Uranium Supply Pt 2

[sch_peakoiler]

You're talking about two entirely different things, long term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.

neverending short term problems become long term.
Assured supplies are a forecast of the industry. And facing the many failed forecasts i started to pay attention to what is being said.

are the any production numbers available for 2007 to check up that forecast? For if short term forecasts all fail, who will believe a long term assumption?

We have over 1 million tons of depleted uranium stockpiles and surplus enrichment capacity

how many SWUs exactly out of 50 million we have got are surplus?
please link a document or a calculation.

, and strong price signals for opening new mines and expanding surplus capacity. Are you suggesting this just isn't going to happen? Do you really believe thats likely?

I am questioning the ability to forecast the transition from signals to action. Mind the 2007 production numbers. are they available?
if short term forecasts fail for a timeperiod long enough they also fail long term.

that has become my opinion after looking some numbers up for myself.

look, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?

[Tanada]

are the any production numbers available for 2007 to check up that forecast? For if short term forecasts all fail, who will believe a long term assumption?

The new Red Book should be out in June 08, until then there might be some preliminary reporting, but nothing with garunteed substance.

We have over 1 million tons of depleted uranium stockpiles and surplus enrichment capacity

how many SWUs exactly out of 50 million we have got are surplus?
please link a document or a calculation.

, and strong price signals for opening new mines and expanding surplus capacity. Are you suggesting this just isn't going to happen? Do you really believe thats likely?

I am questioning the ability to forecast the transition from signals to action. Mind the 2007 production numbers. are they available?
if short term forecasts fail for a timeperiod long enough they also fail long term.

that has become my opinion after looking some numbers up for myself.

look, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?

Until the new Red Book comes out in June of this year everyone is operating on past figures plus projections.

As for the excess capacity in SWU, unless the Russian's have suddenly changed policy they have some 10-12 million SWU in excess to what they are using and the USA plant in Paducah, KY is running at about 6 million SWU below capacity. The reason the USA plant is running at the low end is pure economics, it is a gas diffusion plant and costs 20 times as much in terms of electricity consumption to operate than a modern centerfuge plant does. Why run full out when there is not the demand for that more expensive SWU? The Russian facilities are modern centerfuge style plants and operate at much lower costs, the excess there comes from being in a closed market where demand is capped, not capacity. The Russians do make use of a lot of their capacity for tails upgrading because they can sell natural uranium equivelent on the world market.

Its complicated but something like this. Russia can only sell X amount of reactor grade enriched Uranium to the world market. Once they have sold X for the year in contract terms they have a huge remaining capacity of SWU sitting idle. By contracting to take in European depleted tails and upgrade them to natural uranium equivelent they do three things, they produce salable natural uranium equivelent, they keep their plants operating, workers paid, maintenence taken care of ect ect, and they take in large quantities of tails that they take permanent custody of.

By taking in partially depleated tails and fully depleating them over and above their contract requirements with the Europeans they profit from the excess natural uranium equivelent material. The Europeans are releived of meeting expensive western disposal requirements for their own tails so in their eyes they also come out ahead.

In the process they add natural uranium equivelent to the world market as replacement for fresh natural uranium.

[Starvid]

The argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.

[Dezakin]

You're talking about two entirely different things, long term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.

neverending short term problems become long term.
Assured supplies are a forecast of the industry. And facing the many failed forecasts i started to pay attention to what is being said.

You're looking in hindsight at a huge price collapse in uranium following the atrophy of new nuclear builds coupled with huge stockpiles of enriched uranium These aren't neverending short term problems except in the handbook of simple rhetoric.

look, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?

It doesn't matter. It looks like you've made up your mind what you want to believe. Whenever projected numbers are offered, you reject them as incorporeal paper proejections, and then demand real data. Cigar Lake is scheduled production thousands of tons in 2011, but somehow that isn't going to happen I suppose. To say nothing of the routine capacity upgrades at the numerous smaller mines around the world.

[EnergyUnlimited]

The argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.

But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.

Again, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.

[Dezakin]

But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.

Reprocessing infrastructure is a silly, expensive waste of time given the price of uranium today. If we're going to go that route, we might as well just build molten salt reactors which dont require offsite infrastructure as the reprocessing is done online.

Again, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.

No it doesn't. The thorium cycle breeds U233, and U233 is allways contaminated with U232 which has strong gamma emitters in the decay chain. While U233 is good for weaponization from a neutronic perspective, the gammas make such a weapon undeployable because of the handling issues around it. If you have the infrastructure to do this, you'll much more likely just rationalize having enrichment infrastructure for using U235 which doesn't have the problem of lots of gamma radiation.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Again, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.

No it doesn't. The thorium cycle breeds U233, and U233 is allways contaminated with U232 which has strong gamma emitters in the decay chain. While U233 is good for weaponization from a neutronic perspective, the gammas make such a weapon undeployable because of the handling issues around it. If you have the infrastructure to do this, you'll much more likely just rationalize having enrichment infrastructure for using U235 which doesn't have the problem of lots of gamma radiation.

1. U232 is not formed or only formed in irrelevant amounts, if your reactor is working in strictly thermal regime.
2. Due to short life of U232 it is enough to leave recovered U233 for few hundred years in storage, and your material will self-enrich itself to weapon grade without doing anything.

[EnergyUnlimited]

But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.

Reprocessing infrastructure is a silly, expensive waste of time given the price of uranium today. If we're going to go that route, we might as well just build molten salt reactors which dont require offsite infrastructure as the reprocessing is done online.

1. Today is a keyword here.
2. Reprocessing is about the best way to deal with issues related to waste storage.
3. What is a cost of molten salt reactor?
Is it proven civilian technology suitable for power production?

In any case all what we are going to be left with is enforced, hasty conversion of PWR-s to thorium cycle, once there is inadequate uranium supply.
So reprocessing will be essential, assuming that we will not abandon nuclear power altogether.

[sch_peakoiler]

The argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.

The assumption that you can convert whatever you like into a thorium breeder in any random time you'd like is wrong on many more levels, starvid. That is why it is just about stalemate:(

[sch_peakoiler]

You're looking in hindsight at a huge price collapse in uranium following the atrophy of new nuclear builds coupled with huge stockpiles of enriched uranium These aren't neverending short term problems except in the handbook of simple rhetoric.

the problem is that those short term problems are never addressed. In fact, only some people here assume that it could come to some short term problems with the supply.
If nuclear industry said: Well problems there are but we will solve them - would be nice. Instead they cough up numbers like 51000 ton for 2007. My only wish is to check them.

It doesn't matter. It looks like you've made up your mind what you want to believe. Whenever projected numbers are offered, you reject them as incorporeal paper proejections, and then demand real data.

nope, I do not believe anything. What I want is to take projected data and compare them to reality where it is possible. I was asking many times for any production forecasts but instead I get only the 35 million tons of estimated reserves, and the notice: "dont worry, be happy, we will mine as much uranium as we need in a timely manner.

you do not understand me again: what I do want to find are numbers, projected and real. For example production forecasts 2008-2010.

Cigar Lake is scheduled production thousands of tons in 2011, but somehow that isn't going to happen I suppose.

I quoted one article above where they say the schedule was 2008.

To say nothing of the routine capacity upgrades at the numerous smaller mines around the world.

this is exactly what the whole thing is all about. I wanted to find numbers. and instead you feed me with "many mines in many places expand capacity". I already got that. I know that. But if 100 mines expand capacity 100 tons each in 10 years - how much of growth would that be? That is exactly the reason I am asking for projected production numbers here, but I got only one number (3711 to 4000 expansion).

[Dezakin]

Again, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.

No it doesn't. The thorium cycle breeds U233, and U233 is allways contaminated with U232 which has strong gamma emitters in the decay chain. While U233 is good for weaponization from a neutronic perspective, the gammas make such a weapon undeployable because of the handling issues around it. If you have the infrastructure to do this, you'll much more likely just rationalize having enrichment infrastructure for using U235 which doesn't have the problem of lots of gamma radiation.

1. U232 is not formed or only formed in irrelevant amounts, if your reactor is working in strictly thermal regime.

Thats just not true. It depends entirely on the fuel discipline.

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publi ... _1kang.pdf

2. Due to short life of U232 it is enough to leave recovered U233 for few hundred years in storage, and your material will self-enrich itself to weapon grade without doing anything.

Eh, thats not a worry that immediately concerns me.

[Dezakin]

But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.

Reprocessing infrastructure is a silly, expensive waste of time given the price of uranium today. If we're going to go that route, we might as well just build molten salt reactors which dont require offsite infrastructure as the reprocessing is done online.

1. Today is a keyword here.
2. Reprocessing is about the best way to deal with issues related to waste storage.

No its not. Dry cask storage is.

3. What is a cost of molten salt reactor?

The first one would be more expensive than a LWR (first to market costs and all), and future molten salt reactors would be less expensive because they're less capital intensive. Higher power densities, better thermodynamic efficiencies, no massive pressure vessels for a start.

Is it proven civilian technology suitable for power production?

Not sure what you mean by this, compared to PWR's running on thorium. Both of these require similar startup enrichments and deal with highly enriched uranium 233 after the whole process is started, so from a licensing standpoint they're similar. The liquid fluoride reactor is more proliferation resistant because the U233 never leaves the reactor.

In any case all what we are going to be left with is enforced, hasty conversion of PWR-s to thorium cycle, once there is inadequate uranium supply.
So reprocessing will be essential, assuming that we will not abandon nuclear power altogether.

You're actually assuming that we're going to run short on our uranium supply? That seems incredibly unlikely to me, but in the longer run of a decade past the price spike, mines start delivering large quantities of uranium. In the meantime, enrichment capacity is much faster to scale in terms of simple build time and licensing, not to mention cheaper.

[Dezakin]

The argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.

The assumption that you can convert whatever you like into a thorium breeder in any random time you'd like is wrong on many more levels, starvid. That is why it is just about stalemate:(

Sortof...

The breeding ratio of light water reactors is somewhere around .6 IIRC. When you use thorium it goes to .8 or so, and using thorium to U233 fuel is less problematic than using MOX, yet even MOX can be used in just about any light water reactor (paying attention to the fuel geometry.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Thats just not true. It depends entirely on the fuel discipline.

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publi ... _1kang.pdf

Yes, it is true.
Please read page 15-17 of the reference, which you presented above.
Thermal neutrons cannot produce U232.
6 MeV is an optimum as per your reference.

Fuel discipline (means assuring low burn out before reprocessing) would allow you to produce reasonable quality U233, even if some fast neutrons *are* present.

[EnergyUnlimited]

But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.

Reprocessing infrastructure is a silly, expensive waste of time given the price of uranium today. If we're going to go that route, we might as well just build molten salt reactors which dont require offsite infrastructure as the reprocessing is done online.

1. Today is a keyword here.
2. Reprocessing is about the best way to deal with issues related to waste storage.

No its not. Dry cask storage is.

As long as transuranides are left in your waste it will not be safe for hundreds thousands of years.
Dry cask storage does not remove these but reprocessing does.
Further, you can burn recovered transuranides in nuclear reactor to produce energy and get rid of them.

3. What is a cost of molten salt reactor?

The first one would be more expensive than a LWR (first to market costs and all), and future molten salt reactors would be less expensive because they're less capital intensive. Higher power densities, better thermodynamic efficiencies, no massive pressure vessels for a start.

Is it proven civilian technology suitable for power production?

Not sure what you mean by this, compared to PWR's running on thorium. Both of these require similar startup enrichments and deal with highly enriched uranium 233 after the whole process is started, so from a licensing standpoint they're similar. The liquid fluoride reactor is more proliferation resistant because the U233 never leaves the reactor.

My concerns are that molten salt reactors are only experimental installations and it is not certain, will they make into industry or not.
PWR run on thorium is a concept experimentally proven in US (Tanada was writing about that).

You're actually assuming that we're going to run short on our uranium supply? That seems incredibly unlikely to me, but in the longer run of a decade past the price spike, mines start delivering large quantities of uranium. In the meantime, enrichment capacity is much faster to scale in terms of simple build time and licensing, not to mention cheaper.

At ~$400/lb of yellowcake thorium cycle would reach economical parity with LWR.
I have red article about it, but I cannot give online reference.
As a bonus we would not have much problems with long term waste storage (because all waste would be reprocessed), so overall economy would not be so bad.

As a drawback proliferation risk would be considerably increased.
This does not need to be a concern if installation is built in states which already possess atomic weapons or states like Brazil, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany or Ukraine, who officially do not possess such weapons, but could easily change this state of affairs within a month or two, if deemed necessary.

[sch_peakoiler]

And how long would it take to convert one LWR to the thorium cycle?

Uranium price is very inflexible. Example: 2003 - seabed level, 2006 - stratosphere.
Lets say it stays at 100 till 2013 and then a part of secondary supplies dries out and say some projected mines are still not there, plus some new LWRs have been built: the price would be instantly at 1000-2000 USD/lb which would have no meaning because there will be physically no uranium to buy.

Then the question will be "how long it takes, how many years you need before thorium reactors run".

[EnergyUnlimited]

And how long would it take to convert one LWR to the thorium cycle?

Uranium price is very inflexible. Example: 2003 - seabed level, 2006 - stratosphere.
Lets say it stays at 100 till 2013 and then a part of secondary supplies dries out and say some projected mines are still not there, plus some new LWRs have been built: the price would be instantly at 1000-2000 USD/lb which would have no meaning because there will be physically no uranium to buy.

Then the question will be "how long it takes, how many years you need before thorium reactors run".

I think, you should direct this particular question (in form of PM perhaps) to Tanada, who knows some details about experimental conversion run in one of US reactors.

My guess is that conversion of PWR into thorium cycle would take about 1 year of engineering work.
Breeding factor in thorium cycle was experimentally shown to be about 1.01.
It is reasonable to expect that we could increase it to 1.02 perhaps.

1% excess of fissile material over amount of used one would allow you to secure enough of U233 to set up additional reactor working after about 70 years of work of original one.

You could circumvent this difficulty to some extend by "igniting" additional thorium cycle reactors with HEU (weapon grade uranium 235) diluted to about 5% with thorium-232.
Such a fuel would have to be treated with care.
If stolen, it could be converted to weapon material with primitive measures only.

Perhaps better alternative here would be to ignite thorium cycle by mixing thorium with few% of reactor grade plutonium, which is more difficult (but still possible) to divert for weapon use.

I have red few articles suggesting diluting thorium with U238, just to prevent possibility of easy diversion of fissile materials to weapons use.
Anyone who might attempt diversion would end up with necessity of separation of uranium isotopes - difficult process which cannot be concealed easily and requiring reasonably developed technology.
However breeding factor in such a setup is always below 1, so this approach is a dead end in long run.

[sch_peakoiler]

So effectively this means thorium is a no-runner in the next 20 years for sure, if we started yesterday (just because you can not breed enough of it).

[EnergyUnlimited]

So effectively this means thorium is a no-runner in the next 20 years for sure, if we started yesterday (just because you can not breed enough of it).

You are actually breeding U233, not thorium.

You could divert some high grade plutonium or HEU from atomic weapons, just to set up new thorium based reactors.

I am also suspecting that many PWR-s are going to be converted into thorium cycle once uranium is no longer available in required quantities.

[sch_peakoiler]

So effectively this means thorium is a no-runner in the next 20 years for sure, if we started yesterday (just because you can not breed enough of it).

You are actually breeding U233, not thorium.

You could divert some high grade plutonium or HEU from atomic weapons, just to set up new thorium based reactors.

I am also suspecting that many PWR-s are going to be converted into thorium cycle once uranium is no longer available in required quantities.

Yeah I know what you breed.
The question is how much HEU or Weapon-PU one needs convert say 100 PWR reactors? If at some time in the future we do not have enough LEU to run them normally where will we get enough HEU to "ignite" them in thorium cycle?