Uranium Supply Pt 2

[mkwin]

The Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

A book will never make it a renewable resource or a resource that can be extracted at any rate required or always at a net energy gain or a resource that will not damage the environment during extraction.

We are talking about Uranium not coal.

I know. Uranium has to be mined or extracted and processed, does it not?

It should be pretty obvious what I meant. We mine 5 billion tons on coal a year. We mine circa 50000 tons of uranium. The scale and volume is not comparable to other resouce mining operations. To quote this as a concern or limiting factor is rediculas.

[TonyPrep]

We mine 5 billion tons on coal a year. We mine circa 50000 tons of uranium. The scale and volume is not comparable to other resouce mining operations.

Absolutely right. How much ore is that? 500,000 tons? What kind of nuclear expansion would you like to see? 0%?

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. A book can't turn a finite resource into a renewable resource nor into a resource that can be extracted and processed at whatever rate is required, for any time period, at a net energy gain. Oh, and it can't make such extraction environmentally neutral.

[mkwin]

The amount of actual ore would probably be in the tens of millions of tons. But this is still a fraction of 1% of the volume of coal alone.

My point was we use 50,000 tons a year and the experts, due to the development and discovery of new resources in the last 2 years, will likely report another upward revision in reserves. From the 3.6 millions tons of P90 reserves to what 5 million? Or more? It finishes the argument put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby that uranium supplies are insufficient.

The extraction and processing of uranium is tiny compared to other industrial materials and the production of uranium could be, and is being, expanded to meet any further demand from nuclear plants.

A book cannot make a finite resource a renewable resource you are correct. But it can prove we can run and expand nuclear power for a very long-time and use it as part of a bridging energy system. In fact the 3rd and 4th generation plants use far less uranium and can process much of the waste. So as the old 1st and 2nd generation plants are become obsolete and are replaced with ultra-efficient 3rd an eventually 4th gen plants the demand for uranium could actually fall even as nuclear power increases.

The book also dispels the nonsense put forward by people like the Energy Watch Group that uranium supplies will peak in 20 years or something. They seem to have a problem understanding the complex issue of nuclear power. Uranium is a fraction of the cost of nuclear power, it has had very little exploration and development, therefore the booked reserves are not representative of total reserves economically available. This was proven by the 36% rise in proven reserves from 2003 to 2005 because some actual development and exploration was undertaken due to the high uranium price and much more development has been undertaken since, which will show even more proven reserves booked.

Both the uranium supply and EROEI arguments are put forward by left wing green ideologues, which are distorting the energy debate. Nuclear could be expanded to take over from coal, which is far more damaging to the environment from both a mining and climate change position. I find it one of greatest paradoxes of modern times that the green movement has actually helped to bring about the climate problem by its irrational fear of nuclear power. If we had stayed on the same course we were on in the 1960’s we would have far more advanced reactors, far less coal and gas usage and far less CO2. Lets give them all a clap, all those brave souls who picketed nuclear plants in the 60’s and 70’s. Without a clue about the repercussion of their actions.

[TonyPrep]

It finishes the argument put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby that uranium supplies are insufficient.

...

A book cannot make a finite resource a renewable resource you are correct. But it can prove we can run and expand nuclear power for a very long-time and use it as part of a bridging energy system.

...

The book also dispels the nonsense put forward by people like the Energy Watch Group that uranium supplies will peak in 20 years or something.

Both the uranium supply and EROEI arguments are put forward by left wing green ideologues, which are distorting the energy debate. Nuclear could be expanded to take over from coal, which is far more damaging to the environment from both a mining and climate change position. I find it one of greatest paradoxes of modern times that the green movement has actually helped to bring about the climate problem by its irrational fear of nuclear power.

The book proves nothing, if it doesn't yet exist. It also will not be able to prove any of the things you claim, though it can increase confidence that your claims are valid.

I tend to think that the truth lies somewhere between the 20 years to peak of the EWG and the thousands of years of uranium at rates limited only by waste heat levels. Unfortunately, debates like this are characterised by strong and unyielding positions on either side and the use of adjectives like "nonsense", to describe the opposing position.

Although I still consider waste to be a major worry, I would rather we tried for sustainability before embarking on a major energy build. If we don't get to sustainability then, by definition, our societies will collapse and I don't fancy having hundreds or thousands of nuclear reactors in a collapsing civilization.

[mkwin]

The book proves nothing, if it doesn't yet exist. It also will not be able to prove any of the things you claim, though it can increase confidence that your claims are valid.

The redbook is just releasing its most up to date version. The previous versions showed a large increase. It does prove beyond resonable doubt the things i claim by virtue of simple mathamatics. If we had 5 million tons of uranium producable for $120 a pound we have nearly 100 years worth at current rates of consumption. But the 5 million would not be a ceiling it would represent part of a much larger resouce that is economic with current reactors. But, even without considering new resources, when 3rd /4th generation reactors are employed that 100 years becomes 300 years due to greater effciency and reprocessing by which time breeder, thorium and or fusion would mean there is no long-term problem.

Although I still consider waste to be a major worry, I would rather we tried for sustainability before embarking on a major energy build. If we don't get to sustainability then, by definition, our societies will collapse and I don't fancy having hundreds or thousands of nuclear reactors in a collapsing civilization.

If civilisation collapsed I can think of many more things I don't want to be around more than a nuclear reactor. In such a scenario nuclear reactors would pose little threat as they would have been shut down. I would be more worried about where my next meal came from and avoiding getting killed by roaming gangs of looters.

[TonyPrep]

If we had 5 million tons of uranium producable for $120 a pound we have nearly 100 years worth at current rates of consumption.

I don't think any of the nuclear advocates here are suggesting that nuclear generating capacity should remain at what we have now. An "at current rates of consumption" figure is irrelevant. If we don't replace reactors as they come to the end of their lives, that 100 years will go shooting up but I doubt you'd want that. And mathematical "proof" is not the only proof we need, since geology, technology and politics are also important factors.

If civilisation collapsed I can think of many more things I don't want to be around more than a nuclear reactor. In such a scenario nuclear reactors would pose little threat as they would have been shut down. I would be more worried about where my next meal came from and avoiding getting killed by roaming gangs of looters.

I agree with your latter sentiment but your first is very complacent, in my opinion. If we don't get to sustainability, there is no "if civilization collapses", it will. That is the definition of unsustainability. So, sustainability comes first. If we don't manage that (and there appear to be no significant moves towards that) then you are making a big assumption that reactors will clmly be shut down and that decommissioning programmes (some scheduled at 100 years, currently) will continue to be followed carefully.

As I've said, this debate continues to be characterized by unswerving views at both ends. For my part, as a former nuclear advocate, I would support it again, within a stable sustainable society. I'd also support it as part of a plan to power a transition to sustainability. Long term, however (whether that means a hundred years or a thousand years), I think it's just mad to move towards greater dependence on a finite resource, considering how such a dependence seems to be turning out at present.

[mkwin]

I don't think any of the nuclear advocates here are suggesting that nuclear generating capacity should remain at what we have now. An "at current rates of consumption" figure is irrelevant. If we don't replace reactors as they come to the end of their lives, that 100 years will go shooting up but I doubt you'd want that. And mathematical "proof" is not the only proof we need, since geology, technology and politics are also important factors.

The 100 years is just the book reserves. If capacity doubled, the demand for ore may go up by 25% and would fall back down as old reactors are replaced with ultra-effecient ones. The new 4th generation reactors in the design and testing stages may use 1/30 of the current uranium requirments of old reactors.

I

agree with your latter sentiment but your first is very complacent, in my opinion. If we don't get to sustainability, there is no "if civilization collapses", it will. That is the definition of unsustainability. So, sustainability comes first. If we don't manage that (and there appear to be no significant moves towards that) then you are making a big assumption that reactors will clmly be shut down and that decommissioning programmes (some scheduled at 100 years, currently) will continue to be followed carefully.

I doubt very much civilisation is going to collapse esspecialy in the west. The standard of living my decline as economic growth hits against its limits. But civilisation collapse is unlikely to the point of insignificance and if it does happen there is nothing you can do anyway. You and I would effectively be dead it does not matter if that comes at the hand of a looter or someone shooting us with a stolen army tank or someone detonating a stolen nuclear weapon. A nuclear reactor would not be on my top list of concerns. Sensible energy policy does not revolve around extremely unlikely events.

I would support it again, within a stable sustainable society. I'd also support it as part of a plan to power a transition to sustainability. Long term, however (whether that means a hundred years or a thousand years), I think it's just mad to move towards greater dependence on a finite resource, considering how such a dependence seems to be turning out at present.

Nuclear energy is the only sustainable option along with renewable energy. Gas, coal and other fossil fuels are far more finite than nuclear. Future nuclear energy does not need uranium in significant quanties but for the time being (100 years or more) it may be more economical to use the current uranium fuel cycle or by 2030 breeder or thorium reactors could be economically competitive and take over.

[TonyPrep]

I doubt very much civilisation is going to collapse esspecialy in the west. The standard of living my decline as economic growth hits against its limits. But civilisation collapse is unlikely to the point of insignificance and if it does happen there is nothing you can do anyway. You and I would effectively be dead it does not matter if that comes at the hand of a looter or someone shooting us with a stolen army tank or someone detonating a stolen nuclear weapon. A nuclear reactor would not be on my top list of concerns. Sensible energy policy does not revolve around extremely unlikely events.

Can you point to an independent scientific study that shows the probability? I would think it's a certainty if we don't move toward sustainability, since unsustainable societies cannot endure. Do you really think unsustainable societies will not collapse without moving to sustainable practices? As I've said, it's a complacent position to take to ignore how society may develop (degenerate) in an era when so many limits may hit it.

Nuclear energy is the only sustainable option along with renewable energy. Gas, coal and other fossil fuels are far more finite than nuclear. Future nuclear energy does not need uranium in significant quanties but for the time being (100 years or more) it may be more economical to use the current uranium fuel cycle or by 2030 breeder or thorium reactors could be economically competitive and take over.

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

[Starvid]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Solar, wind, wave and biofuels are all powered by the great fusion reactor in the sky, which has a finite amount of nuclear fuel. It will eventually run out. But the time scales are so big that it doesn't matter.

And when we are talking nuclear fuel.... As above, so below.

[TonyPrep]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable. What you decide matters, is up to you. It's also an all or nothing, unless the aspect that is not sustainable is of little consequence to us (provided that it doesn't have a knock on effect, like ruining our habitat). That is, everything that we consider essential should be sustainable and everything we don't consider essential should not have a detrimental knock on effect to the things that we do consider essential. Even renewable resources can be consumed too rapidly and renewed in an unsustainable way (by depleting some other essential).

[mkwin]

Nuclear energy cannot be described as sustainable, even if it could be proven to be long lived. If our goal is sustainability (and why wouldn't it be?) then there may be no need for more nuclear as we would certainly have to moderate our lifestyles.

Sustainable or renewable essentially means "so long lasting it doesn't matter to us when it eventually runs out". I guess you could call iron mining sustainable, or even renewable, as the resource is so immense. I guess this just shows that "renewable" is something of an irrelevant or bogus definition.

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable. What you decide matters, is up to you. It's also an all or nothing, unless the aspect that is not sustainable is of little consequence to us (provided that it doesn't have a knock on effect, like ruining our habitat). That is, everything that we consider essential should be sustainable and everything we don't consider essential should not have a detrimental knock on effect to the things that we do consider essential. Even renewable resources can be consumed too rapidly and renewed in an unsustainable way (by depleting some other essential).

You need to be more realistic about our options. It is a choice between coal and nuclear. You may be willing to accept a powerdown and hope you can survive but 3-4 billion other people are definitely not. Unless nuclear is expanded, we will be burning every fossil fuel we can to keep the system going, gas hydrates, coal to liquids, coal-bed methane you name it, we are going to burn it. Personally, I would rather take on board the risks on a massive build-up of nuclear than risk drastic run away climate change that turns the planet in to a perpetual desert and kills 95% of the species on this planet.

Nuclear is not perfect but it is not bad either. Hopefully solar will be competitive within ten years and we can cover the planet in nano solar film but until then we need to replace coal and gas with a solid nuclear base.

[TonyPrep]

You need to be more realistic about our options.

By that, I think you mean abandoning sustainability because societies around the world won't like it. I would regard that as unrealistic (because it is ignoring reality).

It is a choice between coal and nuclear.

Or a run down of both

You may be willing to accept a powerdown and hope you can survive but 3-4 billion other people are definitely not.

That is where reality kicks in. It matters not that 3-4 billion people won't accept it if nature will not allow them to continue to have the aspirations and lifestyles that they do.

Unless nuclear is expanded, we will be burning every fossil fuel we can to keep the system going, gas hydrates, coal to liquids, coal-bed methane you name it, we are going to burn it. Personally, I would rather take on board the risks on a massive build-up of nuclear than risk drastic run away climate change that turns the planet in to a perpetual desert and kills 95% of the species on this planet.

Well, that's a stark choice and I'd probably side with you if those were our only choices. Unfortunately, so long as most people think that there are no other options, the more likely it is that we will continue down the unsustainable route to collapse.

Nuclear is not perfect but it is not bad either. Hopefully solar will be competitive within ten years and we can cover the planet in nano solar film but until then we need to replace coal and gas with a solid nuclear base.

We don't need to do that. Let's step back, figure out how to live sustainably and, if we can, move towards that, which may mean we don't need much generated power.

Look, it's quite simple really, either we adapt to living sustainably or our society collapses. That might be within our lifetime (timescale is not a given, just the outcome, for an unsustainable society). Just because people don't want limits does not mean that they are not there and can be ignored.

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent. I merely stated that nuclear is unsustainable and a red book will not make it so, nor will it allow uranium to be mined and processed at any rate required for as long as is desired.

[mkwin]

Anyway, this is getting off on a tangent. I merely stated that nuclear is unsustainable and a red book will not make it so, nor will it allow uranium to be mined and processed at any rate required for as long as is desired.

You're right we did go off on a bit of a tangent.

Final word, I would like to think we will live sustainabily in the long-term and I see great advances in technology that can help us do that. We are not going to go back to the 1900’s; if we do 3 billion will have to die. But we can reduce our impact and use clean modern technology.

In regards to looking at nuclear, we should remember much of the negative studies relate to plants built 60 years ago. It is like comparing a modern plane in terms of efficiency and safety to a twin propeller passenger plane from the 50's. The modern nuclear plants can be safe, cost effective, use little uranium, and reprocess the majority of the waste.

On a side note, check out this oil drum article. I am quoted with a question I asked on a previous discussion. Was pretty strange to suddenly see my username in the article.

link: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877#more

[sch_peakoiler]

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable.

sorry for jumping in into your peaceful discussion.

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

so, whether you rely on what we call renewables for X thousand years or you rely on nuclear power for Y thousand years -> for me these to concepts are equally renewable and sustainable.

[sch_peakoiler]

Renewable means renewable. Sustainable means sustainable.

sorry for jumping in into your peaceful discussion.

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

so, whether you rely on what we call renewables for X thousand years or you rely on nuclear power for Y thousand years -> for me these to concepts are equally renewable and sustainable.

[TonyPrep]

if you put it this way, there is nothing which would be renewable. The Sun is the paramount of unsustainability - it burns valuable unsustainable nuclear fuel in a scale and fashion we people could not even dream of.
The Sun is by no means renewable (does not renew itself) nor is it sustainable (no way of refuelling the sun).

so you can not use the word renewable in the meaning "renewable" in our galaxy - does not work. you have to supply this word with a time tag, you have to bind it to a time scale. For example to the life expectancy of earth or the sun.

Of course, it is meaningless to talk of periods that are outside the timescale of humans. Other species may have interests beyond that, however. Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Renewable is different from sustainable. Renewable means that the resource can be renewed. The rate of renewal then become the critical factor. Consuming renewable resources beyond their renewal rates is unsustainable.

If you put it the other way -> the theoretical supplies of nuclear fuel allow the humankind to sustain the present consumption leven for several thousand years, even with present consumption growth of 2%

But what is the practical lifetime and what is the production profile over that time? No-one knows, it is a leap of faith.

[yesplease]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

[TonyPrep]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.

[yesplease]

So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.

Know? We may strongly suspect, but I thinking "knowing" the future is suspect to say the least.

What probability would you place on the human species outlast the solar system, yesplease? If it is tending towards infinitesimally small, then "know" is sufficient for everyday conversation.

There isn't enough information to derive anything regarding probability IMO. We might as well start a debate about whether or not the big G exists. For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.

[TonyPrep]

For all intents and purposes, the only thing we can reasonably state is that we don't know and probably won't know for some time.

No, that is the only thing we can state without fear of a pedant taking issue with it. What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

It's amazing the minutiae that you take issue with, yesplease.