Jump to content

SLX - SILEX SYSTEMS LIMITED


moosey

Recommended Posts

Sorry SWP, I skipped over the conversion to UF6, but what I was saying still holds true about how much uranium can be recovered, it is pretty nasty stuff and if GLE can get rid of the majority of the depleted uranium then that in itself would have to be a winner.

 

About 95% of the depleted uranium produced to date is stored as uranium hexafluoride, DUF6, in steel cylinders in open air yards close to enrichment plants. Each cylinder contains up to 12.7 tonnes (or 14 US tons) of solid UF6. In the U.S. alone, 560,000 tonnes of depleted UF6 had accumulated by 1993. In 2005, 686,500 tonnes in 57,122 storage cylinders were located near Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Paducah, Kentucky.[10][11] The long-term storage of DUF6 presents environmental, health, and safety risks because of its chemical instability. When UF6 is exposed to moist air, it reacts with the water in the air to produce UO2F2 (uranyl fluoride) and HF (hydrogen fluoride) both of which are highly soluble and toxic. Storage cylinders must be regularly inspected for signs of corrosion and leaks. The estimated life time of the steel cylinders is measured in decades.[12]

 

There have been several accidents involving uranium hexafluoride in the United States.[13][14] The U.S. government has been converting DUF6 to solid uranium oxides for disposal.[15] Such disposal of the entire DUF6 inventory could cost anywhere from $15 million to $450 million.[16]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In fact the fact that it is turned into UF6 only adds to the argument, because it is an added cost, lets just say for arguments sake that it costs $100 to turn X amount of yellow cake into UF6, and the competitor gets Y amount of Uranium, the GLE would get 2Y from the same $100 for the conversion of the UF6

 

so for the competitor the UF6 cost to get Y is $100

 

but for GLE to get Y only costs them $50 or $100 for 2Y,

or in the case of depleted uranium in UF6 it would cost GLE little for the conversion, as it is already done for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this info previously. (2009)

 

 

I would say 'no'. The cleanup SLX could potentially achieve is to see further processing of depleted UF6 from prior centrifuge enrichment. Basically, lots and lots of depleted U with 0.2-0.3% U235 is still sitting as UF6 in cannisters. The embedded value was too much to just reconvert the UF6 back to U3O8 and bury it, but there was no economic driver to further extract it to lower % levels. They kept it as UF6 as insurance-if U price went sky high, this material would have been economic to process using centrifuge. Now the interesting aspect is that, by rights, the greenies should be willing the SLX technology on. Why? Because UF6 is nasty stuff-not because of the radioactive U, but the material itself. And all this corrosive material is just lying around in cannisters waiting for an accident to happen. So, if the SLX technology can economically harvest another say 0.1 to 0.15% of the U235 from these depleted tails, then the residual would contain very little U235 and further processing (on an economic basis) would be very unlikely. Thus, the further-depleted material could be reconverted back to U3O8 and buried, hence removing a toxic material (UF6) from the environment. I wonder if the DOE and/or US government would welcome/endorse such an approach?

 

Even earlier posts here and here. Many other references littered throughout the earlier posts to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was posted not long after the post you refer to sinner, it was part of a post that I copied from a poster on yahoo named Robey123, I am not sure whether this bill was passed?but we did discuss it here.

 

Looking at the $ amounts mentioned, it looks as though they are prepared to pay the company who is going to do the re enrichment?

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.1061.IS:

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

 

May 18, 2009

Mr. BROWN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

 

A BILL

 

To reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and to direct the Secretary of Energy to provide a plan for the re-enrichment of certain uranium tailings.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONING FUND.

(a) Amounts in Fund- Section 1802 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g-1) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking `$518,233,333' and inserting `$790,000,000'; and (B) by striking `the Energy Policy Act of 1992' and inserting `the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'; (2) in subsection ©, by inserting after `adjusted for inflation' the following: `beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992'; (3) in subsection (d), by striking `15 years after the date of the enactment of this title' and inserting `12 years after the date of enactment of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'; and (4) in subsection (e)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking `15 years after the date of the enactment of this title' and inserting `12 years after the date of enactment of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'; and (B) in paragraph (2), by striking `under such subsection' and inserting `during the 12-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'. (b) Reports- Section 1805 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g-4) is amended-- (1) in the first sentence, by striking `the date of the enactment of this title' and inserting `the date of enactment of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'; and (2) in the second sentence, by striking `5th report submitted under this section' and inserting `third report submitted after the date of enactment of the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009'.

SEC. 3. RE-ENRICHMENT PLAN.

(a) Plan- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy (referred to in this section as the `Secretary') shall develop, complete, and publish in the Federal Register, a plan to re-enrich and sell certain cylinders of uranium tailings. (b) Contents- The plan under subsection (a) shall provide for the following: (1) RE-ENRICHMENT REQUIREMENT- (A) REQUIREMENT- The Secretary shall seek to enter into a contract with the operator of the Department of Energy's uranium enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, for the re-enrichment of cylinders of uranium tailings, with an assay of such value as the Secretary finds economically suitable, located at Government-owned uranium enrichment sites in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. (B) AMOUNT- A contract under subparagraph (A) shall provide for re-enrichment at the Paducah facility of 50 percent of the materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (A). © SCHEDULE- A contract under subparagraph (A) shall provide for re-enrichment to begin not later than 90 days after the date of the publication in the Federal Register of the plan under this section. (D) SUSPENSION OR CANCELLATION- The Secretary may suspend or cancel a contract under subparagraph (A) for re-enrichment, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, if the Secretary determines-- (i) the operator of the Paducah facility has not fulfilled obligations regarding such re-enrichment under the contract; or (ii) economic considerations are not conducive to carry out the contract at that time. (2) SALE OF PRODUCT OF RE-ENRICHMENT- The Secretary shall sell or contract for the sale of the product of re-enrichment carried out pursuant to paragraph (1). (3) SALE OF REMAINING URANIUM TAILINGS- (A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall sell 50 percent of the materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) to qualified buyers. (B) QUALIFIED BUYER- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `qualified buyer' means any entity licensed, under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), to possess materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1). © PREFERENCE- In selling the materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give preference to qualified buyers committed (as determined by the Secretary) to re-enrichment of such materials in the United States. (D) ADDITIONAL CONTRACT FOR MATERIAL NOT SOLD- The Secretary shall seek to enter into a contract with the operator of the Department of Energy's uranium enrichment facility in Paducah, Kentucky, for the re-enrichment of any materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) not sold pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. (4) UNABLE TO CONTRACT- If the Secretary does not enter into a contract under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) within 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary may do either or both of the following: (A) Defer negotiation of such a contract until not later than the last day of calendar year 2014. (B) Sell the amount of the materials in the cylinders described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) under terms consistent with the plan under this section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinner, going by this site it does not seem as if it has been passed as of 15 Oct 2010, but check out all the lobbying associated with this particular bill.

 

Perhaps they are waiting on something else to occur first before they vote?

 

S.1061: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning ...

 

Oct 2010 ... Short: Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009 as introduced. ...

174.37.14.120-static.reverse.softlayer.com/bill/111.../news_blogs - Cached

 

 

S.1061 - Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Reauthorization Act of 2009

A bill to reauthorize the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund and to direct the Secretary of Energy to provide a plan for the re-enrichment of certain uranium tailings. view all titles (2)

 

 

 

 

News Coverage Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, "H.R. 3200") or title (for example, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: writeus@opencongress.org Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems as if there are plenty of companies/entities lobbying on this bill?

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.p...mp;lname=S.1061

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/billsum.p...;lname=H.R.2471

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sunny days for CLOUD experiment - December 15, 2010http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/cloud.jpg

 

 

An experiment designed to investigate the link between solar activity and the climate has its first results in the bag. At the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco today, Joachim Curtius presented data from the first runs of the CLOUD ('cosmics leaving outdoor droplets') experiment at CERN - the European particle physics lab outside of Geneva.

 

The experiment has a long and interesting history. The idea is to test the theory that cosmic rays spur the formation of particles in the air that nucleate clouds, in turn making skies cloudier and the planet cooler. Researchers have noted a dearth of sunspots (which is linked to more cosmic rays) during the 'little ice age' of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and a peak in sunspots (linked to a drop in cosmic rays) during the late 1980s, when global cloudiness dropped by about 3% (see Nature's feature on the project). No one knows how big this effect might be, and the idea that it might account for a big chunk of the warming over the last century is highly controversial.

 

CLOUD uses a particle beam from CERN as a stand-in for cosmic rays, and fires them through an ultra-clean steel chamber filled with select atmospheric gases, to see if and how particles that could nucleate clouds are formed. Project head Jasper Kirkby proposed the experiment back in 1998. But it had a hard time getting off the ground - perhaps in part because Kirkby received some bad press for emphasizing the importance of cosmic rays to climate change (see this story from the National Post). CLOUD finally got going in 2006, and they started work with the full kit in November 2009 (here's a CERN video update about that).

 

The results haven't yet been published, so Curtius declined to discuss the details. But the important thing is that the project is working - they have seen sulphuric acid and water combine to make particles when blasted by the CERN beam, for example, in a way that matches predictions of the most recent models. The data should help the team to quantify how much of an impact the Sun is having on climate within 2-3 years, Curtius says - though there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle to fill in.

 

Photo: could cosmic rays make skies cloudy? (NOAA)

 

 

 

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyon..._experimen.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Record Year For Rooftop Solar Power In Australia

 

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?...article_id=1245

 

by Energy Mattershttp://www.energymatters.com.au/images/news/images_med/clean-energy-council.jpg

 

 

The Clean Energy Council's (CEC) Clean Energy Australia 2010 report was released a short time ago and states that more rooftop solar power was installed in Australia between January and October this year than for the entire decade previous.

 

Over 100,000 solar power systems were installed in Australia during 2010 compared to just over 81,000 for the period 2000 to 2009.

 

More home solar power systems were installed and commissioned during each month between January and October 2010 than the sum total of every other calendar year in the history of the Australian solar industry.

 

Rooftop solar panels on homes throughout Australia now total 301 megawatts capacity.

 

Increased affordability of solar power systems in Australia is seeing the technology rapidly becoming "the Hills Hoist of the 21st century" said Matthew Warren, the chief executive of the Clean Energy Council.

 

Looming electricity price rises and the reduction of the Solar Credits rebate next year may also contribute to a new rush on systems in early 2011 according to national solar power solutions provider Energy Matters.

 

The Clean Energy Council report states in terms of renewable energy overall, 8.67 per cent of AustraliaÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s electricity was generated by sources such as solar power and wind energy in the last year, a total of 21,751 gigawatt hours and the equivalent of the electricity requirements for over three million Australian households. A total of 209 megawatts of large scale clean energy generation was brought online between January and October this year.

 

Given the massive growth, Australia looks well-positioned to achieve its Renewable Energy Target of 20% by 2020. 55,000 jobs are expected to be created in the renewable energy sector by 2020, many in regional areas.

 

The Clean Energy Australia 2010 report can be downloaded here (PDF).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/20/a-da...-is-shaping-up/

 

A Dalton Minimum Repeat is Shaping Up

 

The sun went spotless yesterday, the first time in quite awhile. It seems like a good time to present this analysis from my friend David Archibald. For those not familiar with the Dalton Minimum, here's some background info from Wiki: The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and SpÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¶rer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ Anthony

post-698-1292905897.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...