Uranium Supply

Hegel · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:24 am Post subject: Peak Uranium - Status of Uranium

The writing is on the wall.

Status of Uranium

Notice 2003 production vs. requirements Shocked

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

Current Doomerosity Level (Jaymax Scale): 5

Licho · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:38 am Post subject:

Well there is nothing abnormal in it - there is no point mining too much..
If some countries can mine it at cheaper price, they do it and rest buys it..
And btw - actual annual mining is more than 2x lower than annual requirements - it's because fuel is mixed with old nuclear weapons into mox..

Devil · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 9:06 am Post subject:

Not to mention that most of Europe and Japan recycles its fuel.
_________________
Devil

MicroHydro · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Apr 10, 2005 Posts: 1286

The March ASPO newsletter discussed uranium. It would take 20,000 one gigawatt plants to make enough hydrogen to replace oil as a transportation fuel. If we could do that, we would run out out uranium reserves with positive EROEI in seven years.
_________________
"The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel

Dezakin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 1360

Tyler_JC · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 2:41 pm Post subject:

Gold is not an energy source. When we mine gold, we don't care how much energy we expend finding it.

Low quality uranium has a very poor EROEI compared to current nuclear fuel. Nuclear plants will become an energy sink if we must use extremely low quality uranium ore mined in very small quantities from the core of the Earth.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

clv101 · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject:

DriveElectric · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 639

Tyler_JC · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:33 pm Post subject:

How is EROEI "silly"?

Wood has a relatively low EROEI and energy density. That's why wood burning cultures never built space ships. Coal has a much higher EROEI and energy density than wood, but oil has the best EROEI numbers. I have 1 ton of wood and 1 ton of oil. Which should I use? The oil.

I have 1 btu of energy.

I want to get more energy.

What should I harvest?
1. Coal with an EROEI of 3 to 1
2. Oil with an EROEI of 6 to 1

If you answered oil, you are correct.

I'm not sure why this concept is so difficult to understand. If a reactor can produce more fuel than it uses, it is breaking the second law of thermodynamics. It is physically (ya know, those unbreakable lwas) impossible to create energy. We can only use energy. We are using the sun's energy stored in wood/oil/coal to run our civilization. Don't give me a website that says that breeder reactors are possible. Give me the name of the man (or woman) who won a Noble Prize for changing the laws of physics. If that guy (or gal) doesn't exist, breedor reactors are still compling with the laws of this universe and aren't "producing" energy.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

Cyrus · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jan 25, 2005 Posts: 613

Licho · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject:

Tyler_jc, read http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic7692.html
You will find reasons why EROEI is close to useless and incomparable there..

And breeders really produce more ammount of usefull fuel from lesser ammount Smile

Thats why they are called breeders.. such reactors are around for more than 50 years..

Of course nothing is "created" the point is that there is plenty of energy.. in molecular bonds, in strong atomic forces, even in vacuum itself, we can use some and cant use other, breeders are just making it usefull for us.. they are converting non-fissionable isotopes to fissionable..

1cm^3 of vacuum contains enough energy to vaporize all oceans on Earth .. but of course we cant extract it Smile

DriveElectric · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 639

I refer to EROEI as silly because it is been discredited as useless unit of measurement in numerous threads.

Dezakin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 1360

ECM · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 09, 2005 Posts: 227

I love that 1 ton number for breeders. They are obviously having such an impact today with the average gigawatt plant using about 175 tons per year of which about 100 tons is newly mined. Razz

Even after several decades there is no breeder that functions within stated parameters. That 1 ton number is as likely as the world getting 20K nuclear plants built in a century let a lone a few decades.

If breeders were so successful then why are so many countries looking for ways to get rid of the spent fuel?

Hey everybody, let's cover the world in nuke plants and forget that power plants are primary targets in war. Its not like mother nature could seriously damage a plant some day. Rolling Eyes

P.S.

This message brought to you by a nuclear powered computer.

0mar · Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 11:25 pm Post subject:

I was under the impression that Uranium's EROEI was astronomical. 1 ton of Uranium for an entire's year worth of electricity is a damn good trade off in my opinion. Even if you have to mine it and then centrifuge it to weed out the U-238 (if I remember my nuclear chemistry). Unless that 1 ton is a measure of the U-235 and not just 1 ton of Uranium ore, I don't see how Uranium can have a poor EROEI.

1 ton of U-235 would require about 300 tons of Uranium ore, if I remember my nuclear chemistry again (lol). 99.7% of Uranium is U-238.

U-238 can be used to make Plutonium though, which is fissionable.
_________________
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "