[Joe0Bloggs]

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.

SXR will become the world's second- largest producer of the metal, after Canada's Cameco Corp., when it completes the acquisition of UrAsia Energy Ltd.

[M_B_S]

MOSCOW, May 21 (RIA Novosti) - A top Russian nuclear expert said Monday the world price for raw uranium may continue growing at the same pace as in past years, driving prices up at least 10 times more.

"The price of raw uranium has grown 15 times in the past years, from $20 to $300 per kilo. I think it may still grow by another order of magnitude," Yevgeny Velikhov, head of the key Russian nuclear Kurchatov Institute, told a RIA Novosti news conference.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070521/65826540.html
******************************************************

Peak Oil = Peak Uranium


Uranium is no solution to peak oil its another problem!

M_B_S

[Sideous]

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.

The EROI for a PWR is about 20 if only electricity is considered, and 59 if considered on an all-heat basis.

The 20 figure assumes that the uranium has been centrifuge enriched (which is the norm). The EROI drops considerably if diffusion techniques are used to enrich the Uranium (which are obsolete).

Of course, EROI will drop as lower grade uranium is used for fuel. This effectively becomes irrelevant if we switch to breeders. On that basis, ordinary granite rock has 5 times the uranium energy density of coal. We aren't going to run out of granite.

[PolestaR]

The EROI for a PWR is about 20 if only electricity is considered, and 59 if considered on an all-heat basis.

The 20 figure assumes that the uranium has been centrifuge enriched (which is the norm). The EROI drops considerably if diffusion techniques are used to enrich the Uranium (which are obsolete).

Of course, EROI will drop as lower grade uranium is used for fuel. This effectively becomes irrelevant if we switch to breeders. On that basis, ordinary granite rock has 5 times the uranium energy density of coal. We aren't going to run out of granite.

It's not so hard factoring in the uranium to electricity/heat output, but what I was asking for is the complete breakdown of EROEI when you consider the building of the plant, the running/maintenance of the plant and finally the decommissioning and removal of nuclear waste. Has anyone done those numbers, preferably someone that isn't stupid and has no bias.

[Tanada]

Polestar, I don't beleive there is such a things as a person with no bias, the very best we can get and should expect is a person who says up front, "This is my bias and it may influence my methodology". If they do that you can add your own fudge factor and see what you get. Gentlemen like Storm Van Lewuen claim to have no bias and then spout numbers that are way way out of line with established reallity. If he said "I am against fission and here are my assumptions" at least that would be honest.

I far prefer Bernard Cohen PhD physics, but thats just my own bias. I don't agree with everything he says and he constantly uses either optimistic number's or comparisons with the dirtiest and lowest EROEI fossil sources for his comparisons. I know enough to fudge his numbers down from total cornucopianism and still get pretty good feeling for the future of Fission.

Almost all the problems Fission faces in the USA are pollitical, the technical problems were all solved at the latest in the 1990's. We now have the knowledge for doing fission safely and economically, but there is huge inertia in the over bloated pollitical machinery in the USA to keep things as they are. So long as fossil fuel stays cheap enough to allow things to coast on the current trajectory they will continue to do so, start enforcing carbon taxes or real clean up costs on fossil fuels and things might change.

[Tyler_JC]

The argument over uranium supply is missing a discussion about the economics of uranium mining.

At $10/barrel, global oil supply shrinks dramatically because much of the world's current production becomes unprofitable. This isn't because they are using more energy to produce the oil than they are getting from it, if that was the case, oil production in those regions would NEVER be profitable. And yet, we have oil companies producing oil in places that have $25/barrel production costs.

At $100/barrel, global oil supply increases because some areas will attract new capital and expensive production techniques will be used that would never be considered at only $10/barrel. (Think about the cost of a new oil tanker or a new offshore drilling rig. No one would build either of those if the dollar profits weren't there, ignoring the energy cost to build)

The same thing happens with uranium. At $1000/kg, uranium reserves increase dramatically. Uranium mining companies experience a profit explosion and throw money around looking for more uranium to sell. Lower ore grade mines are reopened and the uranium is sold for a profit, both in dollar terms and in energy terms.

Obviously, if the uranium ever costs more to mine than it sells for...it won't be mined. Energy is not the only cost associated with uranium mining, also obvious. And yet people here assume that if a particular ore deposit isn't being utilized, it must be because the ore is not "energy profitable".

My dad could chop down trees in his backyard and sell the firewood. It would be energy profitable, might even be very energy profitable. But he doesn't care about energy profit. He cares about dollar profit. Therefore, he will spend his time doing accounting and consulting work, rather than lumber-jacking. Energy cost isn't the sole factor in determining how much energy will be produced, we must take economic factors into account.

The total mistrust for the science of economics is leading to an incomplete picture of how the world actually works and in particular, is leading to an incomplete picture of the uranium supply situation.

[PolestaR]

The argument over uranium supply is missing a discussion about the economics of uranium mining.

At $10/barrel, global oil supply shrinks dramatically because much of the world's current production becomes unprofitable. This isn't because they are using more energy to produce the oil than they are getting from it, if that was the case, oil production in those regions would NEVER be profitable. And yet, we have oil companies producing oil in places that have $25/barrel production costs.

Only an ignorant person would assume that all forms of energy are priced equally (based on energy content). If you can use electricity from a NG or NUKE powered power plant to help you get oil out of the ground there is a chance you spend more energy to get it out and then refine it, than you get out of that barrel, whilst making a profit. Again using other forms of cheaper energy can make something less than one on the EROEI and yet it can still be profitable.

If you take other forms of readily available, less wanted energy sources and get out black gold why wouldn't you if you could make a profit. Question is it all relies on those other forms of cheap energy (or subsidies) which are going to disappear themselves soon enough. The discrepancies between the energy output and "price" allow all kinds of tweaks to be made about how much OIL (or oil alternatives) is out there or can be made. Point remains we would actually be better off not wasting energy converting stuff to oil and actually just using the energy.

[Sideous]

The argument over uranium supply is missing a discussion about the economics of uranium mining.

At $10/barrel, global oil supply shrinks dramatically because much of the world's current production becomes unprofitable. This isn't because they are using more energy to produce the oil than they are getting from it, if that was the case, oil production in those regions would NEVER be profitable. And yet, we have oil companies producing oil in places that have $25/barrel production costs.

Only an ignorant person would assume that all forms of energy are priced equally (based on energy content). If you can use electricity from a NG or NUKE powered power plant to help you get oil out of the ground there is a chance you spend more energy to get it out and then refine it, than you get out of that barrel, whilst making a profit. Again using other forms of cheaper energy can make something less than one on the EROEI and yet it can still be profitable.

If you take other forms of readily available, less wanted energy sources and get out black gold why wouldn't you if you could make a profit. Question is it all relies on those other forms of cheap energy (or subsidies) which are going to disappear themselves soon enough. The discrepancies between the energy output and "price" allow all kinds of tweaks to be made about how much OIL (or oil alternatives) is out there or can be made. Point remains we would actually be better off not wasting energy converting stuff to oil and actually just using the energy.

An interesting way of categorising energy is 'thermodynamic work potential'. For mains electric power, at the power plant, its about 85%, given that electric motors are approximately 90% efficient and about 7% of electric power is lost in transmission.

For oil, thermodynamic work potential is about 20% or less, given refining and ditribution losses and the generally low efficiency of diesal/petrol vehicle engines.

to produce thermodynamic work, it is generally far more efficient to convert chemical/nuclear energy into electricity and use it to power a motor, than to attempt to burn chemical energy directly in a car engine. And most nuclear/renewable enrgy source concepts, will produce grid electric on a large scale.

This suggests one importnat and unavoidable fact: the future of energy is electric and electric will increasingly become the dominant end-use energy source.

[MonteQuest]

And most nuclear/renewable enrgy source concepts, will produce grid electric on a large scale.

This suggests one importnat and unavoidable fact: the future of energy is electric and electric will increasingly become the dominant end-use energy source.

Not until we build the grid infrastructure to deliver said electricity.

Transmission capacity is maxed out in many areas.

The future of electricity may well be decentralized local and individual sources off the grid.

[yesplease]

It depends on implementation and use. We're currently having trouble with transmission capacity at peak demand, so yes, we don't have the capacity to charge a fleet of plug-in hybrids or EVs at 4pm during the summer. Otoh, we have more than enough grid capacity to charge an entire fleet of EVs in the late night/early morning, when demand is nil, and rates are half to a third of what they normally are if you're on the proper plan.

If we implement EVs in the same manner we use gasoline, expect high, high voltage charging stations that peak at the same time current grid use peaks. Can't have a cheap, effective implementation when there's a wasteful, inefficient, and possibly downright stupid one present. No one made any money from efficiency. Except for the consumer, but who cares about 'em anyway?

[Starvid]

And most nuclear/renewable enrgy source concepts, will produce grid electric on a large scale.

This suggests one importnat and unavoidable fact: the future of energy is electric and electric will increasingly become the dominant end-use energy source.

Not until we build the grid infrastructure to deliver said electricity.

Transmission capacity is maxed out in many areas.

The future of electricity may well be decentralized local and individual sources off the grid.

In the US, that is. But the world is bigger than that, even if that is not always obvious when reading at this forum.

Still, some parts of our grid is maxed out too, especially where wind power sites are constructed. They are often offshore and link onto the north-soth power lines we have, which transmit hydro power from the north to consumers in the south. And when we are shipping power south in full blast there might not be enough space left in the lines for the wind mills, and all their generation is wasted.

So what do we do? Stop building wind farms? Construct dead-expensive small scale decentralized power plants? Lie down and die?

Nope. We build more power lines. Creates lots of jobs and growth, by the way.

[MonteQuest]

Nope. We build more power lines. Creates lots of jobs and growth, by the way.

The mindset that brought us here.

[Starvid]

It depends on implementation and use. We're currently having trouble with transmission capacity at peak demand, so yes, we don't have the capacity to charge a fleet of plug-in hybrids or EVs at 4pm during the summer. Otoh, we have more than enough grid capacity to charge an entire fleet of EVs in the late night/early morning, when demand is nil, and rates are half to a third of what they normally are if you're on the proper plan.

If we implement EVs in the same manner we use gasoline, expect high, high voltage charging stations that peak at the same time current grid use peaks. Can't have a cheap, effective implementation when there's a wasteful, inefficient, and possibly downright stupid one present. No one made any money from efficiency. Except for the consumer, but who cares about 'em anyway?

You have never worked in a process industry, have you?

When 10-40 % of your costs are electricity, efficiency becomes a religion.


All the talk about infrastructure problems if/when implementing plug-ins is just balderash. Something like 70-75 % of the cars in the US can be plug-ins before any new generation capacity is even needed, according to an EPRI study.

Sure, you might need some more power lines. So build them. That'll reduce unemployment.

[Starvid]

Nope. We build more power lines. Creates lots of jobs and growth, by the way.

The mindset that brought us here.

Exactly. And things have never been better.

[yesplease]

Jesus Christ does anyone read anything I post on this board? Hmmh... Why bother with an entire post when we can take sections of it out of context and debate those?

You have never worked in a process industry, have you?

When 10-40 % of your costs are electricity, efficiency becomes a religion.

I'm not talking about industry costs, I'm talking about consumer costs.

If we implement EVs in the same manner we use gasoline, expect high, high voltage charging stations that peak at the same time current grid use peaks. Can't have a cheap, effective implementation when there's a wasteful, inefficient, and possibly downright stupid one present.

For instance, most vehicles could get far better mileage/eff with small changes in design, but if that was the case we wouldn't consume as much as we do. Any consumable will likely follow the same pattern unless it's regulated. The more inefficient something is, the more we use, and the more the owners profit.

All the talk about infrastructure problems if/when implementing plug-ins is just balderash. Something like 70-75 % of the cars in the US can be plug-ins before any new generation capacity is even needed, according to an EPRI study.

Sure, you might need some more power lines. So build them. That'll reduce unemployment.

Otoh, we have more than enough grid capacity to charge an entire fleet of EVs in the late night/early morning, when demand is nil, and rates are half to a third of what they normally are if you're on the proper plan.

What I wouldn't give for the fifth grade...

[MonteQuest]

Nope. We build more power lines. Creates lots of jobs and growth, by the way.

The mindset that brought us here.

Exactly. And things have never been better.

Nor the negative impact greater.

[Starvid]

Jesus Christ does anyone read anything I post on this board? Hmmh... Why bother with an entire post when we can take sections of it out of context and debate those?

Write another 1400 posts, then you can start complaining about people not reading anything you write.

You have never worked in a process industry, have you?

When 10-40 % of your costs are electricity, efficiency becomes a religion.

I'm not talking about industry costs, I'm talking about consumer costs.

Lower industry costs -> lower costs for consumers, as long as there is competition.

All the talk about infrastructure problems if/when implementing plug-ins is just balderash. Something like 70-75 % of the cars in the US can be plug-ins before any new generation capacity is even needed, according to an EPRI study.

Sure, you might need some more power lines. So build them. That'll reduce unemployment.

Otoh, we have more than enough grid capacity to charge an entire fleet of EVs in the late night/early morning, when demand is nil, and rates are half to a third of what they normally are if you're on the proper plan.

What I wouldn't give for the fifth grade...

As English is not my native language, I am afraid I lost you there. Care to explain what you meant?

[Starvid]

Nope. We build more power lines. Creates lots of jobs and growth, by the way.

The mindset that brought us here.

Exactly. And things have never been better.

Nor the negative impact greater.

Off course, there is always a price to pay. In some countries people are not inclined to go that little extra bit. Around here, the environment is cleaner today than it was 100 years ago.

[Sheb]

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

1. Coal with an EROEI of 3 to 1
2. Oil with an EROEI of 6 to 1

If you want to start the EROEI debate again, define how you arrived at those figures for EROEI for coal and oil. What were the inputs that ultimately defined EROEI for your calculations.

An industry/technology/engineering term is not discredited just because a handful people on a forum with generally weak math skills say it is.

ROI is a pretty simple concept, and really quite useful--"silly" or not.
ditto for EROEI. We're just dealing in Joules instead of $'s as the measure of value.

Now, show us how you run a reactor that produces more energy in fuel than it consumes...and make sure you describe your assumptions (they must be valid).

Either way, it seems that EROEI does not mean what you think it means. Its a ratio. The only way you get infinite EROEI is if you have a denominator of zero. (Hint, that means *zero* energy invested).

[yesplease]

Write another 1400 posts, then you can start complaining about people not reading anything you write.

I'm not sure what the exact figure is, but I'm close, just not all under the same username.

Lower industry costs -> lower costs for consumers, as long as there is competition.

Ah yes, wouldn't it be nice if our economic system worked like that... Unfortunately, well we may be really efficient in industry, in order to make moneyz, we're way more inefficient at the point of use in terms of personal transportation. Granted, personal electric transportation may be more efficient and competitive than what's current used, but I wouldn't bet on it. At least, not until 2015 or so.

As English is not my native language, I am afraid I lost you there. Care to explain what you meant?

Oh, just some idiom regarding the "reading level" of an average person of the states.