[MCrab]

Yes, Tanada, WISE would seem to be a far higher calibre of nuclear opponent than is prevalent on this thread. For example, unlike most nuclear detractors, they acknowledge both the effect of the tails assay on uranium demand and include prognosticated and speculative resources in their projections. Of course, there is still much they leave out. In no particular order:

1) They quote a figure of 14 million tonnes of uranium in all resource categories, but fail to mention that the current figures for speculative resources exclude many countries, most importantly Australia, the country with the current highest identified resources.

2) They show that current enrichment capacity puts a limit on how low you can take the tails assay (and thus reduce uranium demand). What they leave out is that large new centrifuge enrichment plants are planned in the U.S. and France, and that it is easier in general to expand existing enrichment capacity than it is to build new uranium mines.

3) They produce a graph showing that if nuclear were to replace all fossil fueled electricity at triple the demand by 2050, then the speculative resources would be exhausted at around that time. Even if we disregard point 1, this still doesn't tell you the whole story. Of the 14 million tonnes of uranium they quote, 11 million tonnes has been classified as minable for less than $130/kg. Now let's remind ourselves of Ken Deffeyes' findings:

Every time you drop the ore grade by a factor of 10, you find about 300 times as much uranium.

Making the reasonable assumption that price is inversely proportional to ore grade, you can estimate the additional amount of minable uranium that will be found above the 11 million tonnes (< $130/kg) using this formula:

[align=center]Uranium Resource = 11*(p/130)[sup]2.48[/sup] million tonnes[/align]
where p is the price in dollars.

The current price of uranium is ~ $100/lb which is $220/kg. At this price we can thus estimate a uranium resource in excess of 40 million tonnes. At M_B_S's eyebrow raising $200/lb ($440/kg) this becomes 226 million tonnes of uranium. This would be enough to supply current demand for over 3000 years and WISE's all nuclear, triple demand scenario of 2050 for 250 years. And the price of the raw uranium would still come to less than 10% of the total cost of nuclear power.

Perhaps now, M_B_S, you might start to understand why some of us view 'Peak Uranium' as an unfunny punchline.

[Tanada]

Ha, my favorite part of the slideshow were pages 29 & 30 where 250,000 tons of CO2 emmissions are credited to nuclear power from coal powered gas diffusion enrichment. Never mind the fact that France does all of its enrichment with Nuclear and Hydro electricity, not coal power. Also ignore the fact that Gas Diffusion is 1941 technology being replaced everywhere in the market with Gas Centerfuges which are more than 9 times as efficient. Even if the new plants were pure Graphite combustion powered that would drop the carbon footprint by 90% for enrichment. All four of the other sources combined are less than 60,000 tons CO2 per year, with the 25,000 for coal powered gas centerfuge enrichment that would still total less than 90,000 tons CO2 for power equivelent to a coal plant producing about 2117 pounds CO2 per MWh or about a ton per MWh. A standard 1 GW plant would therefore release 1000 ton/hour, 24,000 ton/day, 8,760,000 ton/year compared to 90,000 ton/year for Fission. That makes fission 1/97 as carbon dioxide intensive as Coal.

[sch_peakoiler]

Making the reasonable assumption that price is inversely proportional to ore grade, you can estimate the additional amount of minable uranium that will be found above the 11 million tonnes (< $130/kg) using this formula:

After running some real-life tests on doomers (all participants volunteered, no doomer was hurt!!!!) I came to the following conclusion.

Most doomers ignore this argument saying : "you can assume no such thing as to the higher the price the more uranium. You can not take this for granted. First find this ore and then show it to us, after that we will believe you. this assumption is nonsense".

What would you suggest to answer to this rebuttal?:)

[MCrab]

The argument isn't based soley on economic theory, sch_peakoiler, but the simple fact that gargantuan quantities of uranium exist in low grade deposits. The existance of these ores is not remotely controversial and all doomers who are skeptical should ask themselves why they are willing to believe Ken Deffeyes on oil and not on uranium. Furthermore, they should be pinned down on exactly why they believe

[align=center]Uranium 2007 = Oil 2007[/align]

and not

[align=center]Uranium 2007 = Oil 1960[/align]

or

[align=center]Uranium 2007 = Oil 1900[/align]

But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

[M_B_S]

Mcrab

You dont need money to get uranium!

You need energy!


Lower ore grade more Energy


You can print more money but no energy


Example: Australia have to increase its whole diesel imports by 100% to double the output in Ranger Mine

http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/commi ... report.pdf


http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2379/171532

http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/case- ... cle-160730

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3833
Australian uranium production 2004

The average ore grade mined is around 0.11 per cent, which means that for every tonne of uranium extracted around 4,500 tonnes of waste rock is mined and 900 tonnes of mill tailings added to a lagoon. The fossil fuel energy and electricity used to produce this tonne of uranium amounts to 2 gigawatt-hours (GWh), and 1,400 tonne of CO2 is released. So the 9,000 tonnes produced requires roughly 18,000 GWh and releases 12.6 million tonnes of CO2.

[PolestaR]

The average ore grade mined is around 0.11 per cent, which means that for every tonne of uranium extracted around 4,500 tonnes of waste rock is mined and 900 tonnes of mill tailings added to a lagoon. The fossil fuel energy and electricity used to produce this tonne of uranium amounts to 2 gigawatt-hours (GWh), and 1,400 tonne of CO2 is released. So the 9,000 tonnes produced requires roughly 18,000 GWh and releases 12.6 million tonnes of CO2.

Well considering a nuclear plant (1GW) generates 8760GWh a year, and only consumes 200 tonnes of uranium to do it, I don't see how the EROEI is negative for the actual uranium collecting given your numbers?

The issue with nuclear is factoring in all the costs of the nuclear power plant, to determine if it has a positive EROEI. Which no one has conclusively proved either way as far as I'm aware.

[MCrab]

M_B_S, you take your figures from an article by John Busby who bases much of his critique on the work of Storm van Leeuwen and Smith. The numbers you cite are calculated using van Leeuwen and Smith's formulae that - lest we forget - overestimate the energy of uranium extraction by some 80 times for the low grade Rossing mine in Namibia.

Your claim about uranium tailings is not quite accurate. One fifth of today's uranium mining is done via in-situ leaching, producing no tailings. Some conventional mines also put their tailings back underground.

[sch_peakoiler]

The argument isn't based soley on economic theory, sch_peakoiler, but the simple fact that gargantuan quantities of uranium exist in low grade deposits. The existance of these ores is not remotely controversial and all doomers who are skeptical should ask themselves why they are willing to believe Ken Deffeyes on oil and not on uranium. Furthermore, they should be pinned down on exactly why they believe

[align=center]Uranium 2007 = Oil 2007[/align]

and not

[align=center]Uranium 2007 = Oil 1960[/align]

[/img]

no you do not see the argument. The argument is (when this picture is shown) - this is just pure theory, you will never collect this uranium EROI positive. Collect the ore and show it to us.

I was thinking at that moment - hey maybe those guys could not be helped at all????

[M_B_S]

Hi Guys

Here I am !

With 120$/lb 265$/kg

all time record nominal /real


Peak Oil = Peak Uranium




[web]http://www.stockinterview.com/News/05052007/Record-Uranium-Spot-Price.html?section=news&action=detail&id=66356[/web]

[M_B_S]

[web]http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070511/35269_id.html?.v=1[/web]



Here you can see how wrong Analyst shit can be.......


PEAK OIL = PEAK URANIUM

[M_B_S]

France EDF ( super nuclear power ) wants to buy Germanys RWE ( super cole power)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... D5ekSgRK28




http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/ ... sect2.html

[M_B_S]

Uranium supply was in DECLINE 2006 ~ 5%


Worldwide production of uranium oxide, or yellowcake, dropped 4.6% to 103 Mlb in 2006, according to Georgia-based Ux Consulting Co. That compares with the 173 Mlb required by nuclear reactors, according to the World Nuclear Association.

2006 uranium production DECLINE 5%

PEAK OIL = PEAK URANIUM

M_B_S

[cube]

Nuclear power is the ONLY energy source that produces so much energy that people are afraid of it.

I don't know about you guys but I think that's awesome!

[EnergyUnlimited]

Nuclear power is the ONLY energy source that produces so much energy that people are afraid of it.

I don't know about you guys but I think that's awesome!

It may spoil "ultimate doomer porn" to certain extend, but it will fail to secure status quo.
There is no way that we will have 10 000 reactors within next 20 years.

[Tanada]

Status Quo Ante isn't what I am aiming for in any case

[M_B_S]

Hi Tanada

You are correct status quo ante isnt possible

Analysis of the Nuclear Fuel Availability
at EU Level from a
Security of Supply Perspective

http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/docs/task_force_2005.pdf


Uranium is no solution to peak oil

It is another problem

M_B_S

[Joe0Bloggs]

Uranium supply was in DECLINE 2006 ~ 5%


Worldwide production of uranium oxide, or yellowcake, dropped 4.6% to 103 Mlb in 2006, according to Georgia-based Ux Consulting Co. That compares with the 173 Mlb required by nuclear reactors, according to the World Nuclear Association.

2006 uranium production DECLINE 5%

PEAK OIL = PEAK URANIUM

M_B_S

I see that 73 pages of discussion has gotten you exactly nowhere.

Here, let me quote from the FIRST PAGE of this thread:

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..

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

and from page 2:

Has anyone else been tracking the Megatons to Megawatts program? I have been following it for years, if they wanted to they could have replaced all Uranium mining for USA consumption with scrap Russian nuclear warheads FOR TEN YEARS STRAIGHT!!!

[Joe0Bloggs]

BTW, if nuclear power is in as much trouble as you say, shouldn't it be the coal power company buying the nuke company and not the other way around?

[Cyrus]

BTW, if nuclear power is in as much trouble as you say, shouldn't it be the coal power company buying the nuke company and not the other way around?

From my understanding the nuclear companies, while in trouble are still being utilized more than the coal ones, hence more money. The nuke companies know their resource is become unsustainable, so they are spending their profit to switch their services to another resource which will be more profitable within a few years.

[M_B_S]

Uranium Price

Only the sky is the limit
*******************************************************
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... X73jxMCq7E

Uranium May Rise to $250 a Pound Next Year, SXR Says (Update1)

By Carli Lourens

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- Uranium may more than double to $250 a pound next year as demand for the nuclear fuel outpaces production, according to SXR Uranium One Inc.

``We'll see resistance at around $200 to $250, where utilities will take some pain,'' Neal Froneman, Toronto-based SXR's chief executive officer, said in a May 11 phone interview from Johannesburg. ``Within a few weeks, you'll see it go to $130'' and $150 later this year, he added.
**********************************************


Peak Oil = Peak Uranium

M_B_S