Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 92 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 120 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 84 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 66 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 85 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 100 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 83 nanosieverts per hour

Dover sole – Caught in USA = 107 nanosieverts per hour

     Most efforts to deal with spent nuclear fuel involve getting rid of it permanently. The most popular method is deep burial in geological repositories. However, there are also efforts to find a commercial use for it.
     Scientists in Slovenia at the Jožef Stefan Institute (JSI) and the U.K.’s Lancaster University and Aston University have shown that spent nuclear fuel could be utilized to produce a valuable fuel additive required for renewable biodiesel. Their paper titled Nuclear-driven production of renewable fuel additives from waste organics was published in the journal Nature Communications Chemistry last week. The article said that there are “unexplored renewable processes that can be realized using ionizing radiation – especially considering used fuel pools as a source of catalytic energy.”
     The new research report explains that the process of manufacturing biodiesel also produces glycerol as a by-product. With the increase in the use of biodiesel around the globe, low grades of glycerol are currently being disposed of which adds cost to the renewable sector.
     The researchers placed samples of glycerol insider the research reactor at the JSI. They found that irradiation of the glycerol by neutrons and gamma rays in the reactor can catalyze glycerol to create a very valuable fuel additive known as solketal. This chemical is currently used to make biodiesel as well as other liquid fuels.
     After they had confirmed the radiocatalytic effect, the researchers considered two potential ways in which the nuclear industry could create solketal alongside normal power plant operations.
     One method called for arranging the tubes of glycerol in the space between a light water reactor pressure vessel and its concrete biological shield. Some solketal could be produced in this way but it might come with potential problems for power plant operation and neutron radiation could cause materials in the system to become radioactive.
     A better method for solketal production would be to run tubes of glycerol through spent nuclear fuel cooling pools where highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is stored for preliminary cooling. This method would result in a greater surface are of glycerol for irradiation. This arrangement would also limit radiation to gamma rays and avoid the complications of neutron activation. A practical arrangement could see the chemical processing taking place in other buildings. This would minimize disruption to power plant operation.
     The research paper suggests that the fuel pool production method has the potential to scale up to produce about fifty-seven tons of solketal per year for a typical spent nuclear fuel pool. Further expansion could reach as many as one hundred and eighty spent nuclear fuel storage sites inside the European Union. This could result in a maximum estimated capacity of about ten thousand tons of solketal per year. Solketal has a market price of about three thousand dollars per ton.
     Representative of the JSI said, “This discovery has opened up entirely new possibilities for the use of radiation from nuclear power plants and spent nuclear fuel storage facilities for the conversion of waste chemicals and is one of the important steps on the path to sustainable development.”

Ambient office = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 151 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 151 nanosieverts per hour

Gala apple from Central Market = 65 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 117 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 106 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Many analysts believe that nuclear energy should play major role in the clean energy transition. However, the high costs of nuclear power have made it uncompetitive when compared to other clean energy sources. Recently, thanks to the sharp rise in energy prices, nuclear power competitiveness is improving. There is a greater commitment to new nuclear power stations in China and other countries. Meantime, innovative nuclear technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs) are being developed in countries such as China, the U.S., U.K, and Poland. It is hoped that these SMRs will reduce upfront capital costs.
     There have been recent optimistic releases about the future of nuclear power from the World Nuclear Association and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), (The IAEA made its first optimistic projection for future nuclear power use for the first time since the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.) All these factors are making investors more bullish about future uranium demand.
     Issues on the supply side have multiplied the effects on the price of uranium. The recent low demand and low price of uranium resulted in mines around the world being mothballed for several years. One example involves Cameco, the largest uranium company listed on the stock exchange, suspended production at its McArthur River mine in Canada in 2018.
     The COVID-19 pandemic also impacted the uranium market with production falling by about ten percent in 2020 as mining operations were disrupted. Uranium has no direct substitute and is involved in national security. This has resulted in several countries including China, India and the U.S. accumulating large stockpiles. This has further limited the available supply.
      When the cost of producing electricity over the lifetime of a power station is considered, the cost of uranium has a much smaller impact on a nuclear power plant than the equivalent effect of gas or biomass. It is about five percent compared to about eighty percent in other power sources. A big increase in the price of uranium will not have a big impact on the economics of nuclear power.
     There is certainly a risk of turbulence in the uranium market over the next few months. In 2021, markets for things like Gamestop and NFTs have become iconic examples of the impact of speculative interest and irrational exuberance. 
     The uranium price surge also appears to be attracting the attention of “transient” investors. There are indications that shares in companies and funds (like Sprott) exposed to uranium are becoming meme stocks for the r/WallStreetBets community on Reddit. Irrational exuberance may not explain the initial surge in uranium prices but it may be an indicator of more volatility to come.
      There may be a bubble growing in the uranium market and it would not be surprising if it is followed by an over-correction on the downside. The growing view is that the world will need significantly more uranium for more nuclear power. This will incentivize the mining of uranium and the release of existing reserves to the market. In the same way as supply issue have exacerbated the effect of heightened demand on the price, the same thing could happen in the opposite direction when more supply becomes available.
      All this is symptomatic of the current stage in the uranium production cycle. A glut of reserves has suppressed prices too low to justify extensive mining. This has been followed by a price surge which will increase more mining. The current rally may act as a vital step in ensuring the next phase of the nuclear power industry has adequate fuel.