Russia's Stranglehold on the Nuclear Power Cycle | Hacker News Reader

Russia's Stranglehold on the Nuclear Power Cycle

rferl.org

26 points_Microft8 comments

This article only looks at production. The US has the fourth-largest uranium resource in the world, behind Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan. So 3 of the 4 largest uranium deposits are allied countries. Uranium is a relatively common metal.

Is Kazakhstan actually allied with the West? It seems like they are decently friendly with Russia and try to play both sides?

I assume they're not counting it, but instead are counting the US as allied with itself.

Kazakhstan tries to balance interests of all three sides (Russia, China, the West), and given its economic situation and geographic position, this is the only sensible way for them to survive.

If Russia wins in Ukraine, Kazakhstan will likely downgrade its relations with us, because now they will be threatened with some deadly Russian love. The country is vast, but thinly populated, and hard to defend.

If Russia loses in Ukraine, or at least gets its army mauled beyond recognition, the Western influence in Kazakhstan may increase.

They also have potassium. All other countries have inferior potassium!

No matter which country gets the contract, they will have a stranglehold. As you see only a handful of countries around the world are capable of building, operating and refueling a nuclear power plant. Which makes it incredibly inconvenient in yet another way. Cost overruns happen. Delays happen. Prices go up and up. What are you going to do? Pay up or else. That's one more think to keep in mind before evangelizing nuclear power.

TLDR: Russia controls almost 40% of the uranium conversion capacities and 46% of the enrichment capacities. China is also controlling some amount, leaving only 36% of the conversion (Canada, France) and about 42% of the enrichment capacities under control of allies.

I don't understand these "x% is under allied control" as if we're talking about a finite resource. We could build more of it if it mattered. So I think a more useful way of thinking would be: do we have enough for our purposes and foreseeable needs?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com