings. For example, if spent fuel is reprocessed and the recovered plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
For different fuel costs (fossil fuels) or lead time (nuclear plants). Assumes 5% discount trate, 30 year life and 70% load factor. While the figures are out of date, the comparison remains relevant. Note that the key factor for fossil fuels is the high or low cost of fuels (top portion of bars), whereas nuclear power has a low proportion of fuel cost in total electricity cost and the key factor is the short or long lead time in planning and construction, hence investment cost (bottom portion of bars). Increasing the load factor thus benefits nuclear more than coal, and both these more than oil or gas. (OECD IEA 1992)

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/

IAEA Daily Press Review

The objective of the DPR is to present a general overview of international, English-language, media coverage of the IAEA and nuclear issues, that does not purport to be exhaustive. The following articles are obtained from external news sources for whose content the IAEA takes no responsibility.

10 March 2008

IAEA in the News

Iran Ready to Talk Nuclear With Europe Iran is ready to negotiate with Europe over the Islamic republic's nuclear program if there were would be ''meaningful and effective'' results, Iran's foreign minister said Sunday. AP

Iran's nuclear program: talk of international consortium Interest is growing in a possible US-Iran nuclear compromise that could enable sensitive atomic work on Iranian soil, lower the risks of proliferation, and ease Iran's isolation. CSMonitor

India - IAEA Pact Close But U.S. Nuclear Deal Clouded India is close to finalizing the text for an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but may fail to save a nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington that remains clouded in political uncertainty. Reuters

Other Nuclear News

Reformers Decry Iran President's Nuclear Rhetoric A leading Iranian reformist said on Sunday that "provocative" speeches had damaged Iran's nuclear cause and its diplomatic standing in a veiled attack on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reuters

Peres calls Iran 'greatest problem' in the world, but says Israel will not act alone President Shimon Peres on Sunday called Iran the world's "greatest problem" but said Israel would not act on its own against the Islamic nation's nuclear program. AP

Destruction of Iran's nuclear program good, if done by Israel, even better: Kuwaiti analyst The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be "less embarrassing" if it was done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday. AP

US renews calls for North Korea to declare nuclear programs The top U.S. envoy to South Korea renewed Washington's commitment to removing North Korea from U.S. terrorism and trade blacklists if the communist government fully accounts for its nuclear weapons programs. AP

'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to France Weapons-ready plutonium that terrorists could easily make into a nuclear bomb is to be carried hundreds of miles down the west coast of Britain in an unarmed ship, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The Independent

China's nuclear power expansion "faster than planned" China is expanding nuclear power construction plans faster than earlier planned, a senior energy official told state media on Saturday, saying installed power capacity by 2020 could be 50 percent above the initial goal. Reuters

Deep under Sweden's soil could lie a solution to the UK's nuclear waste problem Inside the cavernous hall of a nuclear storage plant in southern Sweden, an 18-tonne steel canister, bristling with tiny fins to draw out excess heat, is being hauled slowly through a hatch by a crane. The Times

Opinion and Analysis

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal Time

Don't Nuke The Deal The Times of India

Nuclear States’ Double Standards The Korea Times

Source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/

Nuclear States’ Double Standards

By Valerie Epps From time to time, the world community becomes concerned that a country, or other entity, not currently possessing nuclear weapons, might be on the road to acquiring them. First it was Iraq, then it was Iran or al-Qaida. Recently, the discussion has shifted to trying to persuade the North Koreans to abandon further development of nuclear weapons. Most people are rightly convinced that the fewer nuclear weapons there are, and the fewer people with access to such weapons, the better off we all are. But there is something decidedly odd about the structure of the legal argument about the right to possess nuclear weapons. Groups of nations have often come together to ban certain sorts of weapons. The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg prohibited certain explosive projectiles; biological weapons were outlawed in 1972; chemical weapons in 1993; land mines in 1997; and a long list of other weapons have also been declared illegal. These weapons were banned because they were perceived as violating the laws of war. Although soldiers are permitted to kill the enemy in warfare, weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to combatants are prohibited. Civilians may never be targeted in warfare and thus a weapon that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets violates the law, as does a weapon, which although targeting the military, in fact, kills a disproportionate number of civilians. Whenever there is sufficient sentiment to ban a weapon, states draft a treaty, work out the final language, and sign on to the ban. These treaties contemplate a total ban of the designated weapon. They do not list countries that are permitted to retain the prohibited weapon, nor do parties to such treaties indicate that states who chose not to ratify the treaty will be entirely free to acquire the banned weapon. Most of us learn early in our lives that if we expect rules that we set to be respected, we cannot promulgate the rule and, at the same time, grant ourselves a permanent exception. The main treaty that deals with nuclear weapons, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a very different and fundamentally flawed structure. This treaty specifically permits five states ― China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. ― to retain nuclear weapons, but any other party to the treaty must agree to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons. States that refuse to ratify the treaty, such as Cuba, Pakistan, India and Israel are free to acquire such weapons, and three of them have done so. Why are states and other entities so eager to retain or acquire nuclear weapons? The motive is the same whether a state already has such weapons or hopes to acquire them. Nuclear weapons are perceived as giving the possessor a huge military advantage. The determination on the part of the five nuclear declared states to create a structure that allows them to retain nuclear weapons while denying ownership to other nations, is exactly the same sort of determination that we see being brought to bear by states, and other non-state actors, to acquire such weapons. They all want military superiority. Should nuclear weapons be banned? Such weapons have the capacity to cause untold suffering indiscriminately to military and civilians alike. They can cause vast environmental and economic devastation, not only in the area and at the time of detonation, but throughout the world and for future generations. Surely nuclear weapons, including the so-called ``low-yield" nuclear weapons, carve out a far more destructive path than all of the weapons previously coming under the regime of a total ban. Nuclear weapons certainly need to be prohibited, but they must be prohibited for all states and all entities. Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires all states party to the treaty ``to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The International Court of Justice has described this as a binding treaty obligation. As long as some states, including the U.S. and China, insist on their right to retain nuclear weapons, other states will wish to own such weapons and will work out ways to acquire them, even if it means violating treaty obligations. If all the nuclear states would get together and start negotiations toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including their own weapons, with a tough verification system applicable to all, the ``problem" of North Korea, Iran and all of the other nuclear aspirants would begin to disappear. Under the present flawed structure, by which the nuclear states have legalized the ultimate double standard, all we have to look forward to is a new nuclear aspirant on the horizon every time we turn around. Trying to eliminate nuclear weapons will surely be a monumental task but its success might just ensure us all a future in a hopeful world. Valerie Epps is a visiting professor of law at Hongik University College of Law, Seoul, and professor of law and director of the International Law Concentration, Suffolk University Law School, Boston. She can be reached at vepps@suffolk.edu.

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal

By MADHUR SINGH/NEW DELHI

During the final full dress rehearsal for India's Republic Day Parade in New Delhi, a replica of India's Agni-III missile passes by spectators. The Agni is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Raveendran / AFP / Getty

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher last week visited New Delhi with a sharp reminder: it's now or never for the Indo-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which has been stalled since India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh failed to garner the votes from within his own coalition to pass the deal.

Washington is warning that given the U.S. presidential campaign season, India has until June to complete all the steps required to get the agreement — which provides for civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries without India having to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — before Congress for a yes or no vote. Having invested immense political capital in the deal, the Bush administration is keen to see it completed, and has been quietly pressuring New Delhi to expedite matters. Last week, former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns publicly asked India to take a "courageous decision" in view of the "short timelines". Before that, on February 20, U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Joe Biden has visited New Delhi with the same message.

Making haste, however, is proving difficult for India's government, because of the resistance to the deal by opposition parties as well as the leftist parties in the ruling coalition who have delayed the deal at every step since it was first proposed in July 2005. The government has sidestepped this resistance by agreeing to hold talks with leftist allies, buying itself time to complete the requirements to get the deal before the U.S. Congress. But now, time is running out. Experts agree that the current deal is the best one India can get: it allows India to trade internationally in nuclear materials and technology, without signing the CTBT and despite carrying on with its nuclear weapons program. And it has the backing of a congressional consensus in the U.S. sufficient to win endorsement on Capitol Hill. If the deal is not passed during the tenure of the current administration, however, its successor might seek to renegotiate on terms less favorable to India.

The realization that Washington's position may harden has prompted India's power brokers to burn the midnight oil in order to meet the deadlines. This requires concluding, by the end of this month, an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to regulate India's civilian nuclear energy program and to ensure that it remains separate from its nuclear weapons program. By May, they must secure an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls international trade in nuclear materials, to rules that preclude supplying states that are not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and India's failure to sign the Test Ban Treaty will not go down easily with some of its members. India reiterated its support for universal nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva last month, and proposed a seven-point agenda. Getting an NSG waiver will be tricky, but the U.S. has assured India of its support in convincing skeptics.

With opponents of the deal — mainly the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party — digging their heels in, the June deadline may prompt the government to tell its leftist allies to take a hike. Riding high on a popular budget announced last week — which substantially reduced income tax and waived $150 billion worth of loans owed by small and marginal farmers — the government is in a good position to face elections. Politicians know that the average citizen cares little about the nuclear deal, as the CPI (M) learned last September: While the CPI (M) was focusing its attention on holding up the nuclear deal in New Delhi, in Bengal, the state it governs, villagers angry at food shortages and corruption broke into a riot. Many CPI (M) cadres were assaulted in riots over the following weeks. Most Indians may, in fact, be glad to get the nuclear deal out of the way, so that politicians can get on with working on issues more important in the minds of the citizenry.

http://www.time.com/

Nuclear Energy Not Part of Volvo's Environmental Goals

by EVANDER KLUM

Volvo has recently announced that its truck-making business has signed an energy supply contract with utility Vattenfall. The contract specified that none of the company’s electricity will be generated from nuclear power plants by 2008.

According to Volvo’s environmental chief Inge Horkeby, the nuclear energy is not in line with the company’s environmental goals. She told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, “We place nuclear energy far down the scale. It’s not sustainable from a number of aspects.”

“The raw materials used to produce nuclear energy are a finite resource and the waste management problem has not been solved,” she added.

In contrast however, a position statement on Volvo’s website said, “Volvo is not opposed to nuclear energy… Taking into account the climate issue, our view is that nuclear energy is needed in the energy system – perhaps even more nuclear power than today.”

Under the agreement between Volvo and Vattenfall, only Sweden is covered. The Swedish automaker said, “We have agreed on receiving renewable energy – nuclear energy is not renewable. The reason we made this demand is to help bring other alternative energy sources to the market. Accordingly, the aim of the agreement is not to eliminate nuclear energy but to choose alternatives in an effort to increase the availability of renewable energy on the market.” Thus, the company is still eager to continue the use of nuclear-generated electricity outside Sweden.

Volvo said, in its statement, “We would like to see that a parliamentary commission is appointed with the mission of investigating what the conditions are for continued use of nuclear power – particularly taking into account the fourth-generation.”

“We are not prepared to say that we should expand nuclear energy. What we are prepared to say, however, is that we believe that it would be favourable if we dared to again take a look and seriously investigate the conditions for the future of nuclear energy against the background of the technology development that has occurred since the referendum in 1980. There has not been any new thinking about nuclear energy in Sweden since then,” it continued.

Since the 1970s, Volvo holds environmental consideration as one of its core values. The company has said that its long-term objectives included the increase in use of the carbon dioxide-neutral energy, the reduction of energy consumption by 50% per manufactured unit and the no longer use of coal or oil for heating.

Volvo also stated its goals in powering all of its worldwide plants with the use of renewable energy sources. The company said that its truck plant in Ghent, Belgium, is actually the world’s first vehicle factory to be totally carbon dioxide-free. Most of the plant’s energy is being supplied by onsite wind turbines and a biomass production facility. Some electricity is being provided by Electrabel from renewable sources. At present, the plant produces 40,000 truck units (equipped with quality Volvo floor mats and other genuine parts) annually.

Volvo Trucks’ Europe Division President Claes Nilsson said, “We are fully aware of the environmental problems we have in the world today and we’re working to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in both fixed facilities and from vehicles.”

“However, for practical and economic reasons it is simpler to make a factory carbon-dioxide free, something we achieved within a period of two years.”

China's Battle for African Uranium

by JAMES FINCH

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Sunday night’s revelations that China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) may strengthen its ties to UraMin could represent a broader picture than an ordinary acquisition of a near-term uranium producer.

There is an ongoing global war for energy security, which appears to be politically inspired. China and Russia are the main opponents, especially in Africa, but have rivaled each other, over the past several years, in Central Asia. The goal for both nations is not only energy security but political influence and alliance over their targeted territories.

On May 12th, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan signed a declaration to upgrade and expand transport pipelines along the Caspian Sea coast directly to Russia. The project relies mainly upon the vast Turkmen gas reserves. This is part of Russia’s growing monopoly of Central Asian gas. Although Europe was shocked by Vladimir Putin’s new arrangement, the Chinese were flabbergasted.

We’ve been following developments in Central Asia, and had reported upon milestone events in both of our uranium publications, and again (with far greater details) in our soon-to-be-released Investing in China’s Energy Crisis.

After more than two decades in power, Turkmen strongman Saparmurat Niyazov passed away this past December. In April 2006, Niyazov had signed a framework agreement on oil and gas cooperation. By August, Niyazov had announced a pipeline, designed to pump gas to China, would be opened in 2009. The deal died with the dictator, it appears.

A few weeks ago, a spokesman for China’s National Reform and Development Committee announced China was unlikely to reach its natural gas target of a 10-percent portion of the country’s energy portfolio by 2010. Increasingly, Russia has shut China out of Central Asia in obtaining long-term, multiple energy sources.

Aside from South America, where China has strengthened the country’s ties with Venezuela and others, Africa is a prime hunting ground for China’s future energy security. China has established a strong foothold in the Sudan for petroleum. But, Africa is rich in uranium deposits.

According to a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, Africa has 18 percent of the world’s known recoverable uranium resources – about six percent less than Australia and one percent more than Kazakhstan. We began coverage on both Namibia and Niger, after Russia sent a delegation to Egypt to discuss the nuclear renaissance. At the time, our research pointed to Africa, particularly those countries, as ripe for future uranium production. Chinese prospectors raced to Niger within weeks after our initial coverage.

During 2006, Namibia became saturated with numerous exploration plays hoping to capitalize on the country’s uranium resources and relaxed environment. Consequently, the Namibian Minister of Mines and Energy closed the country’s exploration window. Since then, Niger has become a new hunting ground. We expect this country to become just as saturated as Namibia has been.

China is eager to capitalize upon the continent’s uranium resources before Russia outmaneuvers them as has been accomplished in Central Asia.

According to an email we received from TradeTech’s Gene Clark, after presenting at the China Power & Alternative Energy Summit on May 18th, he told us China’s official target for nuclear power capacity was ‘40 GWe by 2020 and another 18 GWe in the following five-year plan.’ This confirms China’s aggressive plans to acquire sufficient uranium to reach this capacity, and would be foolish to rely on just Australia.

Typically, China has built its energy portfolio through numerous deals across multiple regions. This past October, Yang Changli, vice president of China National Nuclear, said it would seek uranium not only from Australia, but from Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Namibia. In an interview Yang gave during the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, he said, “China won't rely on any single supplier of uranium because of energy security considerations.

Namibia is the First African Focus of Uranium Politiques

On May 14th, Russia’s second-largest bank Vneshtorgbank and Russia’s state-run nuclear exporter Tekhsnabexport announced they were considered a joint venture to operate in Namibia through licenses they directly hold and through investments in other companies which have obtained licenses in Namibia.

In March Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov announced his country was prepared to building nuclear plants in Namibia. Neighboring South Africa had previously warned Namibia to expect reductions in energy supplies. Namibia is dependent upon South Africa for electricity and has forecast an energy deficit of 300 megawatts within the next three years.

On May 10th, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up the International Uranium Enrichment Center, anticipated to come onstream by 2013. As part of this announcement, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency, said, “Any country can become a member of the center by signing an intergovernmental agreement granting it guaranteed access to uranium enrichment services.” We conclude Namibia may wish to participate in this arrangement.

Enter CNNC on Sunday night. The Chinese company’s deputy general manager for uranium procurement announced to Bloomberg News that CNNC and UraMin will start ‘more formal’ talks this week.

UraMin is a prime acquisition candidate for the Chinese because of its uranium prospects in both Namibia and Niger. The company also has holdings in South Africa and the Central African Republic.

We are now facing a new era of uranium politics or rather ‘Uranium Politiques.’ And there is good reason for this to escalate. Yesterday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued ‘International Energy Outlook 2007.’ The report announced, “World marketed energy is expected to grow by 57 percent between 2004 and 2030.”

The most rapid growth in energy demand is anticipated in non-OECD Asia. The majority of this energy demand growth would come from China and India. This was the reference case – the middle ground of growth.

Also on Monday, leading Russian nuclear expert Yevgeny Velikhov, head of the Kurchatov Institute, told reporters at a news conference that the recent surge in uranium prices “may still grow by another order of magnitude.” He believes the uranium price will continue to rise as global uranium demand soars while supplies remain tight. “The global energy market is very turbulent,” Velikhov said. “The uranium price can hit any mark at a time of crisis.” Ironically, both crisis and turbulence have come about because of the Asian and Russian scramble to lock-up the uranium resources of entire countries.

The energy battle in Africa is good news for the two front-runners in Namibia: UraMin and Forsys Metals. We’ve called this a horse race, over the past several months. Both endeavor to become the ‘next miner’ following Paladin Resources in this country.

Yet, both companies are vulnerable to acquisition efforts by Russian or Chinese companies. Or either could be acquired by one or more majors hoping to build up their uranium reserves. In the case of Rio Tinto, acquiring one or both could mean expanding uranium operations in this country.

Acquisition Candidates

Just as the announcement by Energy Metals Corp, regarding a potential sale of the company, fueled weekend speculation as to the ‘next’ takeover candidates, the same could occur this week with African acquisition candidates.

One might be misled into believing China would focus on Niger, where the company has built a foundation, and Russia’s focus would remain in Namibia. However, in a state visit to China this week, Namibian Defense force chief exchanged views with Guo Boxiong, Central Military Commission vice chairman, on promoting relations between the two countries.

In February, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Namibia to sign an economic deal with Namibia giving the country a grant of US$4.3 million and an interest-free loan of the same amount. Reportedly, some of the money would be used to boost group tourism from China to Namibia. This is the same tactic China has utilized in courting relationships in South America to help develop natural resource deals.

With US$1.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves, China is exercising its financial biceps. In March, the country formed the Huijin Fund as the state’s investment arm. Up to US$400 billion have reportedly been placed in this fund for investment purposes. On Sunday night, the Huijin Fund invested US$3 billion to purchase a stake in about 9.9 percent of the Blackstone private equity firm. Our research suggests the fund is likely to strongly invest in natural resources.

On this basis, we can not rule out a simple carving of Africa. We don’t believe China will quietly step back and focus the country’s uranium acquisition efforts in Niger, permitting Russia to concentrate on Namibia and South African uranium.

In Niger, we covered two ‘early days’ prospective uranium juniors over a year ago. North Atlantic Resources acquired a uranium permit in the 1900-square kilometer Abelajouad in this country. This past April, the company increased its holdings to nearly 3,000 square kilometers. In late April, Northwestern Mineral Ventures announced uranium mineralization in assays from rock samples after a first-pass reconnaissance on its In Gall and Irhazer uranium properties. Both would need to further explore their properties before attracting serious interest from the Chinese.

However, in Namibia both UraMin and Forsys Metals are actively progressing toward mining uranium on their properties. Either could be the first, but we believe both should become winners in the uranium bull market. Because China has carefully aligned with UraMin, or at least shown an inkling to do so, we suspect Russia might begin to look more carefully at Forsys Metals. This is purely speculation based upon our premise of ‘uranium Politiques.’ We do not have any ‘inside track’ on this matter.

Fortunately, we had the opportunity to chat with Forsys chief executive Duane Parnham late last week. His company had announced the completion of the pre-feasibility study on the company’s Valencia uranium deposit in Namibia. We missed the company’s conference call, but were allowed the opportunity to discuss his company’s prospects and future plans during a telephone call.

The company’s pre-feasibility study was prepared by Australia-based Snowden Mining, which used the guidelines of Australia’s JORC code. Subsequently, the Valencia uranium mineral reserve was classified as Probable Reserves. These were calculated at 24 million pounds U3O8.

We asked about production. “We are now modeling 2.4 million pounds per year,” Parnham told us. He expects to payback in less than two years. With Forsys as with all near-term producers, some early conversations have begun about pre-selling the company’s uranium production after production has commenced.

His company’s news release talked about six month of stripping during the initial part of the operation so we started there. “We’ll start when we get a mining license and then looking at production.” When will the company complete its ongoing environmental assessment? “We are hoping to have an environmental decision by year end,” Parnham told us. “We are hoping to have enough data to apply for a mining license in early 2008. If that’s successful, then obviously the decision to go forward will be made at that time.”

For the time being, the company plans to expand its resource. “The pre-feasibility is just the first snapshot of the situation,” he said. “We are finding the pit optimization study is only looking at a very small portion of the overall resource.” Does that mean the resource is actually larger, then? “It’s a heck of a lot bigger,” he told us. “It’s just a function of how much data you have available to punch into the model. Then, how much does the model give you back? The evaluation process is ongoing. You’ll probably see a change in the pit design very shortly because we have the ability to move more resource into the reserve category.”

We talked about his company’s horse race with UraMin. How does it look? “Neck and neck, toe to toe,” Parnham said. “I think it shows there’s opportunity in Namibia, and that’s good that there are a number of us working for a common goal.”

Finally, we asked what has emerged as the key question: Is Forsys a ripe plum for the picking. He offered both sides of the coin. “Where the real opportunity lies is putting a property into production,” he responded. “The operation isn’t all that difficult so it’s not a deposit that our expanding team couldn’t put into production.” And then Parnham left the door open. “Anything can happen. It’s an open market, and we are a public company. But, we are certainly geared toward putting this into production.”

And from what we’ve seen among the recent, significant consolidations, those companies who have commenced production, and those closest to production, are the prime acquisition candidates. Why should companies developing projects in Africa become the exception instead of the rule? Especially when two super powers are both eagerly trying to establish stronger uranium footholds in this continent.

COPYRIGHT© 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on http://www.stockinterview.com and on http://www.amazon.com

Related Articles - China, Africa, Uranium, Namibia,