President Biden Bans the Import of Russian Uranium.

[NNadir]

US President signs uranium import prohibition

Subtitle:

The act prohibiting the importation into the USA of unirradiated, low-enriched uranium (LEU) that is produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity has been signed into law by President Joe Biden.

Some excerpts from the full, but short article which is free to read:

The president signed HR 1042, the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, on 13 May - two weeks after the bill was passed unanimously by the US Senate. The legislation bans the import of Russian-produced unirradiated LEU as well as the import of unirradiated LEU that has been swapped for banned uranium.

The prohibition on imports of LEU comes into effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of the bill, and will last until the end of 2040. Waivers may be granted to allow the import of limited amounts of LEU, under certain circumstances, until 1 January 2028...

... "This new law re-establishes America's leadership in the nuclear sector. It will help secure our energy sector for generations to come. And - building off the unprecedented USD2.72 billion in federal funding that Congress recently appropriated at the President's request - it will jumpstart new enrichment capacity in the United States and send a clear message to industry that we are committed to long-term growth in our nuclear sector."

He added that the law also delivers on multilateral goals, including last year's announcement by the USA with Canada, France, Japan and the UK of plans to collectively invest USD4.2 billion to expand their enrichment and conversion capacity. "I am proud to say that with these funds from Congress, we have well-exceeded that pledge and are working with industry to realise this ambition," he added....

I would personally like to move past uranium enrichment in the fuel cycle, this by the use of plutonium available from used nuclear fuels, utilization of the DUPIC cycle in CANDU type reactors, or better yet, increasing plutonium inventories by incorporating thorium into plutonium enhanced Dupic type reactors.

Under these conditions, the uranium already mined (and the thorium dumped as a side product of the lanthanide mines dug for wind turbines, electric cars, and other lanthanide dependent devices) might power all of humanities energy needs for centuries.

NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) found in natural waters, mainly seawater but notably groundwater and fracking water, should make, ultimately, uranium become an inexhaustible resource.

[enough]

1. When you say you would like to "move past uranium enrichment in the fuel cycle"

do you mean that you think Biden is moving In the right direction on this issue or not?

[NNadir]

2. No, this is a technical issue that is not widely discussed at the current time.

The DUPIC cycle has been widely discussed in the past, but to my knowledge there is no policy to use it.

It is, however, obvious for the long term. The recovery of plutonium from used nuclear fuel is now being discussed again, which is a good thing, an essential thing, in my view, if we are to have any hope of slowing, if not reversing, climate change.

The carbon intensity of nuclear power is about 10-25 g CO₂/kWh, essentially the lowest of any form of sustainable energy, lower than solar and wind, especially (as is not often done) one counts the need for fossil fuel powered redundancy. Coal (the German back up) has a carbon intensity of between 1000-1200 g CO₂/kWh, gas (the California back up) has a carbon intensity of 400-600 g CO₂/kWh, the lower figure corresponding to combined cycle plants.

The overwhelming majority of the carbon cost of nuclear power is connected with enrichment. In theory a nuclear powered enrichment plant would eliminate the climate cost associated with enrichment, but as a practical matter, it doesn't. This late in the game, electricity, a thermodynamically degraded form of energy is still produced, overwhelmingly, using fossil fuels. Even if enrichment were nuclear powered, as it is, in say, France, it is still energy intensive and wasteful.

Historically, it was more difficult to understand the properties of complex nuclear fuels containing a mixture of actinides, plutonium, uranium, and in the case of the thorium cycle, thorium and protactinium. In addition we might well consider fuels with americium and neptunium, and even curium. The properties of these fuels are determined by a differential equation known as the Bateman Equation. Recently an analytical solution to this equation has been developed, but as a practical matter, it should be solved numerically, which requires significant computing power. We now have access to such computer power, we have plenty of valuable used nuclear fuels, and I think future generations will inevitably exploit these resources in the way I suggest to do away with enrichment entirely.

However, there is commercial inertia, which involves doing things the way they've always been done. It will, it should, I think, pass.

[enough]

3. Yes I understood it's a technical issue but for a lay person the phrase

“move past” can mean either “stop worrying about” or “stop doing.” Wasn’t sure which you intended. Thinks.

[Igel]

4. I'm pretty sure this was what France said in the '60s or '70s that they'd be doing.

Falls in line with "reduce, reuse, recycle". "Waste" nuclear fuel is still really useful if reprocessed. The Pu can be used in reactors, there's still a lot of usable U-235 in it.

Then, if fresh, there are other useful isotopes of other elements. Currently we import medical isotopes from abroad (okay, the near abroad ... Canada) but waste a lot of it.

The tech aspects of reprocessing can be daunting because you need to separate out Pu and U-235/U-238/etc. and all the other stuff, all of which is pretty hostile to humans' pursuit of happiness.