The Nuclearinfo site was a welcome dissection of the hyperbole of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (SLS). In particular, it destroyed their claim that nuclear power's EROEI dips below one as ore grades are lowered by showing that SLS's predictive formulae for the energy requirements of uranium extraction overestimate energy use in existing mines by up to two orders of magnitude. With accuracy this suspect I find it suprising that any author would risk their credibility by basing their argument of future uranium scarcity solely on the work of SLS.

I recently discovered an even more detailed critique of their methods by Roberto Dones, a LCA researcher at the Paul Scherrer Institute, in Switzerland:

Critical note on the estimation by Storm van Leeuwen J.W. and Smith P. of the energy uses and corresponding CO2 emissions from the complete nuclear energy chain

SvLS guesstimate relatively high to very high energy requirements and hence corresponding CO2 emissions for the electricity of nuclear origin, the highest to be found in the literature circulating in Internet, especially when low grade uranium ores are considered. The main explanation for SvLS’ high figures lies in their extreme assumptions (often rough guesses, as the authors admit themselves) and partially flawed methodology.

However, because of ideological connotations of the opposition to nuclear energy, often the quotation of (SvLS 2005) is not accompanied by citation of and comparison with the tens of other relevant technical studies that have been and are being produced on the subject, with different results although prevalently converging to relatively low GHG emissions. An opponent to nuclear energy likely chooses the reference that best matches his presumptions, without undergoing the process of critically analyzing and comparing its assumptions and results vs. other studies.

The problem is that SvLS (2005) often convert costs into energetic terms using generic factors, not reported in the text, lacking critical consideration of cost components, and lacking use of technical match to compare with real energy expenditures.... Furthermore, SvLS (2005) add thermal to electric energy directly to give “total energy”, which is certainly not recommended practice.

ISA (2006) uses data from U-production in the Ranger and Beverly mine/mills, with 0.15% ore grade (in U3O8). The energy intensity is approximately 0.45 GJ/kgU. The direct application of the formula in (SvLS 2005 Chapter 2, #5) would give instead 2.0 GJ/kgU and 4.7 GJ/kgU, respectively for soft and hard ores.

Another example of flaws: SvLS (2005) estimate of Olympic Dam for uranium mining & milling energy uses is 70,209 TJ/a against 1,230 TJ/a predicted by the University of Melbourne vs. 5,477 TJ/a actually measured at the mine.

In SvLS (2005, Chapter 4, #8) the volume of radwaste from NPP decommissioning is guesstimated at 93,900 m3. Official estimations by Swiss operators gave for the 1000 MW-size PWR and BWR 7,000 m3 and 14,000 m3, respectively.

ISA (2006) apparently uses the factor 290 kWh/SWU for centrifuge, same as in (SvLS 2005). This electricity intensity had been taken from very old references and does not correspond to modern technology. Recent literature and reports on/from Urenco give values in the range 35-62 kWh/SWU,51 and the trend is towards further decreasing it.

Dezakin:

Storm and Smith are prima donna liars with an axe to grind.

While the sheer scale of their exaggeration makes ad hominem attacks attractive, I find this approach counterproductive in convincing those who quote SLS. Although pointing out that they are solar power proponents who conducted their initial study at the behest of the ideologically anti-nuclear Green parties of the European Parliament is tempting. Just as one could quote David Fleming's belief that:

Lean Energy would be impeded by nuclear power

and ponder why he would question the viability of nuclear power.

Overall, though, I find it far more effective to merely state SLS's assumptions and follow through their logic with frequent comparison to reality. Playing the ball rather than the man really doesn't leave their supporters with much to throw back at you.

Having said all that...there's just something downright untrustworthy about a man with a handlebar moustache.

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

Amen --well said. And thanks for the excellent links.

Thanks advancednano ... some good links there.

Tell me, when you say the Thorium cycle "can" breed fuel grade U233 - what is the energy economics of that process ? ... is it a process that should be promoted irrespective of the available Uranium sources ?

Is that CANDU / AECL Thorium cycle really just R&D stage, or is there proven (economically viable) breeder technology from UK's previous "fast breeder" technology ?