November 28, 2004 October is Koufax Pledge Drive month

Twenty or Nothing

The issue to understand is why would Iran want 20 centrifuge machines for "research and development ".

USEC and the NRC provide the immediately obvious answer to the question, why a commercial plant developer would seek to operate a set of 20 centrifuge machines:

On Feb. 12, 2003, USEC Inc. submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate the so-called American Centrifuge Demonstration Facility at its Portsmouth plant in Piketon, Ohio. "Scheduled to begin operation in 2005, the demonstration facility will contain a lead cascade of up to 240 centrifuge machines, the first new centrifuge enrichment machines in the United States. The lead cascade is the basic building block of a commercial enrichment plant. It will yield cost, schedule and performance data before USEC begins construction of a $1 billion to $1.5 billion commercial plant later in the decade."

As of March 24, 2003, the license application is available for download from ADAMS [ebw: the NRC's on-line document library, still partially shutdown due to "terrorist" concerns].

Cost, schedule and performance data, before construction of the production facillity. Pretty sane stuff.

At the Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference (PBNC) in Honolulu last March Ron Green claimed that USEC's centrifuge design features untapped technical margins which would allow the throughput to increase to about 400 SWU/year/machine. This was later "clarified" that the centrifuges wouldn't be run at 20% over the design and it turns out there is a lot of "iffyness" about generating ecomically reliable data from small lead cascades, and running them "maintenance free". Incidently, USEC's lead cascade (03/04) is 30, down from the (02/03) quote of 240 centrifuge machines. The USEC number is 300 SWU/year/machine. Cite: Nuclear Fuel April 26, 2004, WASTE MANAGEMENT; Vol. 29, No. 9; Pg. 4 "Many questions remain about USEC's centrifuge performance", by Mark Hibbs, Bonn.

Ron Green is the Senior VP for Wowserisms at USEC. He's more wedded to powerpoint than to a slide rule, so he wouldn't do quite so well in the management team of Iranian Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. I'm not even going to try and count how much of the news fleets, print and pancake, goes running off with "20 shinny spinning things make us wicked dizzy so it must be bombs" but it should be Iraqi WMDs deja news all over again. They know there's a schedule to keep, flap in December, elections in January, withdrawal from urban centers (other than those logistically necessary for the pivot), the mid-term litmust test vote for Congress and then Drang nach Osten before high-summer, with air before ground by several thousand sorties.

One other thing: The spot price is now about $18.50/lb U3O8 compared to a price of about $11.20/lb on July 30, 2003.

And another: Urenco’s current TC12 technology produces about 40 SWU/year/machine. I'll have to dig up the numbers for the TC21, and of course, the wicked evil P-series machines.

And another: USEC permitting paperwork allows them to enrich up to 10%, which is a lot bigger than 3.5%. Glad I'm not a minority investor. Pre-planned negligence.

If you live in Hartsville (Tennessee), and you read wampum, rethink one or both of those properties.
Dr Pat Upson, Managing Director, Technical, in Urenco Limited (responsible for all site operations, new plant design and construction, research and development, centrifuge manufacturing and diversification, former Enrichment Division Manager of British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd.) and the other partners of the re-spun Louisiana Energy Services (aka "LES-II", who remind you that as the -II business model does not require government funding or customer investment, other than the three surviving LES-I partners, Exelon, Entergy, Duke, the rest is just narrowly-held commercial debt and reactor vendor Westinghouse, they don't have to listen to voters, or rate-payers) would like to move in with you, or move you out, for the long long haul.

Posted by EBW at November 28, 2004 03:58 AM | TrackBack
Comments

And another question, perhaps rather easier to answer, is why on earth Bush can tout Libya as a success, even as they seek nuclear arms.

Posted by: rorschach at November 29, 2004 04:57 PM