Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Peak Uranium.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:29 AM
Original message
Peak Uranium.
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 01:31 AM by Bread and Circus
If we ramped up nuclear plants, would that be an issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. Depends on the type of nuclear plant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
2. Na, there is plenty of Uranium yielding minerals in the world.
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 01:42 AM by Idealism
The hardest part is enriching it, but that doesn't diminish the massive quantities of Uraninite that are found in Canada in huge deposits, across the US, Australia, England, etc.

Not to mention we can always produce power from plutonium if need be, although we would like to get away from the use of that element.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. the question was referring to peak uranium, not reserves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Isn't plutonium made by bombarding uranium?
Or are you speaking of the plutonium in our bombs, converting that to nuclear fuel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. No.
There's some specious "estimates" out there that we'd run out of uranium in 40 years if we ramped up the use of nuclear power. However, this is based on the same math that said we should have sucked every last drop of oil out of the ground by 1990 or so. As with any mined or extracted resource, the "known reserves" are continually being replenished by new supplies being discovered.

Second, those numbers don't take into account reprocessing, which extends the life of active uranium by about ten-fold. Nor other kinds of reactions, like using the fission byproducts--the "waste" of reprocessing--in radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

Lastly, some Japanese scientists developed a nifty fabric material that when dragged through seawater, is capable of leaching out uranium. It's only three parts per billion in seawater, but there's a LOT of seawater out there. Dilute uranium can be recovered from seawater at about $240 to $300 per kilogram, which is a bit above current mining prices. Total supply running to the billions of tons, which translates to thousands of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. hmm... it doesn't sound like you are addressing the peak uranium question.
there's a difference between total stores and peak production and it didn't sound like you addressed peak production at all.

I know you know your stuff.

However, to "go nuclear" in a way that is necessary to compensate for transformation to non fossil fuel the demand for uranium would go up. At some point, as it is a mineable material, there will be a peak production. If demand would exceed peak production, that would make it a non-viable solution.

So, I'd like to ask about peak production, not total aggregate reserves (real or otherwise).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Since peak production is a function of technology and economics...
it depends on what scenario you use. If you apply a scenario of conventional mining and once-through use, peak uranium might be several decades off or so. If you add in fuel reuse, you could get an additional factor of 10, since only a few percent of the fuel is used at one pass. If you add in breeding fuel from thorium, it adds centuries of time. There's a lot of thorium to be had. If you add it extraction from sea water, 10 thousand years.

All those technologies work, but what technologies get industrialized is a matter of political and economic choices. I don't presume to know what choices are going to be made, so "when will peak nuclear happen" is hard to answer, at least in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Thanks for the pointers. I'm going to look into this further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.
This isn't a case like the Hubbert peak, where you can actually predict how much is left, rate of consumption, etcetera. There might be a "peak" of production if you restricted it only to conventionally mined uranium, but the oil analogy breaks down because you can't extract oil from seawater, and you can't recycle oil, both of which you can do with uranium. The ocean allows us to pull out about as much uranium as we can produce the filtration fabric for, and the amount of "new" uranium required to supply a world nuclear economy that includes reprocessing is relatively small, and well within long-term production capacities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. everything has a max production rate unless you live in fantasy land.
the question is then, if nuclear is ramped up to meet demands, especially on the scale proposed by some here, would demand rate exceed production rate. That's the essence of any peak energy production problem. It's not complicated.

It's always something to consider, going forward.

Technically, you could extract oil from seawater by way of algae. The problem is cost and rate of production. Not that that is germane to the argument but it's true nonetheless.

It doesn't sound like you guys have really done the math on the feasibility of nuclear peak production and it might be something you want to revisit. I like the idea of recycling and seawater extraction but those endeavors have economic liabilities of their own. And if those methods ever became necessary, it might be a clear indicator that peak profitable nuclear may have been met. Meaning, if you have to go for the "tough to get" energy, you probably have maxed out on the easy to get energy. You are then in the arena of margin of diminishing returns.

Anyway, it sounds like you guys haven't really thought that through but I appreciate the feedback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Well in this case, if there's a ceiling we don't know where it is.
I think there's a definition problem here. You're talking about limitations on how much uranium can be pulled out of the environment at once, but that's not the traditional definition of a peak. The idea of an oil peak is that with a finite resource, you're going to reach a point of diminishing returns when extracting it. Here, however, the available supply is so large that our only real limitation in extraction is how we do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Don't forget world thorium reserves are 3X as large as known world uranium reserves
And thorium can be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors in place of, or mixed with, uranium as a fissile material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. The uranium and thorium already mined - especially the thorium -
could easily last for many generations, despite what you are about to hear from lots of fools who know zero about the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. You either sidestepped the question at hand or don't quite understand the difference
between reserves and peak production and what both mean.

I know you are smart and know your stuff.

However, the question isn't how much fissile material to do we have left. The question is whether peak uranium production could meet peak demand if we were to meet our future energy requirements sans fossil fuel.

If you don't understand the concept, you might want to study the peak oil and what that's all about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. He really doesn't know his stuff.
He has no personal experience or formal training in the field, he tries to pretend he's an expert, but he's demonstrated his own ignorance of the subject many times. He parrots a bunch of hype that he doesn't understand, and his own calculations are plagued by bad math and misreading tables. I wasted enough of my own time double-checking the information he posts, unfortunately a lot of people simply accept what he writes without checking his sources and math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idlisambar Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. The answer to your original question is no
The bottleneck is not the availability of the resource itself (as other posters have pointed out in detail), its the capacity to process it. Build enough reactors and production can be as high as you like.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Yet, I've read they are already below capacity and are using old nuke heads as fuel...
in the same material I read some of the other sources of uranium (recycling/seawater) but they didn't sound to promising.

Also, I haven't seen any numbers presented but rather "just take our word for it response" so don't blame me for not sounding too impressed w/ the prior responses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idlisambar Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. well, recycling is the key issue
Recycling can result in a 100-fold increase in Uranium fuel efficiency. This not only expands the amount of energy that can be extracted from Uranium as currently mined, but also makes it economical to extract it from other sources -- like, for example, seawater. Recycling is already taking place, just not in the United States. If you were to hypothetically eliminate recycling, then peak Uranium becomes an issue, otherwise it isn't -- it's pretty much that simple.

Take a look here for numbers -- http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. If you're going to randomly dismiss some production methods, what kind of question are you asking?
First, spent fuel reprocessing is a proven technology. It's been done in France, England, and elsewhere, and the reason that we're not doing more of it is ironically because fresh uranium is too cheap and plentiful.

Extraction of uranium from seawater's been proven too, and at only slightly over the price of mined uranium. But since you've deemed them "not too promising," you seem to be deliberately trying to create a scenario that gives you the answer you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I'm not dismissing those methods at all. However, I have read they are expensive and inefficient.
The best source I've come across is the "peak uranium" wiki page. It goes into detail on a lot of this with what seems to be a fairly balanced, if inconclusive, analysis. At least it addresses the "peak uranium question" even though it doesn't resolve it.

I know there are many pro nuke folks here and I wanted to get their take on the matter. But I have to admit I'm not impressed. Basically the arguments amount to "take my word for it" but nothing numbers wise to support it.

Saying "we can get uranium from seawater" is a far cry from actually talking about how that process would work, the associated costs, and rate of production. All of which would be germane to the original question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idlisambar Donating Member (916 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. some perspective
really the peak uranium wiki page contains the information you are looking for, there is a mention of breeding reactors in there. Also, The link I provided in my other post gives good numbers.

If your question is whether breeder reactors can be cost competitive with coal, then that's different. This is not a settled question so you are not going to get the certainty you want, though the promise is certainly there just as it is with wind. Like anything, their are benefits to economies of scale and standards, and public support, this is why the French experience with LWR's is so much better than ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. I couldn't care less about "peak oil" since I favor banning oil, unlike anti-nukes
Edited on Wed Mar-04-09 06:03 PM by NNadir
who couldn't care less about banning banning oil or banning coal or dangerous natural gas.

I am well informed and this, "peak uranium" is a non-issue invented by the same assholes who have been running around claiming - as the dangerous fossil fuel apologist Amory Lovins claimed in his high school level paper "Nuclear Power and Nuclear Bombs" in 1980 - that "nuclear power is dead."

Now these same ill-informed abysmally educated clerks are running around saying "peak uranium."

The very first commercial nuclear reactor operated as a light water breeder nuclear reactor.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/15/205445/423">The Light of Day: India's Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor: Some Technical Comments. (Pt 5)

It produced more fissionable fuel than it consumed, six kilos more, the equivalent of millions of gallons of gasoline and tons of coal.

It wasn't designed to be a breeder reactor.

Most of the world's mined thorium has been piled in dumps left over from the manufacture of television sets, where a bunch of people of the especially dumb type who hang out here screaming stupidly about nuclear power ignore it.

Why do they ignore it?

Because they couldn't care less about the effects of their stupid yuppie cult of consumerism, so long as the word "nuclear" doesn't come up. If it involves their television sets and other screens - which coincidentally accounts for the sum total of their insight - they couldn't care less.

Nuclear energy will not save the fool's paradise of indifferent yuppies musing to themselves about their solar pool lights and their biofuels powered Mercedes that meet the "renewables portfolio standards" of Germany and who couldn't fucking care less about the Pantanal or the Sumatran rain forests.

I have never said that it would.

I have merely said that one of the many ways in nuclear power is better than all the bullshit hauled out by dumb people, "the solar will save us," the "biofuels will save us," the "wind power will save us" and "geothermal will save us" chorus of cacophonous cataleptics, since nuclear power already operates on a ten exajoule - it's actually close to 30 - scale and is scalable, probably to a thousand exajoule per year scale.

World energy demand is now 500 exajoules per year.

I note, with contempt, that the anti-nukes run around - immorally in my view - trying to destroy the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy via appeals to ignorance.

Nuclear power doesn't need to address the concerns of every stupid yuppie consumer's fantasies about his stupid car or truck to be better than everything else in terms of scalability and sustainability. It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I'm open to a nuclear argument but all of the "they are dumb" editorializations you
make is not very convincing.

Honestly, I got more out of the "peak uranium" wiki I just read than what you just presented. It seems to be a more balanced view of the factors involved.

You might want to just go with a little more facts and balance and a little less of the "they are stupid because they don't agree with me" routine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes, it will be a major problem
Unfortunately, all the proposed solutions to the problem are expensive and create new problems, such as proliferation risks.
France has already passed "peak uranium" and has to import it,
their breeder reactor program has been a string of failures.
A massive ramp up of nuclear energy just isn't going to happen,
there is much more energy available from solar and wind,
which will also be less expensive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. The problem with Peak Uranium is that we do NOT know how much Uranium exists.
Present theory holds that when the Earth was formed, it was made up of primary uranium and Iron, both sunk to the deepest part of the planet. Resent theory holds that Uranium being the heaviest natural element sunk even further, and became so concentrated a Nuclear Fission reaction was started. This reaction is what keeps the Iron the surrounds this Uranium mass molten. Being Morten the Iron mass breaks out in areas of the Surface where there is weakness in the mantel, generally in the form of Volcanoes. Since the formation of the crust of the earth these Volcanoes have exploded over different parts of the world at different rates. This is why we have Iron in certain locations, that is where molten iron penetrated the crust sometime since the crust was form 100s of Millions of years ago (If you want to get the approximate date look it up on the net, I am just to lazy to do so right now).

In addition to Iron being pushed up, other materials have been pushed up, Copper, Gold, Silver etc but also Uranium. Sometimes these were pushed up and the Iron was absorbed by the earth, other times these were pushed up but no iron came with it. The easier deposits have been found, but it is believe deeper deposits may exist and these would be richer then the deposits we have at present. While Australia is the biggest know spot for uranium right now, Iran is a spot many people suspect may have Uranium. Given this background it is hard to set a "peak" uranium date (and I am NOT excluding the possibility of Space explosion for Uranium, one prospect is the Asteroid belt. Find a stone with Uranium and process it is space using Solar Power to remove the non-uranium and maybe even most of the U-238, leaving u-235 that could be easily shipped to the earth for use as fuel, this is a very distant future possibility but it shows how it is hard to set a peak uranium date.

Now Peak Uranium came out of the debate for Peak Oil. Peak oil is easier to determine for it is NOT a NOT a product of the formation of the plant earth, but the remains of plants that converted solar energy to plant energy. As a product of plants, oil has to be produced (or the plant is is derived from) at the surface of the planet. How these plants died and became oil was understood by the 1930s, furthermore how the oil remained underground for 10s of millions of years was also understood by the 1930s, including the unpleasant fact that if the oil ever fell below about 20,000 feet it was converted to Natural Gas, if the plants that made up the oil was mixed with seaweeds and other large plants, it became Natural gas (and if seaweeds and larger plants were the majority of the plant material, coal). Furthermore the Algae that made up what later became oil had to exist in a swallow sea, deep seas crushed the algae and returned the algae remains to the surface (Sometime thousands of years later, but did and does do so). These swallow seas could NOT be off a coast, for that would bring with it to much seaweed. The best sites of such swallow seas was the American Plains (Including New Orleans) which was, at times, a huge swallow sea, the Mid-east oil fields, other huge swallow sea that later became an even larger oil field, Central Siberia, and other land based oil fields. The Mexican fields seems to be tied in with the Gulf of Mexico and how it expanded and contracted over the last 100 million years.

Furthermore it was found, by 1900 that some sort of cap had be be over the oil to preserve it till it was found, the two main caps were Clay and Salt. Either of these two caps had be to over porous rocks for the oil to seep through once form, no porous rocks, oil never gathered in one place to be found later. No Cap, oil seeped to the surface and was destroyed by bacteria. Thus you need porous rocks underneath salt or Clay that never fell below 20,000 feet AND was at one time a Swallow sea where Algae dominated but had few or no larger plants. It was possible to drill down below 20,000 feet by the 1930s, and do to that drilling the above comment of oil converting to Natural Gas was found.

Thus, given the technology of the 1930s, we could approximate who had oil where, by the 1950s most of the world had been explored for oil at least superficially, to an extend that we could existed how much oil existed in the world. It was also found out that oil fields tended to follow a standard statistical bell curve, so estimating when Peak Oil will occur could be done with some accuracy. By he 1950s Hubble (Who did the first calculations on this matter) estimated peak oil in the 48 would occur around 1969 (he was off, it occurred in 1970). There is a speech by Admiral Rickover from the 1950s that indicated a 2000 world wide peak oil date had been calculated at the same time, but not released to the General Public. By the early 1970s oil reserves world wide were known well enough for people to again make the estimates (One estimated said the Soviet Union would peak in the mid 1980s, which it dead and subsequently collapsed do to the inability to adjust ot the lost of foreign exchange do to the drop in oil production). These estimates, again indicated 2000 as the magic date (Through the drop in oil consumption do to the oil embargo of the 1970s reduced overall oil consumption so that 2005 became the earliest date for world wide peak oil, most people who have access to the data and makes predictions indicate 2010-2012, through OPEC estimates 2035, Whig no one believes).

I point out Peak oil to show that Peak oil is based on well known facts, including a good idea of how much oil is on this planet. We can NOT do the same when it comes to Uranium. It can exist below 20,000 feet, it can exist in Outer Space (Oil can exist in neither place). Where oil can be found, we have had the technology to remove it since the late 1930s, we do NOT have the technology to mine extremely deep uranium deposits NOR outer space deposits of uranium. Thus Peak Uranium many be centuries away, we do not know, but we are no wear near finding or mining 1/2 of the uranium we know of, nor are we near 1/2 of the uranium that MIGHT exist on this planet and is mine-able with current technology (Unlike oil which can be mined/drilled for with present technology in all the places it exists).

Side-note: I did not go into the possibility of a Fusion reactor coming on line within the next 20 years. It is still possible (It has been predicted since the 1950s that Fusion was only 20 years away, but as we learn more about Fusion that 20 year date becomes more and more possible every year). Fusion could be produce clean energy for the next 300 years, just on the heavy Hydrogen atoms that can be found in the Ocean, if perfected. The 300 years estimate is based on present energy levels, but it could provide the power needed to go deep into space and get the Heavy Hydrogen for even more Fusion reactors in addition to the Uranium reactor mentioned above. Just comments on where we are in regards to Peak Oil, Peak Uranium and Peak Heavy Hydrogen, except for Peak oil, we do NOT have enough data to make an educated guess. As to Peak Oil, we can make an educated guess and that it is hitting us right now. The recession has dropped usage extremely and thus today's low prices, but when this economy gets going again (and it will) the price will slowly raise like it did after 2003 to 2007 (The Peak price of 2008 may have been the product of speculation, but it was the peak price that caused this recession that lead to a severe drop in oil usage, through the severe drop in oil usage is what broke the speculation market, so we quickly come to a question of what came first, drop in usage or price drop much like what came first the Chicken or the egg? Drop in usage lead to end of speculation which lead to a recession which lead to even more drop in usage. Prices seems to have bottomed out, but that will last only until usage return to what it had been last spring, before the drop usage. When demand for oil returns so will price, but then so will a recurring drop in demand. In extraction markets that tends to be the norm, fast and famine, nothing in between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC