Uranium Supply Pt 2

[sch_peakoiler]

I of course understand what is the cause and what is the consequence. My question was if you think that these steps you mentioned could be undertaken in a timely manner when the supplies from Megaton to Megawatts start to decline. In other words, whether you think that market forces will be able to avoid a physical shortage of uranium just in time.

Anyway, thanks for your answer.

[Tanada]

I of course understand what is the cause and what is the consequence. My question was if you think that these steps you mentioned could be undertaken in a timely manner when the supplies from Megaton to Megawatts start to decline. In other words, whether you think that market forces will be able to avoid a physical shortage of uranium just in time.

Anyway, thanks for your answer.

The Cigar Lake debacle will play out over the next 5 years at the most, Megatons to Megawatts would be able alone to replace that period if the USA scrap is added to the Russian scrap warhead stream.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I of course understand what is the cause and what is the consequence. My question was if you think that these steps you mentioned could be undertaken in a timely manner when the supplies from Megaton to Megawatts start to decline. In other words, whether you think that market forces will be able to avoid a physical shortage of uranium just in time.

Anyway, thanks for your answer.

The Cigar Lake debacle will play out over the next 5 years at the most, Megatons to Megawatts would be able alone to replace that period if the USA scrap is added to the Russian scrap warhead stream.

I have some doubts about willingfulness of Russians to carry on megatons to megawatts much longer.
They are apparently feeling intimidated by US international policy and are redistributing their military budget as I am writting this article now.
Much funds is being transferred back into their atomic weapons programs (and surely there will be more demand for U235 from there).

Writting all that I do not expect physical shortage of uranium on the market at least in few more decades.

[grink1tt3n]

A new era of MAD:

Russia and China's nuclear forces may not be able to withstand a US first strike (and be able to penetrate the US's fledgling missile defense).

However, I suppose Russia/China could attack OPEC countries (with nuclear weapons), thus cutting off of the world oil supply.

Then again, we have the SPR, Mexico, and Venez., so maybe it wouldn't be all bad.

/Thinking out loud.

[EnergyUnlimited]

A new era of MAD:

Russia and China's nuclear forces may not be able to withstand a US first strike (and be able to penetrate the US's fledgling missile defense).

However, I suppose Russia/China could attack OPEC countries (with nuclear weapons), thus cutting off of the world oil supply.

Then again, we have the SPR, Mexico, and Venez., so maybe it wouldn't be all bad.

/Thinking out loud.

One idea concerning "new MAD world":
If you believe, that your adversary will shortly gain first strike capability, and you will not be able to retaliate successfully, than it is time for your first strike now.

[M_B_S]

Dynamic Relationships Between Uranium and SWU Prices

How History Set the Stage for Problems

For a period of nearly twenty years uranium prices remained low, a result largely of liquidation of commercial and government inventories. As a result, many decisions were made about enrichment that depended on assumptions about uranium prices.


HOUSTEN!

We have a problem


PEAKOIL=PEAKURANIUM

[grink1tt3n]

I've been reading up on uranium as part of my research into energy alternatives.

At one point, the US was researching a nuclear powered airplane (to complement the nuclear powered submarine). The project was scrapped, since the reactor was too heavy.

However, this reactor design was such that it could use thorium as fuel instead of uranium. In fact later, the US ran a test reactor for 4 years that used 3 types of nuclear fuel, including thorium (when thorium undergoes fission, it actually converts into an isotope of uranium.)

The kicker is that thorium is more plentiful than uranium.

There is a company (been around since 1992) that is looking to producing commercial thorium reactors.

Thorium would not a panacea, but every little bit helps.

[M_B_S]

[web]http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5665952[/web]

To keep the lights on america and the world is forced to make nuclear fuel from atomic bombs. Nice but what then....

Peak Oil= Peak Uranium

Uranium is no solution it is another problem. M_B_S

[M_B_S]

Peak Uranium //Arguments that will change the world

[MCrab]

Dynamic Relationships Between Uranium and SWU Prices

How History Set the Stage for Problems

For a period of nearly twenty years uranium prices remained low, a result largely of liquidation of commercial and government inventories. As a result, many decisions were made about enrichment that depended on assumptions about uranium prices.

PEAKOIL=PEAKURANIUM

A nice summary of why primary production has been less than demand for the past twenty years - it hasn't needed to be.

The conclusion you place at the bottom of each of your posts does not follow from this, however. Why should underinvestment in uranium mining for a decade or two lead to a permanent peak in uranium production?

Let's look at it another way. Some people claim (mistakenly in my view) that the production of gold has peaked. Assuming this is true what can we learn from applying this experience to uranium? Well, gold is present in the earth's crust at 0.03 ppm and it is estimated that around 150,000 tonnes has been mined since the dawn of time. Uranium is far more common at 2.8 ppm, making it around 100 times as abundant. Thus we could estimate that if gold has peaked then uranium would peak at around 15,000,000 tonnes. To date only around 2,000,000 tonnes of uranium have been extracted, and a quarter of this used for military purposes.

So, if the comparison with gold holds then we have a long way to go until 'peak uranium'. Care to discuss this, MBS, or will you just post links to articles that don't show what you claim they do?

[sch_peakoiler]

Care to discuss this, MBS, or will you just post links to articles that don't show what you claim they do?

the latter;)

Note that it takes him 1 minute to post the link, but it takes a normal person 10 to 20 minutes to read it and think it over. Thus, TROTI (Troll return on troll invested) is above 20:1. He himself does not read the articles he post. Neither does he read your answers to him. If he did that, his TROTI would decline:):)

[EnergyUnlimited]

when thorium undergoes fission, it actually converts into an isotope of uranium.

1. This statement is flat false.
2. Thorium can be burned (after prior conversion into U233) in existing model of commercial reactor usually working with uranium.
This is proven technology.
3. Thorium 232/U233 can replace U235 completely and thorium cycle is independent of natural uranium ores.

[grink1tt3n]

when thorium undergoes fission, it actually converts into an isotope of uranium.

1. This statement is flat false.

I simplified the conversion process somewhat. Here are the full beans:

Releasing the energy from thorium is a three-step process. First, the thorium must be exposed to neutrons. When it intercepts and absorbs a neutron, it will transmute from thorium-232 to thorium-233. In a few minutes, the thorium-233 will decay into protactinium-233.

Next, the protactinium-233 must be isolated from neutrons. The Pa-233 nucleus has a half-life of 27 days, and when it decays it will decay into uranium-233.

I got the information from this source:

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/04/welcome-and-introduction.html

[Tanada]

To keep the lights on america and the world is forced to make nuclear fuel from atomic bombs. Nice but what then....

Peak Oil= Peak Uranium

Uranium is no solution it is another problem. M_B_S

I do not find it surprising that you completely missed a program that has been operated by the DOE since the mid 1990's but just for the edification of others MtoM current status-Russian side shows that Russia has scrapped 11410 HEU warheads into LEU reactor fuel. 285 tons of bomb grade Uranium were involved in the russian side of the program so far. On the USA side 174.3 tons of HEU have been committed for conversion and of that ammount 60 tons had been processed through MtoM as of 12/31/2006. In addition 33 tons of mixed/off specification HEU is being converted into off spec LEU and used to fuel TVA reactors. Off spec HEU is enriched Uranium made from recovered uranium from plutonium producton reactors and/or naval reactors. Because of its exposure in reactors earlier it contains a significant percentage of U-236 as well as U-235. While the LEU derived from this fuel is perfectly sutible for use in any commercial reactor nobody wanted to buy it due to the regulatory hassle involved in getting permission to use fuel outside of the 'specifications' for commercial use. The TVA, a governmental user of LEU, arranged to receive the BLEU (Blended Low Enriched Uranium) fuel in place of the commercial fuel they would normally buy on the open market. Additional off spec HEU may be added to the BLEU program in the future, not all of the scrap US DOE Uranium has been committed to any program at this time. To date, or rather as of 12/31/2006 76 tons of HEU and off spec HEU have been converted and 18 additional tons are somewhere in the conversion process. A slide giving a graphical powerpoint report on DOE HEU disposition can be found HERE.

Maybe I should try the MBS technique...[web]http://www1.y12.doe.gov/community/NMA/0405NEWS02/NMA%2008_31_04%20(final).ppt#263,8,Slide 8[/web]

[M_B_S]

Housten Chronicle alarm uranium shortage


Even with new mines, growth in the supply of uranium is straining to keep up with demand from utilities. Production from five of the six largest mines in Canada, Australia and Namibia fell in the first half from a year earlier, according to Nukem Corp., a Danbury, Conn.-based uranium trader.
*******************************
conventional production 2006 is falling 30% in Canada and Australia


Hi Tanada

you see the uranium supply situation is critical. There isn´t enough stuff out there to fuel the present reactors. How would you fuel the new ones?

In 2015 HEU supply is running out another 16000t U235 is then out of the game.

There are no NEW mines who could fill the gap! M_B_S

Cigar lake hits the panic button .......

[MCrab]

Where in the article does it mention 'peak uranium' and the end of nuclear power?

Read it twice and can't seem to find that particular phrase.

It does, however, mention that cigar lake will be online by 2009, but for me this is the money quote:

We're in a global nuclear revival.

I also suggest you do some research on Kazakhstan, M_B_S. They plan to triple their output over the next five years. Or how about Olympic Dam in Australia? Triple production by 2013.

Let us know when you find nuclear power plants are starting to be cancelled. You might then just stand a chance of your message reaching beyond the already convinced and the gullible.

[M_B_S]

USGS//IEA 2002

Peak Uranium world production was 1980s


IEA 3. scenarios 2000-2050

Estimates of cumulative uranium requirements for the 2000–2050 time period for each case are high demand 7,600,000 tU, middle demand 5,400,000 tU, and low demand 3,400,000 tU (fig. 5). The current RAR in 2001 would fall short in all three cases by 3,700,000 tU, 1,500,000 tU, and 800,000 tU, respectively (fig. 5). Current RAR will be depleted by the mid-2030s. Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002

[Tanada]

USGS//IEA 2002

Peak Uranium world production was 1980s


IEA 3. scenarios 2000-2050

Estimates of cumulative uranium requirements for the 2000–2050 time period for each case are high demand 7,600,000 tU, middle demand 5,400,000 tU, and low demand 3,400,000 tU (fig. 5). The current RAR in 2001 would fall short in all three cases by 3,700,000 tU, 1,500,000 tU, and 800,000 tU, respectively (fig. 5). Current RAR will be depleted by the mid-2030s. Uranium—Fuel for Nuclear Energy 2002

Why MBS that is Excellent news indeed! In the high demand case you cited 7,600,000 tons of U are needed which under current practices would have only 3,900,000 availible. What you are forgetting however is that current enrichment practices are horribly inefficient, they only deplete the fresh Uranium down to .3%. By doubling the centerfuge numbers and doubling the energy used as a result you can double the ammount of enriched Uranium produced from any given quantity of fresh Uranium. This means that the 3,900,000 tons they project being availible to 2050 can yeild as much fuel as 7,800,000 tons of fresh uranium does under current practices.

That alone would cover the gap without MOX, reprocessed Uranium re-enrichment or any of the other nifty tricks that physicists have up their sleeves.

Projecting any resource out more than 30 years is simply asking to be proven wrong after you are old or passed away, it is a common trick.

edit fixed stupid error

[MCrab]

USGS//IEA 2002

Peak Uranium world production was 1980s

Back in 1970....

M_B_S: "Daddy, daddy, uranium production peaked in 1960. However will we fuel all those reactors that are being built?" *sob* *sob*

M_B_S Sr: "Now, son, don't you worry. Just study hard in school and you'll soon find out why there's nothing to fret about. Now stop being such a sissy...."

Back in the present day....

Don't you wished you'd listened, M_B_S?

[EnergyUnlimited]

...What you are forgetting however is that current enrichment practices are horribly inefficient, they only deplete the frsh Uranium down to .03%.

The same error again.
Natural uranium contain 0.71% of U 235, depleted uranium contain 0.2-0.3% of U 235, not 0.03% as you had stated.
Depletion to ~0.1% U 235 is only recently considered by Russians due to excess of enrichment capacity there.
Otherwise good post.