Uranium Supply Pt 2

[OilFinder2]

Here's an event which promises to allow more uranium on the market:

--> Bloomberg <--

Liberal Party Wins Government in Western Australia
By Robert Fenner

Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Colin Barnett will become the next premier of Western Australia after his Liberal Party won National Party support for a coalition government, opening the way for uranium mining and genetically modified crops in the state.

The National Party received ``very good'' proposals from the Liberals and incumbent Labor Party before making its decision, Nationals Leader Brendon Grylls told reporters in Perth today. The Liberals won 24 seats in the 59-seat lower house and will form a government with the support of four Nationals and two independent members, ending a week of uncertainty after the Sept. 6 poll left no party with a majority.

Barnett, who promised to open up uranium mines and allow genetically modified crops, will head a state that accounts for a third of the nation's exports with 10 percent of its population.

``Those key policies of uranium and genetically modified crops will come through very quickly,'' said Peter Van Onselen, associate professor in political science at Perth's Edith Cowan University. ``Between them they also control the upper house.''

[...]

[Tanada]

Their biggest fear has been over supply causing the price to drop too low, Canada and Australia really are like Sudi Arabia and Kuwait except for Uranium. Now that world demand is starting to pick up they feel safe producing more, however with the next generation RMWR in Japan undergoing detailed simulation prior to deciscion to build their window of opertunity is short. If they keep the price low enough they can kill the RMWR, if they guess wrong the RMWR will cut Uranium demand significantly even if we go all nuclear for 75% baseload electricity production.

[outcast]

I'm a bit confused

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency figure there’s enough uranium to power existing plants for 100 years. Granted, there are some supply-side issues. About 40% of current uranium supplies come from stockpiles and old weapons—not from uranium mines—so new sources need to be developed soon to avoid “uranium supply shortfalls,” they say

But didn't someone just say earlier in the thread that the IAEA (or something like that) said we have more than enough uranium?

[Tanada]

I'm a bit confused

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency figure there’s enough uranium to power existing plants for 100 years. Granted, there are some supply-side issues. About 40% of current uranium supplies come from stockpiles and old weapons—not from uranium mines—so new sources need to be developed soon to avoid “uranium supply shortfalls,” they say

But didn't someone just say earlier in the thread that the IAEA (or something like that) said we have more than enough uranium?

In the eyes of a government bureaucracy like the IAEA a 100 year supply will last longer than anyone working there will be alive so thats more than enough. IMO of course

Realistically the supply is a lot more than 100 years, but thats niether here nor there, the thread covers it in excrutiating repetitious detail.

[Zero-point]

Please people learn!

Thorium! Thorium! Thorium!

And there are such things as breeder reactors too. Also thorium reactors breed the uranium necessary to use as "starter" fuel for more thorium reactors so there is no supply problem for nuclear energy.

There is only the problem of a few companies that want "scarcity" to extort profits from an entire industry and world in effect holding the rest of the world hostage.

Don't think that if these companies can't make a profit then who will build these reactors cause that's why we have national governments of, for, and by the people.

[TonyPrep]

Please people learn!

Thorium! Thorium! Thorium!

And there are such things as breeder reactors too. Also thorium reactors breed the uranium necessary to use as "starter" fuel for more thorium reactors so there is no supply problem for nuclear energy.

There is only the problem of a few companies that want "scarcity" to extort profits from an entire industry and world in effect holding the rest of the world hostage.

Don't think that if these companies can't make a profit then who will build these reactors cause that's why we have national governments of, for, and by the people.

Thanks for that. So the answer is a fuel that no reactor uses or is planned to use (apart from some prototypes)? And breeder reactors, of which there are none operating in breeder mode, are the way to solve resource scarcities? But, in any case, none of this matters because a few companies want scarcity anyway?

[outcast]

And breeder reactors, of which there are none operating in breeder mode, are the way to solve resource scarcities?

The reason why no breeder reactors are operating in breeder mode is because there is no Uranium shortage, so it is not economical for them to do that.

[TonyPrep]

And breeder reactors, of which there are none operating in breeder mode, are the way to solve resource scarcities?

The reason why no breeder reactors are operating in breeder mode is because there is no Uranium shortage, so it is not economical for them to do that.

That's not what zero point said. He said companies are deliberately keeping supplies scarce.

Lots of room for confusion here.

[outcast]

True, considering that Uranium is priced in kilograms instead of tons.

[Tanada]

Those who keep talking about Thorium really should review this thread, the two metals are intimately linked due to both being fertile nuclear fission fuel.

[Dezakin]

They're also intimately related because of similar chemistry making them both lithophilic minerals nearly ubiquitously concentrated at log normal distribution in the earth's crust.

[johnsmithh]

Nuclear power is generated using Uranium. Uranium is a metal mined in various parts of the world. Nuclear power stations work in pretty much the same way as fossil fuel-burning stations, except that a "chain reaction" inside a nuclear reactor makes the heat instead. Uranium is important metals for nuclear power.

[Tanada]

Uranium spot price for end of February was $51.75. Does anyone still have doubts about the abundant supply of Uranium currently available to buyers?

[SeaGypsy]

Australia has as Tanada says, the capacity to produce a vast amount more Uranium than it currently does. The companies supposedly keeping prices high have in fact been struggling to get through the application stages, particularly when it comes to Environmental Impact Statements.
The preferred method of extraction for the largest reserves is sub-terranian liquefaction (equivalent to fracking). The areas on top of most of the Uranium reserves are catchments for the underlying Great Artesian Basin, and the whole lot is porous limestone underlay. Meaning there is no way to safely, surely isolate the process from the aquifer. Then there is another fact, that most of this area is thinly populated by mostly full blood aboriginal people and pastoralists. The politics get very messy outback. Multi-billion dollar Uranium projects have been 'stood aside' pending more favorable EIS outcomes. It is nothing unusual for ten years of legalism and bargaining to go on before a site goes beyond test drilling, for any mineral. Probably double that for Uranium at current pace (effectively stalled completely).
(Edit to add: for more info/ example/ google : Angela Pamela Uranium mine)

[Tanada]

Spot price is down to $47.00 and still no shortage in sight.

[evilgenius]

There isn't any problem with the supply of Uranium. It can be mined from the sea for about 4 times the cost of what it takes to mine it on land, maybe a little more. The sea contains about 5000 years supply at global usage levels. The problem is with the type of reactors being built to use Uranium. If the current design meme has a failure rate in keeping with observed failures so far, and the world adopts nuclear power using this type globally, then the period between dangerous instances will narrow. Add in what could happen with any kind of disaster (war, CME, terrorism) that can bring down a power grid, which now would have not the occasional but many nuclear plants attached, and the rational for continuing with the current design meme seems absurd.

[M_B_S]

There isnt any problem.....lol

The US is More Dependent on Foreign Uranium Than Foreign Oil"

One of the most critical issues discussed is the severity of the US uranium supply and demand deficit. According to Adnani, "The US is consuming 55 million pounds of uranium per annum...to generate 20% of US electricity...(but) domestic production of uranium is only 4 million pounds per year...The US is more dependent on foreign uranium than it is on foreign oil."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us ... 2012-09-12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZfVELhllrg&feature=plc
********************

The HEU treaty with PUTINs Russia is gone next year so 20% of the US electricity production is @ risk

Only sheeple say: there is no problem there is no problem....

But i am the wolf @ the door .........

M_B_S

[dsula]

The US is more dependent on foreign uranium than it is on foreign oil."

That's probably because foreign uranium is cheaper.
Similar to the 70's oil peak. Instead of keeping on drilling and digging for oil at home, it was cheaper to simply go and import it. Hence, you got the US oil peak.

[ralfy]

The problem isn't just peak uranium or avoiding it through various technologies but peak everything combined with lag time. In this case, the IEA argues that we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to maintain economic growth, and more if economic growth has to increase given a larger global middle class and a more rapid decline in conventional oil production.

Thus, the various means described in this thread to deal with peak oil should have taken place some time ago. One study states that long-term retooling of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture to use less fuel and petrochemicals may take decades, but we don't have that time. Worse, the effects of financial speculation (which leads to more economic instability), the threat of more conflict over remaining resources, and the long-term effects of global warming which will lead to crop destruction and disruption of manufacturing and mining will certainly not make things easier.

[Scottie]

Thus, the various means described in this thread to deal with peak oil should have taken place some time ago. One study states that long-term retooling of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture to use less fuel and petrochemicals may take decades, but we don't have that time.

"may take decades" and "we don't have don't have that time" are assumptions. Assumptions made without consideration for the extraordinary pressures that peak oil is already inflicting on the global economy and which have already driven per capita energy usage to a plateau some 40 years ago, if your reference to BP information posted elsewhere is correct.

Worse, the effects of financial speculation (which leads to more economic instability), the threat of more conflict over remaining resources, and the long-term effects of global warming which will lead to crop destruction and disruption of manufacturing and mining will certainly not make things easier.

More assumptions of a future which is unknown. Increased water in the atmopshere may or may not lead to crop destruction depending on local conditions rather than global ones, certainly mining hasn't been bothered by climate since the first prospectors brought gold out of Alaska and the Arctic more than a century go and "easier' has never been a consideration for miners, one of the hardiest jobs for the hardiest people out there.

In either case, the poster who referenced where we can get near boundless amounts of uranium for but an increase in cost is on the right path. Uranium supply is simply not an issue of availability in the foreseeable future, but only of cost.