Uranium Supply Pt 2

[TonyPrep]

Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.

And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.

You would if that 50% was oil shale.

[Tanada]

Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.

And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.

You would if that 50% was oil shale.

If someone produced oil shale with an eroei of 4:1 and it didn't screw up the environment in the process or use up all the potable water in the region in the process then I would consider PO irrelevent. I don't beleive for a minute that is going to happen with oil shale however, so it is moot.

For uranium metal production the eroei is in the 4:1 range for incredibly low concentration ore's. That isn't even counting anything else like improved efficiency reactors that consume less per kWh produced, MOX fuel recycling, twice through Uranium recycling or future breeder reactors. Hell improved efficiency SWU with the American Centerfuge plant now under construction in the US alone will increase the eroei for US enriched uranium by a factor of 8-12, commonly estimated at 10. That means ores which were energy loosers with gas diffusion become large energy winners with the new plant. If anyone ever gets the laser isotope system to work (its been under development for over 30 years now) that too would give another order of magnitude improvement.

Uranium is a uniqe resource because unlike any other substance we consume it is actually the (.7%) U-235 we want. With U-235 as the feed you can use U-238, Th-232, Np-237 or an inert substance as the diluting agent to operate a light water moderated reactor, the most common design. The more efficiently you seperate the U-235 from the natural U-238 the more energy you get from the ore, to the point where extreamly low ore concentration are energy winners with centerfuge enrichment.

[mkwin]

Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.

And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.

You would if that 50% was oil shale.

No one is suggesting the reserves booked in the period 2003 to 2005 have anywhere near the difference in production profiles that crude and shale oil have. I think you're cluching at straws Tony.

[sch_peakoiler]

Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.

And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.

The problem is, there are little facts in the field. The whole situation looks like a stalemate.

Consider,

a) de facto uranium production falls (2006 less than 2005 if I get this right, and 2007 looks like it was less than 2006), but reserves grow into zillions. Of which, nota bene!, only 4.7 million ton are considered "real" and not "estimated".

b) we need extra 20 000 tons to replace secondary supplies, and thats a 50% increase of current production, but what we hear from mine operators is thing like with Roessing: "increase from 3711 up to 4000 over several years" - nowhere near 50%. And if you consider the new plants being built - the reality (even PLANNED) does not come near the "nuclear future".
That is the problem. There is little facts about the concrete hard numbers. There is a list of mines _planning_to_expand_operation. But the published numbers are not as marvellous as some would like to believe. When I read 3711 to 4000 ton increase I see "scratching for last bits of uranium" and not "mining the plentiful resource of which there are billion tons".

Anyway: nuclear plants run on real uranium, not on "planned" uranium. Planned mines tend to go Cigar Lake way which is still "planning".
If we want nuclear power grow say 10% a year, we will need a yearly 10% increase either in uran production, or in SWU capacity (or both so that we could leave less tails).

And when the people say: Look, the price has been high for two years now, and the industry has 15 years of lead time, so today is the freakin good day to see some numbers, there is a list of uranium mines "planning to expand capacity".

This all makes people draw their own conclusions.

And I once again ask for some real number on real production increases. I understand that all mines in the world are planning to expand capacity. Like Cigar Lake for example. What we lack are hard numbers on those increases. If we increase from 45 000 tons a year to 45005 tons a year, this is also an increase, right?


here:
growing prices but falling production?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

Or this one
http://www.ferret.com.au/n/Uranium-mining-n710877

BHP Billiton is reviewing plans to substantially expand production at the Olympic Dam mine and in August 2005 commenced an environmental assessment of the $5 billion project.

The company expects to spend about two years undertaking both analysis of the proposed expansion and public consultation, before deciding whether to proceed.

If BHP Billiton does commit to the expansion, substantially higher uranium oxide production, of up to 15,000 tonnes (depending on the final shape of the project) will result. However, output is unlikely to become available until near the end of the outlook period. "
*****

Reading between the lines can be nice. They first assess whether they should assess the project. after that they assess the project. And after that, more likely in 2030 they will ... ta da... produce MAYBE 15000 ton.

If the whole industry works this way (which it does) then there is little hope (to say in australian: NO EFFING WAY )that uranium production will be increased to 67000 before the secondary supplies run out.
*******

From the same text:
"
Despite very large price rises, world uranium production has responded only slowly, reflecting the long lead-time required to either expand existing operations or bring new developments on stream. However, world uranium output is expected to expand solidly from 2008 onwards, easing concerns over the adequacy of supplies and pulling back spot prices.
"

EXPAND SOLIDLY... In an industry with lead times of 10-15 years the production in one year should be "predictable". It is not like there will be a ...oops... random mine conjured out of thin air in 2008. No, the 2008 production should have been known 2007 already - but instead we get an "EXPAND SOLIDLY".
this is also a clue - which everybody can interpret the way he/she likes.

*******
And here
http://www.abareconomics.com/interactiv ... ranium.htm

They say
2007 - 51000 tons
2008 - 60000 tons.
Are there 2007 data ready to verify that claim?

[Starvid]

Mining is a cyclical boom and bust business with immense lead times, and no mining more so than uranium mining. There migh well be a time lag of 5-10 years between increasing prices and increasing production.

[sch_peakoiler]

Mining is a cyclical boom and bust business with immense lead times, and no mining more so than uranium mining. There migh well be a time lag of 5-10 years between increasing prices and increasing production.

yes but Dezakin here says there is no immediate danger of a shortfall. So?

whom should one believe. Him, you, Industry, Tanada or maybe antinuclears???

[TonyPrep]

No one is suggesting the reserves booked in the period 2003 to 2005 have anywhere near the difference in production profiles that crude and shale oil have. I think you're cluching at straws Tony.

Not really, the analogy was with oil: if reserves went up 50%, then peak oil would be irrelevant. This isn't the case with oil, as it depends on the quality of the reserves and at what rate it can be produced. I'm sure it also isn't the case with uranium. However, a lot of people here (not saying you are) look only at the numbers (like the amount in seawater), and estimated numbers at that, and assume that it's plain sailing for ever.

[Dezakin]

Of course not. The problem is that the "heretics" aren't producing any data (beyond the imho faulty EWG report). That's not the fact when dealing with peak oil, where the peakers are the ones who supply data.

And seriously, if oil reserves had grown 50 % in 2003-2005 I wouldn't worry about peak oil either.

a) de facto uranium production falls (2006 less than 2005 if I get this right, and 2007 looks like it was less than 2006), but reserves grow into zillions. Of which, nota bene!, only 4.7 million ton are considered "real" and not "estimated".

In place at mines. Come on, your arguing about production capacity that has atrophied over the past several decades.

b) we need extra 20 000 tons to replace secondary supplies, and thats a 50% increase of current production, but what we hear from mine operators is thing like with Roessing: "increase from 3711 up to 4000 over several years" - nowhere near 50%. And if you consider the new plants being built - the reality (even PLANNED) does not come near the "nuclear future".
That is the problem. There is little facts about the concrete hard numbers. There is a list of mines _planning_to_expand_operation. But the published numbers are not as marvellous as some would like to believe. When I read 3711 to 4000 ton increase I see "scratching for last bits of uranium" and not "mining the plentiful resource of which there are billion tons".

This is expansion of current capacity at a highly productive mine and extending the life of the mine.

Anyway: nuclear plants run on real uranium, not on "planned" uranium. Planned mines tend to go Cigar Lake way which is still "planning".

Now you're just throwing words around. Cigar Lake production is scheduled to start in 2011.

If we want nuclear power grow say 10% a year, we will need a yearly 10% increase either in uran production, or in SWU capacity (or both so that we could leave less tails).

And when the people say: Look, the price has been high for two years now, and the industry has 15 years of lead time, so today is the freakin good day to see some numbers, there is a list of uranium mines "planning to expand capacity".

Look, even though we're well capable of expanding nuclear power capacity 10% a year, thats not gonna happen. People are still flocking towards coal, and the mining industry is responding to that.

[TonyPrep]

Mining is a cyclical boom and bust business with immense lead times, and no mining more so than uranium mining. There migh well be a time lag of 5-10 years between increasing prices and increasing production.

yes but Dezakin here says there is no immediate danger of a shortfall. So?

whom should one believe. Him, you, Industry, Tanada or maybe antinuclears???

Well, we shouldn't believe anyone, of course. But that is not what the pro-nuclear folks would like us to do, they would like us to believe that uranium supplies are ample for the operating life of all reactors, current and planned, and that there will never be a problem with uranium supply, because fast breeders will become commercially viable and seawater has more uranium than we could ever need.

What I find amazing is that people here actually propose that we should base our futures on things we believe, rather than things we know.

[Starvid]

Mining is a cyclical boom and bust business with immense lead times, and no mining more so than uranium mining. There migh well be a time lag of 5-10 years between increasing prices and increasing production.

yes but Dezakin here says there is no immediate danger of a shortfall. So?

whom should one believe. Him, you, Industry, Tanada or maybe antinuclears???

I've never said there won't be a temporary shortfall. There might well be. Or not. The uranium market has been disrupted for decades by governments, and it's not strange if it'll take a decade for price signals to start working again. As things stand now I don't think anyone can be sure of a shortfall, or a lack of that.

What I am saying is that the long term uranium picture looks perfectly alright.

[Starvid]

Mining is a cyclical boom and bust business with immense lead times, and no mining more so than uranium mining. There migh well be a time lag of 5-10 years between increasing prices and increasing production.

yes but Dezakin here says there is no immediate danger of a shortfall. So?

whom should one believe. Him, you, Industry, Tanada or maybe antinuclears???

Well, we shouldn't believe anyone, of course. But that is not what the pro-nuclear folks would like us to do, they would like us to believe that uranium supplies are ample for the operating life of all reactors, current and planned, and that there will never be a problem with uranium supply, because fast breeders will become commercially viable and seawater has more uranium than we could ever need.

What I find amazing is that people here actually propose that we should base our futures on things we believe, rather than things we know.

If you want perfect certainty you'll never get anything done. We live in an uncertain world and there's nothing to do but trying to get the best data and then acting on it. It'll never be perfect, especially when dealing with something as neboulus as geology.

[TonyPrep]

If you want perfect certainty you'll never get anything done. We live in an uncertain world and there's nothing to do but trying to get the best data and then acting on it. It'll never be perfect, especially when dealing with something as neboulus as geology.

Well, we've had two reports in the last year or so (one from the Energy Watch Group and one from the Lean Economy Connection). Now nuclear proponents attack such studies as nonsense but it seems clear to me that we are nowhere near certainty on uranium supplies. As we are in an energy crisis (or very near it), it's important that we come up with strategies that aren't simply a lurch to crisis after crisis. Building nuclear is a long term investment in our future energy supply. If the fuel supply can't be assured for such a build out, then it's a big risk. It's a risk not only in energy security but a risk that energy shortfalls may cause disruptions in our societies that could make having a lot of nuclear material and waste very worrying.

So what do we actually know? Well, we know that uranium, like all natural resources, is limited and of variable quality and accessibility. We know that renewable resources are, effectively constant over moderate periods of time (e.g. there will always be sunshine, wind and waves, for as long as there are humans), even if the quantity is variable over very short periods. Where should we put the investment in our energy future? In sources that we know will be available in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 1,000,000 years, and more, or in sources that we know will deplete?

Maybe we have to go with limited energy supplies also (since we live on a finite planet, that seems reasonable), but then we are going with what we know, not with what we don't know and with what there are almost endless debates over.

If we go nuclear, we should get uranium mining companies to guarantee supplies for the lifetime of any nuclear plant that is planned. If we can't do that until fast breeders are up and running reliably in breeder mode then let's wait until we have that situation.

You're right, nothing is certain but we can go with strategies that are virtually certain versus ones where the arguments will never stop, until it's too late.

[kublikhan]

If we go nuclear, we should get uranium mining companies to guarantee supplies for the lifetime of any nuclear plant that is planned.

Will you require solar power plants to guarantee that they will provide power 24/7? Will you require wind generators to provide steady, constant power as well? if not you seem to be setting a double standard.

[TonyPrep]

If we go nuclear, we should get uranium mining companies to guarantee supplies for the lifetime of any nuclear plant that is planned.

Will you require solar power plants to guarantee that they will provide power 24/7? Will you require wind generators to provide steady, constant power as well? if not you seem to be setting a double standard.

Not at all. The primary energy source for sun, wind and wave (and probably a few others) are assured. Don't you agree? I've already acknowledged that these sources can be variable, but they are effectively infinitely long lived. It's not the plants that I'm asking give the guarantee but the supplier of the fuel source.

[kublikhan]

I've already acknowledged that these sources can be variable, but they are effectively infinitely long lived. It's not the plants that I'm asking give the guarantee but the supplier of the fuel source.

But if renewable power plants are not required to give a guarantee why are you requiring a guarantee of nuclear, fuel source or otherwise?

[Tanada]

As Figure 2 illustrates, the first kilograms of uranium saved by lowering tails assay are relatively inexpensive. About 1550 tonnes may be saved by lowering the average tails assay to 0.34%, at a cost of $35.76/kg U. However, the next 1,470 tonnes extracted between 0.34% and 0.33% costs $39.17/kg U to “extract.” The curve then rises rapidly, as increasing amounts of separative work must be used to extract decreasing volumes of uranium. In stripping from 0.25% to 0.24%, for example, only 960 tonnes of uranium are produced, at a unit cost of $88.47/kg U.

Uranium currently cost $90.00 per pound/$198.00 per kg. At these prices SWU becomes the driving factor in consumption, even though prices have appreciated 20% for SWU Uranium prices have appreciated from around $40.00 per kg to about $198/kg, or 495%.

[web]http://www.uxc.com/cover-stories/uxw_19-41_Neff-Paper.pdf[/web]

[Tanada]

If we go nuclear, we should get uranium mining companies to guarantee supplies for the lifetime of any nuclear plant that is planned.

Will you require solar power plants to guarantee that they will provide power 24/7? Will you require wind generators to provide steady, constant power as well? if not you seem to be setting a double standard.

Not at all. The primary energy source for sun, wind and wave (and probably a few others) are assured. Don't you agree? I've already acknowledged that these sources can be variable, but they are effectively infinitely long lived. It's not the plants that I'm asking give the guarantee but the supplier of the fuel source.

The only way to do that would be if the Uranium mines owned specific power plants or vice versa. In the dynamic market of competition we have now anyone can buy from almost any supplier and as a result competiton drives the price down when supplies are high and up when supplies are low. If supplies are locked into specific users you remove the broad price signals from the market and each user has to sub specialize in two different industries, mining and using.

What you are asking for is the equivelant of a big auto maker like Toyota also owning the iron mines and petroleum wells that produce the steel and plastic component raw materials for their cars.

[Tanada]

If you want perfect certainty you'll never get anything done. We live in an uncertain world and there's nothing to do but trying to get the best data and then acting on it. It'll never be perfect, especially when dealing with something as neboulus as geology.

Well, we've had two reports in the last year or so (one from the Energy Watch Group and one from the Lean Economy Connection). Now nuclear proponents attack such studies as nonsense but it seems clear to me that we are nowhere near certainty on uranium supplies. As we are in an energy crisis (or very near it), it's important that we come up with strategies that aren't simply a lurch to crisis after crisis. Building nuclear is a long term investment in our future energy supply. If the fuel supply can't be assured for such a build out, then it's a big risk. It's a risk not only in energy security but a risk that energy shortfalls may cause disruptions in our societies that could make having a lot of nuclear material and waste very worrying.

So what do we actually know? Well, we know that uranium, like all natural resources, is limited and of variable quality and accessibility. We know that renewable resources are, effectively constant over moderate periods of time (e.g. there will always be sunshine, wind and waves, for as long as there are humans), even if the quantity is variable over very short periods. Where should we put the investment in our energy future? In sources that we know will be available in 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 1,000,000 years, and more, or in sources that we know will deplete?

We also know that accessing Wind or Wave or Solar requires a large energy investment up front, to build the turbines or arrays. By some estimates, and I don't have a link handy, it takes about the same quantity of concrete to errect similer levels of wind turbine generating capacity as it does for a 1 Gwe fission power plant. If that is the case should we build enough wind turbines to provide intermittent power while filleting flocks of birds or one constant baseload source of fission power that produces in its entire lifetime of 60 years 1200 tons of high level waste that would occupy a few acre's of dessert in dry storage containers?

The few fission power plants in the USA which have been fully decomissioned have been returned to a state of nature, no other industry can make a claim anything like that level of decontamination. Take a look at the hundreds of abandoned industrial sites in the USA and compare it to decomissioned fission facilities. Even the government owned facilities in Oak Ridge and Hanford are better than many of the industrial sites abandoned around the country.

As for you Lean Guide To Nuclear Energy cited above, you are using an anti-nuclear no verifiable information list of errors as proof of what exactly?

1.The world's endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.

Patently false, nobody who has studied resources for 15 minutes would beleive this statement.

2. It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.

A) if it is essential why are they opposing permanent facilities at every turn and B) modern temporary dry storage casks could absorb a direct impact from a wide body jumbo jet ala 9/11 or a hit with an shoulder fired anti-tank type armor peircing weapon.

3. Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.

Well gee we have an 85 page thread all around you disputing this factoid on many levels.

4. The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry's output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.

Not only false, but baseless on the face of it. How much energy is it suppossed to take to haul waste to the desert and bury it anyhow?

5. Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.

Come again? France manages to produce fuel quite efficiently using fission powered electricity to run the manufacturing plants and 1970's era gasseous diffusion enrichment plants. The new American Centerfuge plant being built in Piketon, Ohio uses just 5% of the electricity per SWU as the Gasseous Diffusion plant in Paducah, KY it is being built to replace. So once again we have a patently false claim.

6. Uranium enrichment uses large volumes of uranium hexafluoride, a halogenated compound (HC). Other HCs are also used in the nuclear life-cycle. HCs are greenhouse gases with global warming potentials ranging up to 10,000 times that of carbon dioxide.

While it is true that Sulfur Hexaflouride is one of the most intense GHG's you can imagine that fact is completly unrelated to Uranium Hexaflouride, which condenses into a solid at room temperature. This is a red herring argument if ever there was one.

7. An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.

Sounds lovely, why doesn't this group seek funds for an independent unbiased audit instead of making up facts as they go along?

8. There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).

I support the first three suggestions in point 8, I don't beleive the last point is acheivable without some sort of fascist controlling state being implemented and I oppose that wholeheartedly.

[mkwin]

If we go nuclear, we should get uranium mining companies to guarantee supplies for the lifetime of any nuclear plant that is planned.

Will you require solar power plants to guarantee that they will provide power 24/7? Will you require wind generators to provide steady, constant power as well? if not you seem to be setting a double standard.

Not at all. The primary energy source for sun, wind and wave (and probably a few others) are assured. Don't you agree? I've already acknowledged that these sources can be variable, but they are effectively infinitely long lived. It's not the plants that I'm asking give the guarantee but the supplier of the fuel source.

Tony, renewables are part of the long-term solution but they cannot possibly be relied upon to provide the only element. Not only do we have to replace the the energy lost from declining oil but also, within a couple of decades, gas.

I am a huge fan of renewables, in fact I am beginning a part-time home study engineering degree in August with the option to do a renewable energy master degree after. However, the scalabity of renewables means that even optimistic projections fall short of needed capacity.

Peak oil is going to cause enough economic problems by itself, the last thing we need is a wider energy problem due the lack of foresight.

It is clear uranium supplies are suffcient in the medium to long term. The two reports you quoted are based on the discredited SLS study. This is without considering 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plants. The plants being built today are far more fuel effcient and standardised than the ones currently in operation. The UK reactors are generation 1 based on designs 50 years old!

Third-generation reactors have:


a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time,
a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets,
higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,
reduced possibility of core melt accidents,
minimal effect on the environment,
higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,
burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life.

source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

Many of these new reactors have far shorter construction periods many as short as 36 months due to standardised module components.

Nuclear is part of our future energy mix, it is a proven cost competitive technology that has provided nearly 20% of the worlds electricity for decades and the recent innovations and developments mean this has the ability to increase.

Relying solely on largely experimental and costly renewables would be stupidity beyond belief.

[sch_peakoiler]

In place at mines. Come on, your arguing about production capacity that has atrophied over the past several decades.

I do not argue at all. I try to find some numbers amidst pro nuclear slogans like "uranium is plentiful", "we have a 1E+20 years of assured supply" and so on.

till now I found production forecasts
2007 -51000 ton
2008 - 61000 ton.

Is there any place to check the 2007 production?

Now you're just throwing words around. Cigar Lake production is scheduled to start in 2011.

Never tell facts you are unsure of, Dezakin, in the world of Internet this can be dangerous.
because the person you told this might google things

http://the-slow-lane.blogspot.com/2006/ ... -lake.html
"Production startup was previously planned for early 2008."

2011 say you??? well well well. This is exactly what I do not like about pro-nuclear things.

Look, even though we're well capable of expanding nuclear power capacity 10% a year, thats not gonna happen.

I am more interested in WNA use cases. Growth 1-2% per year, what happens in 2008-2015.
forget 10% growth. at first, the production from mines must grow 50%. This is painted very optimistic by the industry but the paint just does not hold.