Peak oil, peak nat gas, peak food...and now..........

Peak Uranium

From: On the road to ruin
by Michael Meacher

[...]
The supply of uranium has already reached its peak, in 1981. There are 440 nuclear reactors worldwide,
and the world produces just over half the uranium ore these plants consume each year.

At present, the gap is filled by using the plutonium from dismantled cold war nuclear weapon stockpiles.
But this source is drying up and will end by 2013, so the industry is trying to find and develop new uranium
mines, mainly in Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. However, those under development will fill only half
the current gap, not to mention new demand from the 28 nuclear plants under construction worldwide,
added to China's plan to build 30 new plants by 2020. As a result, about a quarter of nuclear power plants
could be forced to shut down within a decade because of a lack of fuel.

Developing a uranium mine is expensive and complex since the material is hazardous - it takes about 15
years from discovery to production. Therefore, even if a massive effort were now launched to find and
develop new mines, there will still be an eight-year gap after 2013. China is already scrambling to corner
contracts for uranium ore, and uranium prices have soared by 400% over the past six years.

While the element uranium is commonly available, concentrated uranium ore suitable for energy is limited.
 Uranium ore is rock containing uranium mineralisation in concentrations that can be mined economically.

The main argument used by the nuclear industry for downplaying this crisis is that, if necessary, thorium can
 be used instead of uranium as reactor fuel, and thorium is abundant. However, the US, Russia, Germany, In
dia, and Japan have all studied thorium reactors for 30 years, yet no commercial thorium reactor has ever
been constructed. Another idea is to reuse uranium in "fast breeder" reactors. This is feasible, but such
reactors are more complex, more costly and more dangerous, which is why the US halted their use in
the 1970s and the UK abandoned the idea in 1994. There is, at present, no serious large-scale attempt to
convert to either thorium or breeder reactors anywhere in the world, making widespread closures of
traditional uranium fuelled reactors within a decade a real possibility.

Meanwhile, as demand rises and supplies fail to keep up, a 10-fold increase in the price of uranium over the
next few years is not impossible.

[...]
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...

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

and (with links to charts)
http://world-nuclear.org/sym/2003/connor.htm
such as demand forecasts from 2003 (probably revised upward since)

Re Peak Uranium I'm dubious about the claimed 1981 peak because about that time the Olympic Dam deposit was discovered which near doubled world reserves. I will admit that the industry spin has echoes of peak oil denial
http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
and it guess it will get back to EROEI with low grade reserves. It also looks like fast breeder reactors are not yet reliable. Even if there is just half a century of reserves that could be the lifeline for the world to sort out issues like GW and sustainable population.  Several decades of nuclear could provide low CO2 baseload power to underpin irregular sources, hydrogenation of poor quality liquid fuels and electrification of transport (PHEVs, light rail etc). The big mistake would be to exploit uranium thinking something else will replace it. Like I said, it's a lifeline and a one-off.
The greatest potential fuel source is spent reactor fuel.  The enrichment is lower than when first inserted, but still much higher than natural uranium.  In many cases, take out the fission byproducts (everything below Uranium) and just stick it back in with some new uranium nearby (perhaps enriched a bit higher).  Plutonium, Americanium, Neptunium are all fissile.

Not going to happen in US, but I bet China would do it if need be.  And offer to take troublesome nuclear waste off of others' hands.

There were a long series of posts on the Energy Resources forum (somewhere between 1-3 years ago) arguing that U could be extracted from the ocean by suspending nets.  I don't remember any specifics but I think the nets were supposed to be treated to "attract" the U - but don't hold me to this :-)  In any case, the arguement was that there was unlimited U that could be extracted.
Some of the new fast breeder reactors seem to be much safer than earlier designs, and would solve the fuel shortage problem for at least 1000 years. I'm particularly interested in the lead-cooled reactors. Good information page about these new reactor designs:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip77.htm

Actually this "dubious" claim would make some sense -- after a big reserve is discovered, further exploration is shut down (why bother?), so subsequently reserve numbers would "fall" from that high vantage point.  This is how "crisis mongers" operate.
I found this article to be a real eye-opener:

WHY NUCLEAR POWER CANNOT BE A MAJOR ENERGY SOURCE
by David Fleming, April 2006

It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste.

As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world's total current electricity demand for about six years.

Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a 'climate-friendly' technology.

One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.

There is also an audio recording of the author presenting his thesis. The research that the article is based on is available here.

I keep seeing fluorine mentioned as a limit in a nuclear reactor program. Its not that rare an element, 18th in order of abundance in the earths crust at 0.029% above nickel and way above copper and zinc.

Does any body know if it is recycled after use to make Uranium Hexafluoride for enrichment  and if not is there are fundamental reason it could not be?


One of the most striking points is the profitability and EROEI of conventional nuclear power is dependent on never properly disposing of wastes or decommissioning and disassembling power plants. In light of that, the continuing inaction on a permanent disposal site in the U.S. is a lot more understandable.

Our determination to keep Iran from developing nuclear processing also becomes a little more understandable. If we succeed, their uranium stays available to the world market and we might get to purloin the plutonium produced in their reactors and reactors in other nations that might turn to them for reprocessing.

Which leads me to wonder if J.Edgar's real adgenda was to gain for the ruling class all there is to know about the mafia's methods. So that they might apply them on a larger scale.

There are days when I think that Canada made the correct choice to go with heavy-water reactors. While there are some problems with the aging CANDU reactors, I understand that the newest designs address those problems and have a number of advantages in terms of fuel flexibility. In addition to achieving a significantly higher total burn-up, it appears they can run on everything from unenriched uranium to MOX to "spent" light-water fuel to properly-seeded thorium.
CANDUs (peonounced "can do") has always been my favorite reactor.  Quite safe and no downtime to refuel.  And yes, it can run on our waste fuel without any processing (other than getting it to physically fit inside the rods, but CANDUs can be engineering to take waste fuel rods from most reactors directly.
Aren't all the CANDU reactors basically the same design (which makes them safer to operate)?