Russia’s reckless rampage includes savage attacks on Ukrainian nuclear plants. That’s prompted the Biden Administration to consider sanctioning Russia’s ability to export its nuclear technologies and highly-enriched uranium supplies. However, doing so would have consequences for the global nuclear sector.
Ukraine’s Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhya — the largest nuclear plant in Europe — have been assaulted. But the country has 15 nuclear plants in all, which are potential targets. Ukraine told the International Atomic Energy Agency on Friday that its engineers have been repairing the interconnections between the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and the primary electricity grid. This process should be complete by March 22.
The good news is that the radiation levels at both Zaporizhzhya and Chernobyl are in the normal range. If a truce is reached, the atomic agency will need to perform a proper inspection. “With this framework in place, the agency would be able to provide effective technical assistance for the safe and secure operation of these facilities,” says Director General Rafael Grossi.
On March 4th, Russian forces took control of the Zaporizhzhya plant. Only two of its six reactors are operating. Chernobyl, of course, is where the fourth of four reactors had exploded and caught fire in 1986. None of the reactors are running, although some had continued to produce electricity until 2000. The Russian military attacked that same plant on February 24.
Ukraine gets half of its electricity from nuclear power. Shelling the plants raises questions about Russia’s future role in the international energy picture. It also poses a dilemma about whether nuclear energy is safe in a world where one mad man can unleash his vengeance. Indeed, when Russian tanks and artillery hit Zaporizhzhya, it could have released deadly radiation locally and across international boundaries — including into Russian airspace.
Russian oil and natural gas are getting sanctioned. It is led by Europe, which gets about 40% of its natural gas from Russia. And the Germans are refusing to permit Russia’s $11 billion Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Aggression cannot be tolerated — not the kind that needlessly kills thousands of innocents. Europe, which is building more liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminals, has choices. The United States hopes to increase its LNG exports to the continent.
Uranium Supplies
But Europe could also opt not to close down existing nuclear facilities as Belgium has indicated. Or it could build even more, as France has suggested.
“I think there is this recognition that if nuclear were to somehow be taken off the table or support for it would drop, that’s going to further undermine energy security in Europe, here in the U.S., and beyond, and really plays into the hands of those who want to use energy as a weapon,” says Senior Vice President of Policy Development John Kotek at the Nuclear Energy Institute, during CERAWeek.
The war on Ukraine raises serious doubt about whether Russia should supply the uranium used to fuel nuclear power plants. According to the U.S. Energy Information, Russia provides about 16% of this country’s uranium. About three-quarters of that is purchased under long-term contracts. Russia provides 20% of Europe’s uranium. Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan supply two-thirds of the world’s uranium. Only 10% of it comes from domestic mines.
To be precise, Canada’s Cameco and Kazakhstan’s Kazatomprom account for more than half of the global uranium supplies. The French company Orano provides 13% while the Russian/Canadian enterprise Uranium One, Russia’s ARMZ Uranium Holding, the China National Nuclear Corp., and the China General Nuclear Power Group make up smaller percentages, all according to World Nuclear Association.
Consider Constellation Energy: in a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, it said that it had plenty of uranium on hand — enough to last for years and to endure any would-be boycott of Russian supplies. Does the same theorem hold for the rest of the globe’s nuclear plants?
There are 440 nuclear reactors in 30 countries, and 55 more are now under construction. The International Atomic Energy Agency said in 2016 that the global nuclear fleet has enough uranium for 130 years. If supplies would ever tighten, markets would respond accordingly — as they have in the past.
However, the dilemma is more complicated. The U.S. Department of Energy is funding an advanced nuclear energy program — plants that achieve superior thermal efficiency, which is necessary for steel-making and hydrogen production. Two of the beneficiaries include TerraPower and X-Energy, which hope to commercialize the technology in five years. There’s also NuScale Power and Kairos Power, which are testing advanced nuclear protocols.
At present, Russia has much of the capacity to provide the highly-enriched uranium to fuel those reactors. But the Energy Department is also providing the monies to research and develop highly-enriched uranium. “As you look ahead for the increase in nuclear power as we see it … it’s important that we invest in the front end of the fuel cycle,” says Maria Korsnick, chair of the Nuclear Energy Institute, at CERAWeek.
Moreover, “I think the nuclear value proposition is basic and fundamental,” she adds. “It’s reliable, it’s carbon-free, it’s 20% of the U.S. supply of electricity. What’s important in front of us is not just that we have to decarbonize the electric sector, we have to decarbonize the entire economy.”
While a tsunami and an explosion have caused previous nuclear accidents, no one ever thought that a great power like Russia would assault those plants — especially an exporter of nuclear technologies and the associated fuels. But this has now happened. The nuclear industry should not suffer the side effects of those transgressions. However, Russia should pay a heavy price, beginning with a ban on its energy exports and uranium supplies.
