<How to Start a Farm with No Land and Little Money The Oil Drum DrumBeat: February 20, 2009>

249 comments on How Long Before Uranium Shortages?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Alex P. on February 20, 2009 - 9:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Hello Gail, This is a comment similar to the one posted on Ugo’s report. He made no response.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4558#comment-413193

At what price does uranium become expensive?"

In short, uranium extraction cost considered (less than 130 $/kg) is equivalent to one dollar per oil barrel, with current nuclear technology (no fast breeders or thorium breeders)

Personally I'm a huge supporter of thorium breeders based on liquid fluoride reactors technology, but we have plenty of time to develop them

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on February 20, 2009 - 9:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In short, uranium extraction cost considered (less than 130 $/kg) is equivalent to one dollar per oil barrel, with current nuclear technology (no fast breeders or thorium breeders)

It's hard to compare them. If our vehicles were all electric with batteries charged by generators run by oil, coal, gas, uranium, etc, then we could compare. We can't make bags or fertiliser out of uranium, either.

Oil (coal, gas) is used for things you can't use uranium for, and vice versa. A simple comparison of energy content isn't always helpful. If all that mattered was total energy in the source, the world would be covered with solar panels and a global electricity grid already. Other things matter.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
advancednano on February 21, 2009 - 1:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

1) You don't need oil, natural gas, coal or any other fossil fuel to make nitrogen fertilizer.
2) All you need to make nitrogen fertilizer is air, water and energy

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2007/11/314-peak-oil-and-fertilizer-...

Ammonia production based on the Casale process started at Nera Montoro in 1922/23 with a capacity of 14 tonnes per day. Synthesis gas for the ammonia converter was based on hydrogen from water electrolysis and nitrogen from the air.

http://depletedcranium.com/?p=1520

Corn based plastic used at Walmart
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/walmart_to_use.php

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on February 21, 2009 - 7:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Again, there's a difference between what's technically possible and what's likely to happen, or accomplished most easily - or else we'd have that global supergrid of solar panels with everything electrified already.

In the particular case of the Casale process, you can just look at how all the endothermic and exothermic reactions add up to see why we don't often make synthetic gas from electrolysing water and combining with atmospheric nitrogen.

Corn-based plastic isn't exactly widespread, either.

There's a difference between what's technically possible, or possible in theory on paper, and how things turn out in practice. Which is why we can't compare uranium with fossil fuels and renewables on a simple energy-out basis. There's a lot more to it all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on February 21, 2009 - 7:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sure, whats likely to happen is we'll burn some tens of trillions of tonnes of coal as synfuels.

Whats not going to happen is the entire energy industry collapsing faster than it can restructure because all the fossil fuels disapear overnight.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Alex P. on February 21, 2009 - 11:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"It's hard to compare them."

It' s quite simply, instead. You have to compare the thermal energy value for a kg of natural uranium and a barrel of oil, no matter which uses you do of them. Indeed, 130 $ per kg of natural uranium grossly corresponds to one $ per oil barrel. Ergo, worldwide uranium resources can't stop at a cost of less than 130 $/kg and we have almost infinite uranium reserves at a cost of x10 or x20 that cost (perfectly acceptable in terms of energy and economics), even without breedres or thorium reactors.

Of course, there is a price market point which thorium breeders (maybe still today) or fast breeders (far less likely) become more economic than once-through, low eniriched uranium, LWR technology cycle

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on February 21, 2009 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Comparing them by energy content is as meaningful as comparing them by weight or spectral signature.

I can't chuck a chunk of uranium in a car. I can't put oil in a little radiative reactor and send it to Jupiter to power a space probe.

They're different things. Just as our vast numbers of cars couldn't run without all the millions of kilometres of roads we've put in - all that oil would be useless for transport - so too uranium is useless without reactors, converting everything to electricity, and so on.

The change is non-trivial, which is what makes a simple comparison of energy content meaningless.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GRLCowan on February 21, 2009 - 6:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Comparing them by energy content is as meaningful as comparing them by weight or spectral signature.

I can't chuck a chunk of uranium in a car. I can't put oil in a little radiative reactor and send it to Jupiter to power a space probe.

The energy content per dollar's worth is meaningful in understanding governments' attitudes. I seem to recall you saying something about governmental desire for gambling revenue. Oil and natgas revenue are similarly pleasant, and governments seem to dislike seeing five dollars' worth of uranium cancelling tens of natgas royalty or tax dollars.

It would be very hard to use a TWh of heat from burning oil to make even a watt-hour's worth of uranium, starting with, say, stable zirconium and barium. But a thermal TWh worth of uranium could readily drive chemical synthesis steps that would convert water and CO2 into a fifth of a thermal TWh worth of (non-fossil oil plus oxygen), or more.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on February 22, 2009 - 2:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The energy content per dollar's worth is meaningful in understanding governments' attitudes. I seem to recall you saying something about governmental desire for gambling revenue.

Absolutely. But energy/$ varies a lot year to year, and lots of other things are important, too.

For example, when the US was more or less self-sufficient in oil, they didn't talk much about using less; now that they supply only 1/3, they're more keen on it. They're still not doing anything, but at least they're talking about it.

The energy content per dollar's worth is meaningful in understanding governments' attitudes. I seem to recall you saying something about governmental desire for gambling revenue.

It depends on the country. Here Down Under we export all of those, basically we're Asia's quarry. We don't view it as either/or, we know we can sell all that stuff.

Given a more-or-less free market, uranium doesn't compete with fossil fuels, people happily consume both. The country with the biggest nuclear generation is the US, they're also the biggest oil consumer. China has heaps of coal-fired stations, but quite a lot of nuclear, and are keen to build more of both.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on February 25, 2009 - 8:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"They're still not doing anything"

That's not quite fair. The US has raised the automotive fuel efficiency standard (CAFE) quite a bit, and has given it's states the right to go even further.

This is highly likely to produce a very good start on large volumes of PHEV's like the Chevy Volt in the next two years.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Alex P. on February 21, 2009 - 6:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sorry, you're missing the point again.
My comparison is clearly between fuels for electricity production only, that means coal, natural gas and,yes, even oil (today, 20 of 80/90 bpd are consumed worldwide for electricity production, mostly in developing countries). Last summer when oil peaked at about 150 $ per barrel, uranium price was at about 2 $ per oil barrel equivalent when gas and coal, respectively, IIRC about 100 $ and 40-50 $ per oil barrel equivalent. That clearly means it' s totally meaningless to stop exploitable uranium resources (both for energy and economics reasons) at less than 130 $/kg, that means less than one $ per oil barrel equivalent (coal, gas and even oil have or had had market prices tens times higher,at least)

For transportation and heating there are surely other solutions where nuclear can help only indirectly, for example for collective transportation electrified railways (both for goods and people) or for private transportation electric and plugin hybrids; for heating needs, moreover, high efficiency electric heat pumps or cogeneration eventually from nuclear plants themself or renewable energy sources

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

249 comments on How Long Before Uranium Shortages?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version