Sunday, October 31, 2010

BACK END NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

"radioactive waste will last billion years and it is unfair to gain benefit from nuclear today and leave the next generation to deal with the nuclear waste"

>>The above issue may be unfair to present generation, but we future generation of Malaysia are ready to face any manner dealings in order to save the planet and secure upcoming generation. It also can be said as cycle of life where there is usage need to do replacement and backup the spent used material/fuel......

File:Spent nuclear fuel hanford.jpgSpent nuclear fuel, occasionally called used nuclear fuel, is nuclear fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear reactor (usually at a nuclear power plant) to the point where it is no longer useful in sustaining a nuclear reaction.
Long-lived radioactive waste from the back end of the fuel cycle is especially relevant when designing a complete waste management plan for SNF. When looking at long-term radioactive decay, the actinides in the SNF have a significant influence due to their characteristically long half-lives. Depending on what a nuclear reactor is fueled with, the actinide composition in the SNF will be different.

An example of this effect is the use of nuclear fuels with thorium. Th-232 is a fertile material that can undergo a neutron capture reaction and two beta minus decays, resulting in the production of fissile U-233. The SNF of a cycle with thorium will contain U-233, an isotope with a half-life of 160,000 years. Its radioactive decay will strongly influence the long-term activity curve of the SNF around 1,000,000 years. A comparison of the activity associated to U-233 for three different SNF types can be seen in the figure on the top right.

The burnt fuels are Thorium with Reactor-Grade Plutonium (RGPu), Thorium with Weapons-Grade Plutonium (WGPu) and Mixed Oxide fuel (MOX). For RGPu and WGPu, the initial amount of U-233 and its decay around 10E5 years can be seen. This has an effect in the total activity curve of the three fuel types. The absence of U-233 and its daughter products in the MOX fuel results in a lower activity in region 3 of the figure on the bottom right, whereas for RGPu and WGPu the curve is maintained higher due to the presence of U-233 that has not fully decayed.

The use of different fuels in nuclear reactors results in different SNF composition, with varying activity curves.

Nuclear reprocessing can separate spent fuel into various combinations of reprocessed uranium, plutonium, minor actinides, fission products, remnants of zirconium or steel cladding, activation products, and the reagents or solidifiers introduced in the reprocessing itself. In this case the volume that needs to be disposed of is greatly reduced.
Alternatively, the intact Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) can be disposed of as radioactive waste.

"WE ARE THE YOUNG GENERATION, WE ARE THE YOUNG MALAYSIANS,IT IS OUR FUTURE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND WE WANT A SUSTAINABLE,GREEN,BEAUTIFUL, SECURE PLANET THAT WE CAN SHOW OUR OWN CHILDREN WITH OUR OWN EYES INSTEAD OF JUST THROUGH PICTURES IN HISTORY BOOKS-WE WANT FUTURE AND LET US MANAGE THE WASTE"

BONUS ASSIGNMENT( NUCLEAR SAFETY )

do u think it is safe to build a nuclear power plant in malaysia?????

>>>>>The answer for sure yes.
>>Because nuclear power plant equiped with the most advanced engineered safety system  that can support in any type of accident no matter minor or major problem. Due to that, it is completely safe to build a NPP power plant in MALAYSIA....
>>Present nuclear plant is designed with more safety system consideration after the 3 mile island & chernobyl accident. So in order to that, the goverment decided to consider and approve for the power plant placement somewhere near to seaside and far from housing area. Mostly accident happened so far is due to man made mistake in it clearly stated that chernobyl is due to some unauthorized experimental case causes major reactor unbalance and uncontrolable.
>>if the nuclear power plant cooling system uses sea as cooling medium, this will cause some effect to aquatic system where the sea temperature goes up and from normal to abnormal temperature can affect the marine lifes. The reactor building is designed with two compartment which each made of thick wall where it can protect from radiation release.
>>The building design is completely safe from any external plane crash and also internal reactor failure.
Nuclear power plant uses low enriched uranium fuel,so it is not ment to explode otherwise only can melt the core due to control rod failure or other causes.
>>Considering natural disasters, so far malaysia dont have any hurricane or earth quake disaster and it is completely safe to build in malaysia....
>>NUCLEAR POWER PLANT for MALAYSIA is extremely good solution to replace coal and hydro due to cost and other factors. MALAYSIA is approaching go green technology to transform entire nation to CO2 emission free....

Nuclear Safety

Do you think it is safe to build a nuclear power plant in Malaysia?


First of all, think about radiation. We were exposed to radiation regularly in our daily life.
Below is some information about common sources of radiation the we were exposed to.


So, nuclear suppose not a big deal since we are already exposed to great amount almost to 3 milisievert (msV) per year! Beside, the nuclear containment itself is already safe as it has the condition of being protected against any types or consequences of failure, damage,error, accident, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable. Even an airplane crash still couldn't leak the nuclear fuel from bursting out!

Next is a the position of the building site that next to the ocean. Will it affect the fish?
The answer is yes, it will affect the fish because the water discharge from the cooling system is 25 C warmer and it will effect the ecosystem. But anyway, the was the past generation of Nuclear Power Plant(NPP) cooling system layout. 

The next generation of NPP cooling system layout is the Closed Cooling System. The closed cycle cooling system would reuse the same water over and over. Once the water is cycled through the cooling system, it would be sent to a cooling tower where it would cool off and be used again. Some water is lost through evaporation in the closed cooling system, so the cooling system would still have to intake some water. The closed cooling system would cut water usage by up to ninety-five percent (95%) and significantly reduce damage to the ecosystem.

1 of NPP illustration take from "The Simpson"
Then, this topic goes further to the exclusion area boundaries. Most of our people, or the issues being brought is the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) issues. As being told before, nuclear power is safe and green. It doesn't affect the nature with it's low level radiation, no CO2 emission, an alternative for the renewable, last long cycle and much more. So, why we need to worry? How about the factory that being build near to the housing area that they are suppose to be 10 km further from it? The factory itself is already emits too much of CO2 with its dark smoke and the people don't mind? Or because it was a food factory, so people doest need to worry? Here we want to remind again, nuclear power plant emits no CO2 or any other greenhouse gases! It doesn't matter wither its near to your house or not, it is totally GREEN. Beside, doesn't it looks cool when 1 of the nuclear reactor just near to your house since it is near to our country like we seen in "The Simpsons"? Haha.. 

This topic could go on further and further but i would like to end it for now because it will make this post too long and reader are lazy to read long post. We will make a new post to continues this topic if its get any hit. Here's is some word that being quoted that we think it is interesting:

"Existing nuclear plants are cash cows for utilities. Although fairly expensive to build, nuclear plants are much less expensive to operate than oil or gas plants and slightly less expensive to run than coal-burners. Also, they're non-polluting." said by Forrest J. Remick, Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering.








Wednesday, October 20, 2010

One of The Safety Mechanism for a Nuclear Power Plant (Core Catcher)


Core Catching
One of the worst accidents in American nuclear history occurred in 1979 at Three Mile Island, located in Pennsylvania. As a result of a series of mechanical and human errors, the reactor core containing the nuclear fuel, which is normally covered in cooling water, was actually uncovered for an unspecified period of time. Before the flow of water could be restored, about half of the nuclear fuel had melted.
The diagram from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website shows what the reactor core “theoretically” looked like immediately after the meltdown. Even though half of the nuclear fuel in the reactor vessel was reduced to a molten mass, none of it escaped the reactor vessel or the containment building, thus avoiding a much more serious disaster.
But what would have happened if the nuclear fuel actually did melt through the bottom of the reactor vessel? At least one report, titled “The President’s Commission on the Accident at TMI,” chaired by John G. Kemeny, theorizes that the nuclear fuel still would have been contained inside the containment building that surrounds the reactor vessel. This commission, also known as the Kemeny commission, was formed two weeks after the TMI accident (at the order of the President) and was tasked with investigating the events that unfolded at TMI. The report theorizes that if the molten core had melted through the reactor vessel, there is a high probability that the containment building and the hard rock on which the containment building was built would have been able to prevent the escape of a large amount of radioactivity.
Long before the TMI accident, nuclear plant designers were already placing systems below the reactor vessel in case of just such an emergency – the melting of the nuclear core. These systems are sometimes called core catchers, since they are designed to catch the flowing molten core that has melted through the metal reactor vessel. These systems continue to evolve and grow more complex as new materials are discovered and researched.
For example, U.S. Patent No. 4,036,688, issued on July 19, 1977, and owned by the United States government, describes a system where the melted core is funneled onto magnesia and graphite bricks layered below the reactor vessel.
As can be seen in the diagram from the patent, a molten reactor core melts through the bottom of the reactor vessel (10) and flows into a funnel (14) made of carbon steel. The funnel (14) directs the molten core to the core debris receptacle (16), whose primary purpose is to prevent the molten core from forming a geometry that would result in a critical mass, resulting in an unwanted fission chain reaction.
The core debris receptacle (16) includes a center dome (24), made of blocks of alumina, as well as tantalum rods (26). Both tantalum and alumina have high melting points and are highly neutron absorbent. The center dome (24) disperses the molten core so that it spreads out over a large surface area thus preventing the formation of a critical geometry. Although the blocks making up the core debris receptacle (16) will reduce nuclear fission reactions in the molten debris, they will eventually melt and combine with the molten debris as it flows into the bed (18) area. The bed (18) contains bricks of magnesia which are designed to melt and mix with the molten core in order to further dilute the amount of nuclear fuel in the molten debris.
The walls of the bed (18) are lined with a layer of heat-resistant graphite blocks (30), which have cooling pipes embedded in them (not shown in the diagram). As the molten debris eventually flows toward the graphite blocks (30), it solidifies as it is cooled by the fluid flowing through the pipes.
Another core catcher system is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,113, 560, issued on September 12, 1978, and assigned to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. As can be seen in the diagram from the patent, a bin (7) located beneath the reactor core (1) contains a bed of graphite particles (6). Since graphite dissipates heat rapidly, the molten core would initially be cooled as heat is transferred from the molten core to the graphite particles. As the molten core begins to cool, it begins to solidify and flows more slowly through the bed of graphite particles (6). The patent indicates that the molten material would flow through the graphite particles at a rate of about a foot per hour.
Without intervention, however, the molten material would eventually flow to the bottom of the bin (7) and melt right through it. For this reason, the system also includes an overhead spray (9) combined with a bottom drain (10) in order to circulate cooling water through the particle bed (6). The water could also contain boron, a neutron absorber, which impedes any fission chain reaction in the molten material as it cools and hardens.
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,464,333, issued on August 7, 1984, and assigned to Combustion Engineering, Inc.
The diagram from the patent shows the bottom of the reactor vessel (14) enclosed inside concrete walls (12) of the containment building (16). Below the reactor vessel (14) is an array of vertically oriented water-cooled tubes. Pressurized water flows into the array through the inlet tube (18), then flows through the vertical cooling tubes before exiting via the outlet tube (30). The exterior of the vertical tubes are coated with a heat-resistant material, such as a ceramic or graphite matrix to resist melting from the heat of the molten core.
The inside of the vertical tubes are coated with a neutron absorbent material in order to prevent the neutrons emitted from the molten fuel from being reabsorbed by the fuel, thus preventing a sustained fission chain reaction. The water flowing out of the array via the outlet tube (30) is directed to a heat exchanger (e.g., such as cooling towers) located outside of the reactor containment vessel (16).
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 4,643,870, issued on February 17, 1987, and assigned to the Department of Energy. The diagram from the patent depicts a core meltdown situation, where the core debris (46) has melted through a hole (44) in the bottom of the reactor vessel (34). The core debris (46) comes to rest on a 3 foot thick metal basemat (28) that extends 200 feet outwards from the wall of the reactor vessel (34).
The long length of the basemat (28) helps to dissipate heat transferred to it from the core debris (46). Underneath the basemat (28) are several layers of sand and gravel (32a-d). The top layer (32a) is a 1 foot layer of fine sand, followed by a 1 foot layer (32b) of course sand, followed by 4 foot layer (32c) of fine gravel, followed by a 6 foot layer (32d) of coarse gravel. Two sets of perforated pipes (50, 52) runs through the layers of sand and gravel. One of the pipes (52) carries cooling water to the heated area, which quickly turns the water to steam. The steam is then carried away by the other pipe (50), and is vented some distance from the reactor vessel. Metal pilings (30), extending downwardly and outwardly from the bottom of the reactor, supports the reactor vessel during a meltdown condition. The metal pilings (30) also absorb a substantial amount of heat which then travels down the length of the metal piling (30) away from the reactor vessel.
Another core catcher design is described in U.S. Patent No. 6,658,077, issued on December 2, 2003, and assigned to Areva NP GMBH. The diagram from the patent shows the bottom of the reactor vessel (8) with the core catching system below it. If the conditions for a core meltdown are present, pressurized water held in the storage tank (9) is immediately pumped though a coolant line (5) and is disbursed through multiple coolant lines (4). The water then fills a porous layer (3) made of porous concrete and/or ceramic, which may also contain particles of steel or iron. A sealing layer (7) made of plastic or metal encases the porous layer (3) so that the water remains pressurized once all the cavities of the porous layer (3) have been filled. A layer of concrete (6) having a low melting point sits on top of the sealing layer (7). The purpose of the layer of concrete (6) is to melt and mix into the molten core so that when the molten mixture subsequently melts through the sealing layer (7) and comes into contact with the water in the porous layer (3) the molten mixture is immediately solidified, fragmented and cooled.
A complex core catching system is described in U.S. Patent Publication No. 20090116607, issued on May 7, 2009, assigned to the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute.The system includes a molten core retention tank (20) situated below the reactor vessel (10). A cooling water storage tank (40) and a compressed gas tank (30) is connected to the retention tank (20) through a section of piping called the mixer (50). In the event of a core meltdown, a valve (41) opens and water begins flowing by gravity from the water storage tank (40). At the same time, a valve (31) opens releasing the inert gas from the gas tank (30), which then mixes with the water in the mixer (50) portion of the piping. The water cools the molten material in the retention tank (20), while the inert gas prevents a possible steam explosion caused by the water suddenly coming into contact with the hot molten material.
Because all of the components shown in the diagram are enclosed in a reactor containment building, the steam produced from the water contacting the molten core (left-hand side of the diagram) will begin to condense on cooler surfaces. For example, water is likely to condense on the outer surface (1) enclosing the water storage tank (40) - as can be seen on the upper right-hand side of the diagram. As water condenses, it will flow through a filter (61) and into an intermediate storage tank (60). This tank (60) refills water depleted from the water storage tank (40) through piping (62) connecting the two tanks. This ensures an adequate supply of cooling water to remove heat from the molten core in the retention tank (20).
Fortunately, no core catching device has actually been utilized in an operating reactor plant. Most nuclear plants have layered protection systems in place that can quickly determine if a dangerous conditions is approaching and prevents it. The core catching mechanisms are meant to be the very last line of defense when these systems, for some reason, fail. However, the lack of actual physical testing of these core catchers caused concern in the report by the Kemeny commission.

nuclear safety (summary)

NUCLEAR SAFETY

it is says that the nuclear reactor will have the following secured layer.,

1st layer of defense is the inert, ceramic quality of the uranium oxide itself.
2nd layer is the air tight zirconium alloy of the fuel rod.
3rd layer is the reactor pressure vessel made of steel more than a dozen centimeters thick.
4th layer is the pressure resistant, air tight containment building.
5th layer is the reactor building or in newer powerplants a second outer containment building.

safety system are take into consideration very-very seriously so the nuclear power plant accident shouldnt happen again. if any on eof the country lead to nuclear reactor blow up, melting core, with immediate effect entire nations NPP will  be terminated. so as a engineer, technician and others are very concerned about safety system.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Monday, October 18, 2010

Recap of Class 19 /10/2010

- Of the composition of spent fuel 95% is Uranium and only 1% is plutonium
- There are 350 nuclides identified as fission products, which are all Beta
and gamma emitters.
- Half life of fission materials vary from seconds to 100’s of years
- After usage the nuclear reactors produce waste known as spent fuel which if processed using the rights methods could be recycled and use again.
- Some of the methods of Irradiation Phenomena :
• Full Swelling
• Densification
• Formation of Hydrides
• Pellet and Cladding Iteration (PCI)
- The fuel pellets are pressurized with Helium so that if there is a breach in the form of a crack on the cladding body, the coolant can get into the fuel pellet storage and wash away radioactive material into the open loop, this are some of the safety precautions taken.
- Waste storage at a nuclear power plant can either be in the form of a wet pond or a dry pond.
- Also known as cooling ponds there are filled with water which also contain boron and cadmium, known as neutron poison.
- Reactor fuel is made from uranium and recycled plutonium
- This reactor fuel is a mixture of UO2 and PuO2, which is a mixed oxide fuel known as MOX
- Depleted or natural Uranium is use to dilute Plutonium so that it can be used again showing that there is a least of waste product produces.
- Reprocessing Uranium saves up to 84 tonnes.
- There has never been any significant accident in transporting fuel throughout the 40 years of nuclear power history.
- A Generic Flask- LWR Fuel is used to transport fuel, and its built to withstand the highest safety standards with exceptional durability, you can Google generic flask to find out furthermore.
- Type of packages chosen depends on the transported material (solid or liquid)
- These are some of the packages used to transport material
• Excepted packages (no significant hazard)
• Industrial packages
• Type A (design to withstand major accidents)
• Type B ( design to withstand severe accidents/ attack)
• Type C (as above)

People's Perception About Nuclear Power

As be assigned to us, we need to conduct a video of people's perception about Nuclear. Below is the video, enjoy:



Wednesday, October 13, 2010

ENRICHMENT METHOD

Enrichment methods

Isotope separation is difficult because two isotopes of the same elements have very nearly identical chemical properties, and can only be separated gradually using small mass differences. (235U is only 1.26% lighter than 238U.) This problem is compounded by the fact that uranium is rarely separated in its atomic form, but instead as a compound (235UF6 is only 0.852% lighter than 238UF6.) A cascade of identical stages produces successively higher concentrations of 235U. Each stage passes a slightly more concentrated product to the next stage and returns a slightly less concentrated residue to the previous stage.


highly enriched uranium

yellow cake

There are currently two generic commercial methods employed internationally for enrichment: gaseous diffusion (referred to as first generation) and gas centrifuge (second generation) which consumes only 6% as much energy as gaseous diffusion. Later generation methods will become established because they will be more efficient in terms of the energy input for the same degree of enrichment and the next method of enrichment to be commercialized will be referred to as third generation. Some work is being done that would use nuclear resonance; however there is no reliable evidence that any nuclear resonance processes have been scaled up to production.


Gaseous diffusion is a technology used to produce enriched uranium by forcing gaseous uranium hexafluoride (hex) through semi-permeable membranes. This produces a slight separation between the molecules containing 235U and 238U. Throughout the Cold War, gaseous diffusion played a major role as a uranium enrichment technique, and continues to account for about 33% of enriched production but is now an obsolete technology that is steadily being replaced by the later generations of technology as the diffusion plants reach their ends-of-life.



Thermal diffusion utilizes the transfer of heat across a thin liquid or gas to accomplish isotope separation. The process exploits the fact that the lighter 235U gas molecules will diffuse toward a hot surface, and the heavier 238U gas molecules will diffuse toward a cold surface. The S-50 plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee was used during World War II to prepare feed material for the EMIS process. It was abandoned in favor of gaseous diffusion.




A cascade of gas centrifuges at a U.S. enrichment plantThe gas centrifuge process uses a large number of rotating cylinders in series and parallel formations. Each cylinder's rotation creates a strong centrifugal force so that the heavier gas molecules containing 238U move toward the outside of the cylinder and the lighter gas molecules rich in 235U collect closer to the center. It requires much less energy to achieve the same separation than the older gaseous diffusion process, which it has largely replaced and so is the current method of choice and is termed second generation. It has a separation factor per stage of 1.3 relative to gaseous diffusion of 1.005,[8] which translates to about one-fiftieth of the energy requirements. Gas centrifuge techniques produce about 54% of the world's enriched uranium.





Diagram of the principles of a Zippe-type gas centrifuge with U-238 represented in dark blue and U-235 represented in light blueThe Zippe centrifuge is an improvement on the standard gas centrifuge, the primary difference being the use of heat. The bottom of the rotating cylinder is heated, producing convection currents that move the 235U up the cylinder, where it can be collected by scoops. This improved centrifuge design is used commercially by Urenco to produce nuclear fuel and was used by Pakistan in their nuclear weapons program.



Laser processes promise lower energy inputs, lower capital costs and lower tails assays, hence significant economic advantages. Several laser processes have been investigated or are under development.


None of the laser processes below are yet ready for commercial use, though SILEX is well advanced and expected to begin commercial production in 2012.(see here: 30 April 2008) and May 2010 Investor Presentation

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation (AVLIS)

Atomic vapor laser isotope separation employs specially tuned lasers to separate isotopes of uranium using selective ionization of hyperfine transitions. The technique uses lasers which are tuned to frequencies that ionize 235U atoms and no others. The positively charged 235U ions are then attracted to a negatively charged plate and collected.

Molecular laser isotope separation (MLIS)

Molecular laser isotope separation uses an infrared laser directed at UF6, exciting molecules that contain a 235U atom. A second laser frees a fluorine atom, leaving uranium pentafluoride which then precipitates out of the gas.


Separation of Isotopes by Laser Excitation (SILEX)

Separation of isotopes by laser excitation is an Australian development that also uses UF6. After a protracted development process involving U.S. enrichment company USEC acquiring and then relinquishing commercialization rights to the technology, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) signed a commercialization agreement with Silex Systems in 2006 (see here). GEH has since begun construction of a demonstration test loop and announced plans to build an initial commercial facility. (see here: 30 April 2008). Details of the process are restricted by intergovernmental agreements between USA and Australia and the commercial entities. SILEX has been indicated to be an order of magnitude more efficient than existing production techniques but again, the exact figure is classified.




Schematic diagram of an aerodynamic nozzle. Many thousands of these small foils would be combined in an enrichment unit.Aerodynamic enrichment processes include the Becker jet nozzle techniques developed by E. W. Becker and associates using the LIGA process and the vortex tube separation process. These aerodynamic separation processes depend upon diffusion driven by pressure gradients, as does the gas centrifuge. In effect, aerodynamic processes can be considered as non-rotating centrifuges. Enhancement of the centrifugal forces is achieved by dilution of UF6 with hydrogen or helium as a carrier gas achieving a much higher flow velocity for the gas than could be obtained using pure uranium hexafluoride. The Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa (UCOR) developed and deployed the Helikon vortex separation process based on the vortex tube and a demonstration plant was built in Brazil by NUCLEI, a consortium led by Industrias Nucleares do Brasil that used the separation nozzle process. However both methods have high energy consumption and substantial requirements for removal of waste heat; neither is currently in use.


Electromagnetic isotope separation


Schematic diagram of uranium isotope separation in a calutron shows how a strong magnetic field is used to redirect a stream of uranium ions to a target, resulting in a higher concentration of uranium-235 (represented here in dark blue) in the inner fringes of the stream. In the electromagnetic isotope separation process (EMIS), metallic uranium is first vaporized, and then ionized to positively charged ions. The cations are then accelerated and subsequently deflected by magnetic fields onto their respective collection targets. A production-scale mass spectrometer named the Calutron was developed during World War II that provided some of the 235U used for the Little Boy nuclear bomb, which was dropped over Hiroshima in 1945. Properly the term 'Calutron' applies to a multistage device arranged in a large oval around a powerful electromagnet. Electromagnetic isotope separation has been largely abandoned in favour of more effective methods.


Chemical methods

One chemical process has been demonstrated to pilot plant stage but not used. The French CHEMEX process exploited a very slight difference in the two isotopes' propensity to change valency in oxidation/reduction, utilising immiscible aqueous and organic phases.


An ion-exchange process was developed by the Asahi Chemical Company in Japan which applies similar chemistry but effects separation on a proprietary resin ion-exchange column.


Plasma separation

Plasma separation process (PSP) describes a technique that makes use of superconducting magnets and plasma physics. In this process, the principle of ion cyclotron resonance is used to selectively energize the 235U isotope in a plasma containing a mix of ions. The French developed their own version of PSP, which they called RCI. Funding for RCI was drastically reduced in 1986, and the program was suspended around 1990, although RCI is still used for stable isotope separation.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

URANIUM MINING

URANIUM MINING


Uranium mining is the process of extraction of uranium ore from the ground. As uranium ore is mostly present at relatively low concentrations, most uranium mining is very volume-intensive, and thus tends to be undertaken as open-pit mining. It is also undertaken in only a small number of countries of the world, partly because sufficiently high uranium concentrations to motivate mining at current prices are rare.

The worldwide production of uranium in 2009 amounted to 50,572 tonnes, of which 27% was mined in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia are the top three producers and together account for 63% of world uranium production. Other important uranium producing countries in excess of 1000 tonnes per year are Namibia, Russia, Niger, Uzbekistan, and the United States.

A prominent use of uranium from mining is as fuel for nuclear power plants. As of 2008, known uranium ore resources that can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about a century, based on current consumption rates.

After mining uranium ores, they are normally processed by grinding the ore materials to a uniform particle size and then treating the ore to extract the uranium by chemical leaching. The milling process commonly yields dry powder-form material consisting of natural uranium, "yellowcake," which is sold on the uranium market as U3O8.

We were told to give our comments on the TEST......first thing a big thank you to the lecturers by supplying with substantial tips..yahoo,then here comes the best part...we were given the life line of a cheat sheet.....which i don't think I utilised wisely.Any way, I found the paper to be moderate, even though i get tis gut feeling that the outcome wont be impressive..as in the results..god save me...its kinda like a discomfort in the stomach,hhaa..i know like a spotenous nuclear explosion in your tummy