% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Novogen Limited Message Board

moosefromoz 12 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 13, 2015 10:13 PM Member since: Jul 16, 2004
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Big GE Deal

    by lewis_whokeyser Apr 10, 2015 12:17 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 13, 2015 10:13 PM Flag

    This is what the MIT said back in 2011 "Recommendation
    For the next several decades, a once through fuel cycle using light water reactors
    (LWRs) is the preferred economic option for the U.S. and is likely to be the
    dominant feature of the nuclear energy system in the U.S. and elsewhere for
    much of this century. Improvements in light-water reactor designs to increase the
    efficiency of fuel resource utilization and reduce the cost of future reactor plants
    should be a principal research and development focus."

    Notice the complete about turn that they did , they went from a one through cycle to complet recycling method, this is why GLE slowed down the Wilmington plant, they have changed their focus fro Uranium Enrichment to Laser Isotope Separation of actinides in used nuclear fuel, I highly suspect that this is what GE are up to by building a war chest? I also think this may happen at Paducah and there is a chance it may also happen at Portsmouth?

    Someone here canned what I was saying about this, in an earlier post, they said that it will take $10 Billion and 10 years, they said good luck with that, it won't happen!
    Well to my way of thinking this is the holy grail in getting rid of a real problem that the US has, namely what to do with used nuclear fuel? this is the answer, it is also worth remembering that there are USD$ 30 billion sitting somewhere in the DOE that is clearly earmarked for getting rid of used nuclear fuel, why wouldn't something like this, attract some of that money to rid themselves of this problem and get free nuclear fuel in the process to fuel both LWR's and also Fast reactors and also cut down on the size required for any deep repository for the waste that is left, waste that is only a small fraction of that of UNF and also a lot less radioactive and also have a half life of only a few hundred years instead of hundreds of thousands of years? the savings on this as they say in one of those PDF's is in an order of magnitude?

  • Reply to

    Big GE Deal

    by lewis_whokeyser Apr 10, 2015 12:17 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 13, 2015 10:00 PM Flag

    I wouldn't be worrying too much oldasasgt, GLE slowed down the Silex Uranium Enrichment plant for a very good reason, but it wasn't due to the reasons they gave, they are telling fibs.
    The Silex process works well just look at what the Brookings institute say about it.
    The Brookings Institution | Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative, PLEF would be deployed as part of an agreement between GLE and DOE to purchase and reenrich DOE inventories of depleted UF6.
    The GLE technology "clearly works", and appears able to offer more competitive prices than its centrifuge competitors.
    But I digress, you need to google this, "Report to Congress:Advanced Reactor Licensing
    August 2012" now go to page 72 and look at fig 5.1, see where LWR licensing is expected to end and where Liquid metal reactors GIF and Fast Reactors with closed fuel cycles start, these run on Plutonium and actinides from used nuclear fuel.
    Now google this "Nuclear Fuel Cycle Options Evaluation to Inform R&D Planning
    ICAPP 2014" go to section IV Conclusions on page 9 you will see the future direction this is taking and it isn't using Enriched Uranium, well it uses some but very little to start the reaction in the fast Neutron Reactor, these are the recommended direction to the DOE, the technology best suited to actinide separation is Laser Isotope Separation, not centrifuge, what changed was that they can now use the laser technology to remove the actinides from UNF and burn them in a fast reactor, This also makes the unf reusable again in a LWR because the nuclear poisons have been removed.
    If you look at an earlier recomendation by the MIT to the DOE back in 2011 is said back then that LWR's were the future direction and Enriched Uranium would be the fuel that that used in a once through cycle, that is no longer the case, things changed and this is why GLE have also changed tack!

    google this to see the MIT conclusions "MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle Study"

    I will continue in a second post

  • This document is all about the future direction of Nuclear and the fuels to be used in the future, it was written for the DOE in April of last year to give them a lead on future directions.
    It specifically says I can't copy and paste so you will need to read it yourself.

    Google the heading, look specifically at the last dot point in the doc on page 10.
    In coming years there will be very little Uranium getting enriched, except for that in used nuclear fuel.

  • Reply to


    by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 2, 2015 10:48 PM Flag

    I agree with some of what you are saying, but the Request for Proposal (RFP) contract that was released on the 1st April (no pun) says it was to turn it "into a stable chemical form that will be acceptable for transportation, REUSE, or disposal." some of those factors would revolve around just how much recoverable Uranium was still in the tails, so some may go straight to the second contract which was released on March 25, 2013 - 12:00pm which states that it is for "DOE Selects Contractor for ***Depleted Hexafluoride Conversion*** Project Support, which is what you are talking about, namely the recovery of gasses and chemicals, but the timing has more to do with the fact that some of the Depleted Uranium Hexaflouride needs to have the Uranium (U235) removed before it can be treated as Depleted Hexaflouride, and hence the long delay before that can be completed, because the DOE has stipulated that only a certain amount of Uranium 235 can be recovered each year as Natural Uranium.
    There are 60,000 DUF6 cylinders, About 39,000 cylinders are stored at the Paducah Site, Another 22,000 DUF6 cylinders are stored at the Portsmouth Site. DOE has completed transfer of about 5,000 cylinders from the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge to Portsmouth for conversion, these 5000 cylinders help make up the 22,000 cylinders, so there are less cylinders to be treated at Portsmouth than there are at Paducah, you will also notice that the cost of The total estimated value of the contract ranges from $400 million - $600 million with a base period of performance of three years and one two-year option period.
    This is because their job is to look at all of the cylinders to see what specs they are at concerning Uranium content and whether the F6 component is at spec for enrichment, that is why they are paid more than the other contractor gets to sell some product at the end of it, that is why they are paid less.

  • Reply to


    by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 2, 2015 10:25 PM Flag

    When I say they remove the Uranium , what I mean is they remove the "U235" only that isstill left in the tails, this means that all that is left after the removal of the U235 is, U238 and the F6, this is the Depleted Hexaflouride !
    The contract for the Depleted Hexaflouride is to separate out the gasses and chemicals that can be sold to industry, all that is left then is the U238 which can be used in a PRISM reactor to breed more Plutonium 239 at some point or any other fast breeder reactor if they wish to do so?

  • Reply to


    by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 2, 2015 10:12 PM Flag

    Read the bloody links before you shoot your mouth off, one clearly states that it is for "Depleted Hexafluoride", the other also clearly states that it is for "Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6)"
    That is the wording in the releases, it is not my wording.
    How do you get to Depleted Hexafluoride from Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6), simple you remove the Uranium, is that too hard for you?
    The first thing that would need to be done if the "Uranium" was to be recovered? is to make sure that the DUF6 is up to the original specs of the Hexaflouride component, to allow the Uranium to be recovered, the second contract which actually came out first, is to treat the Hexaflouride after the Uranium has been removed to turn it into something that can be sold, read the bloody documents!

  • Reply to


    by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 2, 2015 6:15 PM Flag

    Something else that gives it away, is the time frame on the second contract, The current DUF6 conversion will be completed within 25 years at Paducah and 18 years at Portsmouth, that is because they cant treat the Depleted Hexafluoride until such time as the Uranium has been removed from the Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6)

  • Reply to


    by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM
    moosefromoz moosefromoz Apr 2, 2015 6:09 PM Flag

    If you look at those two contracts, one is to bring the DUF6 up to spec, you will note one is for treating Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) the other contract is to bring the hexaflouride back to usable gasses and chemicals that can be sold, you will note that the second one is called Depleted Hexafluoride Conversion, that is because the Uranium has now been removed, GLE have indicated that they are building a laser enrichment plant at Paducah to remove the remaining Uranium in the DUF6, but to me it certainly looks as if a second Uranium enrichment plant will be built at Portsmouth, both of those contracts show this, are GLE going to build two plants? or will GLE build one and ACP another? don't know? but it certainly looks like two plants whatever is their makeup?

  • moosefromoz by moosefromoz Apr 1, 2015 10:58 PM Flag

    Notice in these two projects listed that one is for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride and then the other is for Depleted Hexafluoride, how in the hell does one get from to the other? Simple you use a laser enrichment plant to remove the remaining Uranium left in the tails, but if you google both of those you will notice that this will happen at two sites not one, namely Portsmouth and also Paducah, we already know that GLE has told the DOE that it is interested in treating the tails at Paducah, I reckon Portsmouth is also in their sights somehow?
    This information has not been digested by the market as of yet!
    I am not telling you guys what to do, but I have already put more of my money where my mouth is, SILEX.
    Work it out for yourselves when you Google these-:
    DOE Seeks Contractor for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) Operations at Ohio and Kentucky Facilities

    DOE Selects Contractor for Depleted Hexafluoride Conversion Project Support

  • moosefromoz moosefromoz Mar 28, 2015 12:09 AM Flag

    New Drug against cancer STEM cells Dr. Weeks’ Comment: For the past decade, scientists have know full well that cancer STEM cells, and not cancer TUMOR cells, are the real lethal cancer cell which needs to be targeted in order to reverse cancer process and save lives. I have lectured on that topic in Japan, Germany, Canada, England and across America. Change has been slow in coming because conventional cancer care is profitable. More specifically, oncologists have had no patented profitable weapons with which to target cancer STEM cells, so they continued to urge paying customers (i.e. dying and trusting patients) to allow oncologists to “slash, burn and poison” (i.e surgery, radiation and chemotherapy) the relatively harmless cancer TUMOR cells – despite the fact that standard of care (slash burn and poison) does NOT kill cancer STEM cells.

    To give you a clearer picture, here is an example. Imagine America is being attacked from the north. Our first thought is that Canada is attacking us, so we start counter attacking Canada but the attack from the north continues unabated. Hmmm…. After a while, some smart military intelligence officer clarifies that although the attack is indeed coming from the north, it is actually NOT coming from Canada but from Russia which is launching missiles which fly over Canada towards the USA. Hmmm.. What does the US military do now when it realizes we have been targeting the wrong entity? Well, we should counter-attack Russia, but for the purposes of this example, let’s imagine that we don’t have missiles that can reach Russia. (e.g. we don’t have drugs that can kill cancer STEM cells). In that case, the US army decides to continue bombing Canada. (e.g. continue killing the innocent, relatively harmless cancer TUMOR cells). Seems nonsensical? It is.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • moosefromoz moosefromoz Mar 21, 2015 2:10 AM Flag

    GEH has changed tack, the ESBWR is on the backburner, they will be using a modified version of the ABWR or two newer versions which are on the drawing board right now, they are called RMWR, and RBWR, they are the LWR version to burn used nuclear fuel, the other generation four reactor they also have is called PRISM.

    The Reduced-Moderation Water Reactor (RMWR) is a light water reactor, essentially as used today, with the fuel packed in more tightly to reduce the moderating effect of the water. Considering the BWR variant (resource-renewable BWR - RBWR), only the fuel assemblies and control rods are different. In particular, the fuel assemblies are much shorter, so that they can still be cooled adequately. Ideally they are hexagonal, with Y-shaped control rods. The reduced moderation means that more fissile plutonium is produced and the breeding ratio is around 1 (instead of about 0.6), and much more of the U-238 is converted to Pu-239 and then burned than in a conventional reactor. Burn-up is about 45 GWd/t, with a long cycle. Initial seed (and possibly all) MOX fuel needs to have about 10% Pu. The void reactivity is negative, as in conventional LWR. A Hitachi RBWR design based on the ABWR-II has the central part of each fuel assembly (about 80% of it) with MOX fuel rods and the periphery uranium oxide. In the MOX part, minor actinides are burned as well as recycled plutonium.

    The main rationale for RMWRs is extending the world's uranium resource and providing a bridge to widespread use of fast neutron reactors. Recycled plutonium should be used preferentially in RMWRs rather than as MOX in conventional LWRs, and multiple recycling of plutonium is possible. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) started the research on RMWRs in 1997 and then collaborated in the conceptual design study with the Japan Atomic Power Company (JAPCO) in 1998. Hitachi has also been closely involved, with its RBWR concept which has a major aim of burning actinides.

  • moosefromoz moosefromoz Mar 11, 2015 4:51 AM Flag

    Not sure where you get your info from b1g_brothr?
    You certainly need to brush up on your research.

    Google some of this before shooting your mouth off,

    "Advances in laser enrichment may enable relatively low-cost plutonium isotopic separation creating a new unexplored dimension in fuel cycle options."

    "Hitachi developing reactor that burns nuclear waste"

    "Technical Evaluation of the Hitachi Resource-Renewable BWR (RBWR) Design Concept"

    "Hitachi collaborates on TRU-consuming reactor development"

    They didn't shut the shop up, they are just working on an additional method for more power from used nuclear fuel, GLE will be getting Uranium from the tails at Paducah, they will also be getting for next to nothing enriched Uranium from used nuclear fuel and now you can add to that Plutonium with 240Pu removed, they will now have U235 and Pu239 as a new MOX fuel, one that is very very cheap and can be burnt in GEH's ABWR and a newer version of that coming called the SBWR, they dropped the baton on the ESBWR for this so it must be bloody good?

    If any of that comes off? There will be little need fro enriched Uranium well into the forseeable future!

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

6.06-0.22(-3.50%)May 22 3:59 PMEDT