APPRAISAL OF IMPACT OF SECONDARY SUPPLIES ON THE URANIUM MARKET

In order to summarize the potential of all the secondary supplies identified in this paper, Table 12 gathers together the cumulative data and TABLE 11. RUSSIAN ENRICHMENT CAPACITY AVAILABLE FOR TAILS RE-ENRICHMENT (kSWU/a)

Year 2005 Year 2010 Supply from Soviet design reactors 6 600 8 000 Tails re-enrichment for HEU dilution 3 500 3 500

Russian LEU exports 3 600 4 500

Enrichment capacity 21 000 26 000

Available for tails re-enrichment 7 300 10 000

TABLE 12. CUMULATIVE SECONDARY SUPPLIES FROM 2005 TO 2050 (REFERENCE CASE)

Secondary supply NatU

(kt)

Percentage of total

Percentage of requirements Excess commercial stocks worldwide 40 3.6 0.9

USDOE commercial stocks 20 1.8 0.5

US + Russian HEU 56 5.0 1.3

Other HEU US + RF 40 3.6 0.9

MOX/weapons grade Pu US + RF 20 1.8 0.5

MOX/civilian Pu 150 13.5 3.5

RepU 134 12.1 3.1

Tails re-enrichment 110 9.9 2.5

Tails assays reduction effect 540 48.6 12.5

Total secondary supplies 1 110 100.0 25.7

Cumulative requirements 4 316 100.0

Mining production/RARs 3 067 71.1

Shortfall 139 12.5 3.2

compares them with the total requirements and expected production from mining of identified resources (Red Book reasonably assured resources (RARs)).

The largest contribution by far is likely to come from tails assays reduction. The second and third largest contributions come from recycled material flows, MOX and RepU from spent fuel reprocessing. Finally, the fourth largest supply is linked to tails re-enrichment, and the fifth to total HEU (US + Russian) already declared as excess. The later is likely to represent more, but probably not beyond a doubling of the quantities concerned.

On average during the period to 2050, the contribution of secondary supplies to the total supply needed is expected to be about 25%. This is obviously less than the current situation, but remains very significant.

5. CONCLUSION: A CHANGED PERCEPTION OF SECONDARY

SUPPLIES

During the first civilian uranium ‘boom’ of the mid-1970s, secondary supplies were absent. At that time, the forecasts for nuclear power development were very high and the then known uranium resources relatively limited. As a result, spent fuel reprocessing and fissile material recycling were considered as the solution, along with fast breeder reactors.

Then a period of energy abundance, of energy savings and of lower than expected economic development in many areas of the world followed. In addition, two major events, the Three Mile Island accident and the Chernobyl accident, had a chilling effect on the development of nuclear power. As a result, the previously needed recycled fissile materials became ‘secondary supplies’, often accused of competing unfairly against fresh mining production in an increasingly difficult market. Progressively in this glutted market, huge uranium inventories were accumulated to levels of hundreds of thousands of tons, leading to the buildup of the largest single source of secondary supplies:

commercial inventories.

Almost in coincidence with the turn of the century, and departing from the previous period, the global energy supply scene has greatly changed, along with global warming and other environmental concerns. Amongst the solutions to the new challenges, a renaissance of nuclear power appears to be needed to an increasing number of decision makers.

This brief history allows us to consider there to be two eras for the impact of secondary supplies on the market:

(1) A first era with a large contribution from secondary supplies having a strong suppressive effect on market prices. This era is currently vanishing in a deeply and rapidly changing market.

(2) A second era is likely to develop from now onwards. Uranium savings will be achieved through lower enrichment tails assays. Additional excess military fissile material will be made available for civilian use. Finally, recycled fissile material will again be seen as one of the responses to higher uranium prices. In the short to medium term, these supplies will be constrained by available plant capacities and other technical factors.

Ultimately, increased secondary supplies from recycling are likely to appear in the case of the growth of fissile material requirements and continued tension about uranium. Tension can result from delays in finding and starting new mines, especially from ‘speculative resources’.

Recycled material from spent fuels can be considered as a type of insurance, because, regardless of the economic and administrative issues, its availability is constrained only by the construction of new factories.

For the future, using the energy potential of all types of available fissile and fertile materials, including spent fuel, is certainly better than burying them, not to mention the advantages related to waste management issues.

It can be concluded that all secondary supplies will help to make possible the required nuclear renaissance. In the short term they will bridge the gap between mining production and consumption, in the longer term they will contribute to supplies, especially in the case of accelerated nuclear power development scenarios, through the optimized use of fissile and fertile materials.

REFERENCES

[1] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050, IAEA, Vienna (2001).

[2] URANIUM INSTITUTE, The Global Nuclear Fuel Market — Supply and Demand 1998–2020, Uranium Inst., London (1998).

[3] GRAUL, H., The Global Nuclear Fuel Market, Supply and Demand 2003–25, World Nuclear Association, London (2003).

[4] MAEDA, H., The Global Nuclear Fuel Market — Supply and Demand 2005–

2030, WNA Market Report, World Nuclear Association, London (2005).

[5] USDOE ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 2004 Uranium Marketing Annual Report 1994–2004, USDOE EIA, Washington, DC (2005).

[6] KONOVALOV, V.F., et al., “Nuclear fuel production supply in the Russian Feder-ation by natural uranium”, paper presented at World Nuclear Assoc. Midterm Mtg, Moscow, 2003.

[7] NEFF, T., Legacies form the future: The history of uranium, Nucl. Eng. Int.

(Jan. 2005) 10–17.

[8] INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Management of High Enriched Uranium for Peaceful Purposes: Status and Trends, IAEA-TECDOC-1452, IAEA, Vienna (2005).

[9] Nucl. Fuel 29 20 (2004).

[10] McMURRAY, J., BEATTIE, D.B., BOITSOV, A., CAPUS, G., Uranium demand and supply up to 2050, Paper 1.1, these Proceedings.

[11] OECD NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, Management of Depleted Uranium, OECD Publishing, Paris (2001).

[12] RWE NUKEM, Another Mountain: The Tails Aspect of Secondary Supply — Nuclear Market Review — July 2005, RWE NUKEM, Alzenau (2005).

[13] DOMENICI, P.V., A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy, Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham, MD (2004).

WORLD NUCLEAR CAPACITY PROJECTIONS