Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Very interesting. Kind of alters the balance of possible action as well.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:18:05 PM EST
I should have checked this before. It changes the strategic implications of controlling their own fuel cycle as well: if they don't have to import uranium they sure as hell don't want to give Russia control of their enrichment.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:21:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read about this before, thus I never quite understood why they should export their own uranium to Russia for enrichment. And of course, why shoulden't they use their own uranium?
by Fran on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:23:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd missed it completely and it very seldom comes up in discussions. In fact I'm sure I've seen it argued that they have to import uranium anyway so why would they care if it had to be enriched outside Iran.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for bringing this up. I am not surprised though. From what I remember, with uranium it is less a matter of if it is there or not and more a matter of how concentrated it is. Wikipedia says ("uranium") "The ultimate supply of uranium is very large. It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times."

Sweden for example, has uranium but to my knowledge no uranium mines. It is low concentration so instead uranium is imported. Mainly from Canada and Russia if my memory serves. The advantage of having the environmental effects on someone elses backyard is also a factor. There are probably crisis plans in some cold war storage on how to get some uranium mining going quickly in case of a heated situation between east and west.

Anyway, if they are mining their own uranium it does a lot of sense to have their own enrichment. On could probably question the economics of mining their own uranium, but I reccon it is more a political question anyhow.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 07:48:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeedy, it would change the equation a bit.

Below, estimates of fuel tonnage and yearly reactor loads (25t/yr) depending on mining resources (20,000t / 30,000t) and tail assay (0.35% / 0.25%).

Mined U3O8 (t) 3,000 20,000 30,000
Mined U Metal (t) 2,544 16,960 25,439
Tail 0.35% - Fuel 3.6% (t) 290 1,930 2,896
Tail 0.25% - Fuel 3.6% (t) 360 2,379 3,569
Tail 0.35% - Yr load (25t/load) 12 77 116
Tail 0.25% - Yr load (25t/load) 14 95 143

A typical 1,000 MWe PWR reactor runs for about 50 years and requires ~100t of fuel on the first year (initial load) then 25t each year for refuelling. That amounts to 1325t over the life of the reactor. So depending on the assumptions (resources/tail assy), Iran can supply the life time load of 1 to not fully 3 reactors.

An other, more reasonable way to look at it is, assuming Iran builds 6 reactors, Iran can supply the initial load of those reactors then keep them running them anywhere between 10 and 21 years. After that, they need to find new resources with lower grade ore (which I assume to be feasible). But then, you come back to the issue of the crappy separative capacity of their centrifuges and the (ir)rationality of their current investment in obsolete technology. They would need to install 200,000 to 300,000 of their P1-like centrifuges to support the yearly reload of 6 reactors. Divide that number by 2 assuming a more advance P2-like design with a rotor made of maraging steel.

For reference and comparison of separative capacity of various centrifuge designs:
Machine Capacity
(kgSWU/yr)
Notes
Pakistan/Iran P1 ~ 2 to 3 Decommissioned by Pakistan?
Pakistan/Iran P2 ~ 5 to 6 Iran has blueprints, but real machines?
Urenco TC12 40 In operation since early 90s - Decommissioning
Urenco TC21 > 200 In production ramp-up
USEC AC > 300 Pilot plant 2006
Pakistani designs are a throwback from the 60s, hopelessly obsolete.
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and I forgot to mention. If you use the proven reserves (3,000t U3O8), Iran has enough uranium to start 2 reactors and then operate them for less than 4 years ...

I'm of the opinion that world uranium reserves are very vast given a high enough price for yellow cake, but I must say that I'm quite admirative of Iran gutsiness in launching such a big program and getting into so much trouble with such a low guaranteed ROI. Big balls, those mullahs...
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:37:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually this comment does mention Iranian uranium resources in passing. Obviously all the clever people already know this. Francois's assessment of how much they have differs from that of the link above. One more thing to analyse I suppose.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 04:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, it was central to his argument that controlling the full nuclear cycle would be economic insanity.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Mar 14th, 2006 at 07:00:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The cost of the cascade is at the centre of the argument. The resource aspect is more a strategic consideration.
by Francois in Paris on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 at 10:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series