<DrumBeat: March 21, 2007 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: March 22, 2007>

257 comments on Uranium Depletion and Nuclear Power: Are We at Peak Uranium?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

SamuM on March 22, 2007 - 6:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Please calm down.

It is impossible for most of us here at TOD to discern real sources accurately. We are not experts in net energy analysis with several years of experience in the field.

Let's see what some experts have to say about nuclear (old style plants) EROEI.

Charles Hall: Nuclear (total system, probably old style plants) - around 10:1. Apparently not enough data exists to make accurate estimates. The around 100:1 figures are from industry, not from peer-reviewed sources. Need more data.[1]

Us Dept of Energy: EROI near 16:1. NB! The figures from various sources are not necessarily comparable. Problems with boundary definition are significant. [2]

Nuclear Energy industry: 47:1 to 59:1. Haven't checked sources to original sources, but look reputable on the surface (to a layman). [3]

"Green eco nutters" as they are often called here: c. 4:1 or possible systemic energy sinks. Many completely disagree and I'm not sure they are experts, but they do try to address the problem of "very wide boundary" systems.[4]

My apologies to anyone I've paraphrased. Any possible mistakes are mine and not intentional.

So, based on the data I'm able to find, the assertion:

I mean, are we seriously going to start talking about EROEI of a resource that is conservatively pegged at around 100:1

Does more disservice to your argument, as 100:1 is more likely to be wrong than 10:1 is. The 100:1 figure, is not afaik substantiated by studies.

Or if you think it is not, can you please try to cite some sources.

BTW, I think the argument here should be SYSTEM EROEI, not fuel EROEI. That is the one that matters to us as a society on the short-to-mid term, although it may be possible to move closer to the theoretical fuel EROEI by taking into use better technology on the long term (less energy wasted in input and output).

[1] Charles Hall, Presentation at ASPO-USA 2006
[2] US Dept. of Energy
[3] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
[4] http://www.mnforsustain.org/nukpwr_tyner_g_net_energy_from_nuclear_power...

PS I'm not and do not pretend to play an expert on the issue. I could be dead wrong on this, but this is what I've come across myself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Miquel Torres on March 22, 2007 - 7:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Those are also my thoughts.

I commented on this below, but the pro-nuclear posters are (mostly) neither polite nor very constructive.
Part of the response to a study I mentioned was: "They also appear to indulge in some magical thinking when it comes to the co-extraction of copper at the Olympic Dam mine which is quite amusing.". Condescending comes to mind.

About "Green eco nutters". I give this example(not representative):
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Nuclear-Energy-Recovery-TimeOct00.htm)
They state an EROEI of 13, very different from the 4-5 you cite.
The other one is a "more recent Life-Cycle Energy Balance analysis by the university of Sydney". "Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia". They are not anti-nuclear at all, and their conclusions do favor nuclear, but they calculate a EROEI of ~10. That is using Australia's present 0,15% ore grade average, an optimistic assumption for the future.
They are treated as incompetent and ignorant by the poster that aswered.

BTW, I think the argument here should be SYSTEM EROEI, not fuel EROEI.

The argument I think, does just that. But you have to consider EROEI for the fuel cycle in the process.

It is very difficult as you say, to sort out reliable sources. But 100:1 doesn't look right. Such a dream EROI would have made Nuclear really cheap no matter the technology costs and all the world would be building nuclear plants. I guess we'll know for sure only when the good ores are depleted. In a free energy market it has not proved that it is as cheap as they say. And the argument that environmentalists have the power to stop nuclear power development is ridiculous. The societies with most green activism have the most nukes. And I am sure China et al. won't be stopped by those pesky greens. So when the real energy crisis starts, look at what those countries without "greens" do.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on March 22, 2007 - 1:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I commented on this below, but the pro-nuclear posters are (mostly) neither polite nor very constructive.

When one is refuting the same obvious half truths, statistical misrepresentations and outright lies over and over, polite manners are often in short supply.

But 100:1 doesn't look right. Such a dream EROI would have made Nuclear really cheap no matter the technology costs and all the world would be building nuclear plants. I guess we'll know for sure only when the good ores are depleted. In a free energy market it has not proved that it is as cheap as they say.

Are we talking about energy payback of fuel? If we are, then solar and wind has an unmeasurably high energy return. Or are we changing the subject again?

Again, energy return of 10 on the fuel is absolutely ridiculous, because today most of the energy cost is enrichment via centrifuge, where we got ore from similar grades fifty years ago with gasseous diffusion, 50 times more energy intensive.

The notion that energy return on fuel or systems is directly tied with the price has been bandied about forever, but it just aint so. Its a bastardized simplification of economics.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

257 comments on Uranium Depletion and Nuclear Power: Are We at Peak Uranium?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version