The imminent uranium shortage??

[4dsc]

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Michael+Meacher/40303555-df13-4f07-aa3e-467305d89ae5.htm

The imminent uranium shortage has been admitted by the World Nuclear Association, which provided a chart of the unfolding crisis on its website in July. But while the nuclear industry is comfortable with debating the safety of nuclear reactors it will not discuss the uranium supply shortfall.

Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association, has said it is necessary to examine replacing those nuclear generators that are due to be closed "whether the uranium supply is plentiful or not". But, as uranium hoarding begins, a major shortage could arise sooner than 2013, and its value pushed up to the levels of precious metals.

Against this background, to shell out on a new round of reactors in the UK at £2bn a time, and then within a decade have to close perhaps 25% of them, must surely be the ultimate folly.

[Kagemusha]

1. Sounds like another what-if used to justify a position of morals

Spare the pity. If you don't want nuclear power, then stand against it for that reason.

[NNadir]

2. First of all, Mr. Meacher should check his history.

If he knew anything about nuclear energy, which apparently he doesn't, he would correct the statement that "no commercial thorium nuclear reactor" has ever been constructed. The days when the conversation about nuclear energy can be dominated by opponents of the technology who issue technically illiterate cherry picked misinformation are, fortunately, over. Peach Bottom, Fort St Vrain, and the very first commercial nuclear reactor ever built in the United States, Shippingport, all operated on Thorium fuel cycles.

Unfortunately the technology was not pursued very far, mostly because the world supply of uranium was much larger than anyone realized. The primary drawback to the technology involved the need for remote handling of the fuel, which before the age of robotics was uneconomic, especially given the surfeit of uranium.

I regularly check the world nuclear website, and don't recall a single reference to a single nuclear power plant worrying about running out of fuel in the next decade. In fact the only reference to an impending shortage comes from a mining minister in Kazhakstan trying to promote investment in uranium mines in his country. That's good marketing on his part, but it has nothing to do with some nonsense about "peak uranium." The fantasized peak has nothing to do with geology or availability and everything to do with demand. In the 1990's the world was awash in excess fissionable material and you couldn't sell uranium if you wanted to. Therefore the Kazahks, for instance, could not even get anyone to listen to them, never mind invest. Part of the situation derived from the wise Clinton-Gore treaty with the Russians on the subject of excess weapons grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium. This stuff was sold on the world market, suppressing demand. That situation is now coming to an end. So what?

There is some concern that there will need to be a change in the commercial approach to nuclear fuel that has operated for the last 50 years, probably by the end of the current decade, but anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of nuclear physics understands that the supply of uranium can probably never be exhausted. I expect that the confusion and misrepresentation arises from the complete failure by this silly man to understand the difference between the once through fuel cycle and advanced fuel cycles like the CORAIL cycle.

It happens that the world supply of plutonium alone is sufficient to provide every single joule on earth (including those from the precious oil and coal) for about 8 months, and no one is expecting such a requirement to be placed on that supply. In fact the concern is quite the opposite. The world is looking for ways to minimize plutonium inventories. The French for instance, contemplate fuel cycles that will bring their inventory to under 500 metric tons by the end of the 21st century, using, of course the commercial reactors they will always have. Further, the current thinking is (foolishly) to treat the majority of this material as if it were garbage. Moreover, it is easily arranged, inevitable in fact (except in the APA and Thorium fuel cycles) that the use of this plutonium will result in the formation of more plutonium

One possible outcome for the so called "uranium shortage" of course, is to make the reprocessing plant at Sellafield suddenly a profitable enterprise, but a shortage of nuclear fuel, in spite of the continuous and intellectually dubious enterprise among the members of the "peak oil" religion to create a religious Jonestown on an international scale, will not happen in the lifetime of anyone living on this planet. The sudden profitability of Sellafield, of course, will upset the usual cadre of nuclear scare-mongerers, but said types plants as represented by Sellafield and La Hague, will, within a century - should humanity survive global climate change - dominate the energy field for several millenia. The Chinese and Japanese don't in fact give a shit about the concerns of a UK backbencher. Unquestionably new reprocessing plants will avail themselves of the many advances in the last several decades in actinide chemistry, but the concept will be commercially important for a more centuries than we can contemplate.

I am really at a loss to identify what it is exactly that the peak oil set seems to want with their continuous evocation of panic. Didn't James Kunstler sell enough of his silly books? If they insist that everybody kill themselves, maybe they can go first.

[jpak]

4. US oil production peaked in 1970 (as predicted by M. King Hubbert)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0501.html

...and declined from ~9.4 million bbl/day in 1970 to ~4.5 million bbl/day in 2004

US uranium production peaked in 1980

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0903.html

...and declined from ~43 million pounds in 1980 to ~2 million pounds per year in 2004.

Peak Oil and Peak Uranium - inconvenient geological FACTS - no religion required.

[Massacure]

6. Your amusing.

The fact that United States mined more uranium in 1980 than it does now is not proof that the United States is running out of uranium.

[4dsc]

7. And we'll never run out of oil either

SO your statement about running out of uranium is similar to those claiming we'll never run out of oil(we won't). It draws attention away from the real arguement and attempts to frame the issue in a favorable light..

[NNadir]

8. You would have to know about energy density and you don't.

1 kg of uranium is equivalent to 600,000 gallons of your precious oil.

There are more than 3 billion tons of uranium in the ocean alone, and Japanese researchers have demonstrated how to recover it if the price rises enough, an effect that will have a trivial effect on the cost of the power because, again, of energy density.

But really, what is it that you want? You want us all to cry because you're paniced beyond reason about a fuel, oil, that should be banned on the grounds it's too filthy for words?

[jpak]

9. My amusing???

:)

Uranium and petroleum are nonrenewable geological resources.

Every uranium mine and every oil field has a finite supply and lifespan.

When its gone, it's gone.

Funny how that works.

Once US yellowcake stockpiles are exhausted, the US will be importing >96% of its uranium requirements - in fierce competition with the rest of the world.

and that's not funny...

[Massacure]

10. And when when will they exhaust?

The fact that we only produce 4.5% of the uranium we used to is not proof in itself that uranium reserves are exhausted. It just means we are buying from other places, regardless of the reason why.

The fact that there was an oil shortage in 1973 wasn't proof that the world's reserves of oil were exhausted. It was created by political problems. Michael Meacher is forecasting a political problem, those can always be fixed.

[Oerdin]

11. LOL

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Jpak, your lunacy never ceases to amaze me. Seriously, as a geologist I must say you are absolutely clueless. Do you realize that among professional geologist Hubbert is never mentioned other then on brief occasions when his writings are laughed at? Do you realize that Hubbert's central thesis was entirely incorrect?

Hubbert claimed that US domestic oil production would decline because we would run out of oil to exploit which was utterly and completely wrong. The US's proven reserves are larger today then they have been at any point in history; off shore reserves alone are larger then the total known reserves when Hubbert published his bit of tripe. The problem is that domestic oil costs more to recover then cheaper oil in the middle-east and Siberia primarily because US labor is more expensive, our environmental regulations are more expensive, and (most of all) the NIMBYs seem to always block new development. Those factors have absolutely nothing to do with the US "using up" all of its oil and so Hubbert was completely wrong.

Not that such facts will sway a person like you. After all you wrote several threads where you claimed the world would run out of uranium in 10 years so I already know I'm dealing with a scientifically illiterate person. Do us all a favor by going back to college and get a degree in a real science then maybe you will have something germane to add to a science debate but right now you do not.

[jpak]

5. Fort St. Vrain was a lemon

It had serious engineering and operational problems throughout it relatively short life...

http://fsv.homestead.com/FSVHistory.html

Peach Bottom wasn't "peachy" either...

http://www.tmia.com/reactors/peachbottom/pb-a.html

[jpak]

3. This has been known for some time

Uranium shortage poses threat

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9069-1735134,00.html

A GLOBAL shortage of uranium could jeopardise plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain.

The dearth of uranium will be discussed at the World Nuclear Association’s symposium in London next month and could prove to be a major stumbling block in the nuclear industry’s attempt to have old nuclear power stations replaced with modern reactors.

<snip>

According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development’s Nuclear Agency’s “red book” — its statistical study of world uranium resources and demand — the world consumed 67,000 tonnes of uranium in 2002. Only 36,000 tonnes of this was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary sources, in particular ex- military sources as nuclear weapons are decommissioned.

In 2001 the European Commission said that at the current level of uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years. With military and secondary sources, this life span could be stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear power continues to provide only a fraction of the world’s energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply would last just 12 years.

<more>

The US is in bad shape -we're relying on imports and dwindling stockpiles of yellowcake.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0903.html

The US, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Mexico, Japan, and South Korea import most or all of their uranium for nuclear power

China, Japan and India are scouring the globe to lock in uranium supplies (and lock us out).

Uranium pursuit fuelling prices

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10385088

India's nuclear power company plans to spend US$1.2 billion on a stake in a uranium mine to support an expanded atomic power programme, entering international bidding for the fuel by nations including China and Japan.
 
Nuclear Power of India approached Australian and Canadian companies on a possible joint venture in uranium mining, said chairman S.K. Jain, without naming them. India might compete with China for deposits of the metal.

<snip>

Uranium may become a new source of competition as India follows China in seeking the heavy metal to generate nuclear power to feed increasing electricity demand.
 
"The Chinese are trying to engage Australian companies, and in fact any company in the world that's dealing in uranium," said John Borshoff, CEO of Australian uranium explorer Paladin Resources. "We are aware that the Indians are looking at potential sources."

<more>

Japan Joins the Race for Uranium Amid Global Expansion of Nuclear Power

http://japanfocus.org/article.asp?id=584

By Hisane MASAKI

TOKYO - Energy-hungry Japan is revving up its drive to secure uranium abroad as global demand for nuclear power rises amid stubbornly high oil and gas prices and growing environmental concerns. Major Japanese trading and energy firms are looking at multibillion yen investments in uranium mine projects, with electronics conglomerate Toshiba in February purchasing Westinghouse, the US power plant arm of British Nuclear Fuels, for about US$5.4 billion. Meanwhile, the government, which attaches great importance to nuclear power as a key to ensuring national energy security, is also considering assistance to help domestic firms in the intensifying global competition for fuel at nuclear power plants. Among those measures are financial aid and more investment-insurance coverage by government-affiliated organizations. Japan is already the world's third-largest nuclear power nation in terms of the number of civilian nuclear plants in operation. Uranium prices are climbing as energy-hungry China and India are stepping up construction of nuclear power plants to fuel their high-flying economies, while some industrialized countries, including the US and Britain, are moving to build new nuclear power plants after many years of suspension following nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986. Nuclear power generation has begun to come under the spotlight again due to growing environmental concerns as well as the high prices for oil and gas. Nuclear power plants generate much less carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas widely blamed for global warming, than coal-fired facilities. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power generation are not available in sufficient amounts - and at affordable prices.

<snip>

Private investment in foreign uranium mines has been sluggish since the 1990s, largely reflecting slumping prices for the fuel. Currently, only two overseas uranium mines in which Japanese firms have invested are on stream. One is the Akouta mine in Niger - in which Overseas Uranium Resource Development (OURD) has a 25% stake - the other McClean Lake mine in Canada, in which OURD has a 7.5% interest. Japan-Australia Uranium Resources Development had a 10.64% interest in the Ranger mine in Australia until it sold off the stake in December. However, Japanese firms have begun to refocus on uranium. Itochu, a major Japanese trading firm, announced this month that it and Dallas-based Uranium Resources will conduct a joint assessment of production potential at the Churchrock, New Mexico uranium mine. Itochu will spend as much as 4 billion yen ($34 million) for a 50% stake in the project being developed by Uranium Resources. The mine may produce 400 tons a year, or 4% of Japan's uranium demand, from as early as 2009. It may operate for 10 years and supply reactors in the US and Japan. Itochu currently sells 4,000 tons of uranium produced in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan to Japanese customers annually. Last year, Itochu concluded a long-term uranium concentrate purchase deal with Kazakhstan's state-run nuclear power company, Kazatomprom, under which the Japanese firm will buy 3,000 tons over 10 years.

<more>

Even though the US imports most (>66%) of its uranium, we will be exporting US uranium to Japan in the near future - go figure.