Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Keis » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 14:19:48

Can nuclear weapons be converted to usable energy for civilian purposes? If that is the case start processing them NOW. :)
And what happens to all those weapons after the crash? Can anyone afford keeping them safely stored? unless they are all used the coming years...
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sat 18 Jul 2009, 12:10:10, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merge thread.
Keis
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri 21 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: On nuclear weapons

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 14:27:46

Keis wrote:Can nuclear weapons be converted to usable energy for civilian purposes? If that is the case start processing them NOW. :) And what happens to all those weapons after the crash? Can anyone afford keeping them safely stored? unless they are all used the coming years...

Yes, this is already happening. In fact right now a large part of world uranium demand is coming from decommissioned weapons and reuse of what is already on hand in reactors. There is plenty of economically recoverable uranium, as well, although without reprocessing the U238 into plutonium, this resource will suffer a Hubbert's peak all too soon. With reprocessing, you can multiply the time horizon on uranium by a factor of 50-60. A good source of info on nukes and uranium supplies: link and link
Doctor Doom
 

Re: On nuclear weapons

Unread postby Robert Espy » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 17:32:18

Doctor Doom wrote:Yes, this is already happening. In fact right now a large part of world uranium demand is coming from decommissioned weapons and reuse of what is already on hand in reactors. There is plenty of economically recoverable uranium, as well, although without reprocessing the U238 into plutonium, this resource will suffer a Hubbert's peak all too soon. With reprocessing, you can multiply the time horizon on uranium by a factor of 50-60. A good source of info on nukes and uranium supplies:

Are you certain it is uranium that is being recovered and not plutonium?

That aside, Uranium is a very, very common element. Not as common as lead, but getting there. Your statement that it will 'suffer a Hubbert's peak all too soon' is too mushy to catagorize as incorrect, but conventional estimated resources account for about 250 years' supply (16.2 Mt) at the current consumption rate. And that's just the conventional sources. More than 4000 Mt exist in sea water, but extraction using today's technology costs 10-15 times what it costs digging it out of ore. Still cheap, but unnecessary in this age.

As far as reprocessing it into plutonium goes, well, in two-hundred-fifty years they can dig up the spent fuel rods and do just that if they feel they need to. All-in-all, nuclear energy sources will last well into the year 10,000. Maybe even 100,000. Maybe even 1,000,000.
Robert Espy
 

Nuclear future

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 18:56:49

"Are you certain it is uranium that is being recovered and not plutonium?"

I think it's both. The sites I read weren't specific as to the cause, they simply mention that production from mines was low because of the availability of material (unspecified) from decommissioning weapons.

"Hubbert's peak too mushy to categorize as incorrect"

True, I wish I had better data. Stating that we have 250 years supply at current consumption rate is the same as saying we have a 40 years supply of oil at the current consumption rate. Nukes are, unfortunately IMO, meeting only a small portion of our world-wide energy demand. The real question is, if nukes were called upon to meet a very high fraction of energy demand, like say 80% of our electricity (the other 20% from renewables including hydro) plus 100% of our transportation (yet more electricity but diverted to production of hydrogen or alcohols), how long would the uranium last? I vaguely recall reading that under those circumstances the time horizon until you'd hit a production peak would drop to some ridiculously low number, like 10 years, unless you ran a breeder program in conjunction.

Bottom line: I like nukes. They can go the distance and they are atmosphere-friendly. If I were king, I'd be dusting off the reactor designs and starting construction in time to replace natural gas and coal. for electric power generation. I'd aggressively expand renewables like wind and solar, too, but not count on more that 20-30% from them (anything more is pure gravy and just means I build less nukes). I'd get the Yucca Mtn. disposal site in Nevada open (I'm king, so I can do that). I'd be stretching my natural gas supplies by limiting use to home heating/cooking, fertilizer production, and possibly some use in transport. My dwindling oil supplies would go exclusively to transport, with high taxes used to force people to want fuel economy above anything else. Much more long-haul freight and personal transportation would be by train. I'd be saving as much coal as possible for later use, via coal-to-gas and coal-to-liquids technologies, to replace gas and oil in the above uses, but particularly for fertilizer production so I can keep my people fed.
Doctor Doom
 

Re: Nuclear future

Unread postby Guest » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 19:23:21

Doctor Doom wrote:"Are you certain it is uranium that is being recovered and not plutonium?"

The real question is, if nukes were called upon to meet a very high fraction of energy demand, like say 80% of our electricity (the other 20% from renewables including hydro) plus 100% of our transportation (yet more electricity but diverted to production of hydrogen or alcohols), how long would the uranium last? I vaguely recall reading that under those circumstances the time horizon until you'd hit a production peak would drop to some ridiculously low number, like 10 years, unless you ran a breeder program in conjunction.


As stated, my understanding is that sea water contains 4000mt of Uranium. You can do math as well (or probably better) than I can so I'll let you do it. Mind you, given the current technology, it costs 10-15 times what it costs to extract it from ore, but that's still cheap.

If you're burning Uranium and not doing it in a breeder, you're more wasteful of energy than a Hummer Driver going uphill 90 MPH in first gear. Just dumb. Also beside the point in the long run.

Thorium, even more common than uranium, is also a very useful fuel, but the currenct technology isn't yet up to the task of burning it. I don't think this is a matter of knowledge so much as willingness. There simply is no current need. Additionally, like Pu, it needs breeding too.

Bottom line is, if there is a will, nuclear will last for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years. Almost regardless of our realistic consumption of it.

The other bottom line is that, in terms of peak oil, nuclear doesn't (yet) enter the equation. It might not for many years, regardless of technological effort.

Oil and Nuke are different animals in terms of usage.
Guest
 

Uranium from the sea

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 20:35:59

While we're at it we could extract gold from the sea, too, right? It's gotta take unreal amounts of energy to do that, never mind the cost in dollar terms.

We seem to agree that not using breeders is stupid; you might as well not even bother persuing the nuclear option if you're just going to burn U235 in a once-through open loop.

I don't agree that oil and nukes are completely different animals in terms of usage. For one thing, every place you use a nuke instead of a fossil source for electricity production, you can save the fossil source for use as a chemical feedstock, transportation, or home use. For another, in the end game where the fossils are completely exhausted, it can be used to create hydrogen or to power a biomass operation, in effect using nuclear power as the energy source for transport, homes, whatever.
Doctor Doom
 

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Cool Hand Linc » Thu 10 Jun 2004, 22:14:25

What Aaron said. The world doesn't have a huge number of reactors so sure uranium will last for many years.
User avatar
Cool Hand Linc
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 922
Joined: Sat 17 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Tulsa, Ok

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Robert Espy » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 10:38:28

I goofed. I made an error of monumental proportions. I gathered data from an incorrect source. I relayed that data to the group of you. My apologies.

The uranium reserves I quoted were wholly inaccurate. They might well have been pulled out of some webmaster’s hat. We have nowhere near the reserves of uranium I quoted.

According to sources which I feel are not only far more credible, the EPA, the DOE, and most importantly and credibly, the United States Geological Service, but far more accurate as well. They all appear to use independent data sets because they come from different sources and they are all slightly different. I didn’t check the sources’ sources because, as a casual researcher, there’s a limit to my endurance. That said, I think all of these better sources reflect our true reserves. I’ll use the USGS numbers and rethink my position.

According to them, the USGS, the world has a Reasonably Assured Reserve (RAR) of 3,192,500 metric tons of uranium available at $40 dollars per pound (I’m going to assume that's real dollars that relate more directly to inflation-adjusted cost.)

Since I was the one that goofed, I took it upon myself to punish myself by having myself do the intensive(for me), yet simple (for most but not me), math. The odds I made a(nother) mistake somewhere in the math approach 100%, so feel free to check me. If you want sources for my various numbers, just ask and it shall be linked unto you.

Energy Consumption (United States) — 100 QBTU/year — 100e15 BTU/year

Uranium Availability at $40/pound (RD/RAR) 3,192,500 Metric Tons — 2204 lbs/ton — 7.03e9 pounds

Electrically Converted Uranium Output — 12.5e10 BTU’s per pound (utility output - end user realization will be slightly less...I think)

Total BTU conversion — 12.5e10 * 7.03e9 pounds — 8.79e20 BTU’s total

World BTU Supply Capacity — 8.79e20 / 100e15 — 8795 years.

But Wait!!! That number represents just the U.S. and doesn’t include the rest of the world (as if they really mattered anyway :-) ). It certainly doesn’t include a world population that uses as much energy as the U.S. does.

Then again, it also represents only the reserves recoverable at the ridiculously cheap rate of $40 per pound. Given the error of my previous source knowledge, I’m not going to guess, or research (unless someone forces me) what we could recover at twice or thirty times that price (which, again would still be cheap even by third world standards). It doesn't represent all that we'd lose by not using this fuel in a manner condusive to reprocessing.

Okay, so where did I goof (this time)?
Robert Espy
 

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby MadScientist » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 10:57:57

GREAT!

Lets build a couple thousand new reactors to power the world through the next thousand years. We can get the world's population up to 20 billion or so and then we will have space colonization and can start to take over the galaxy. woohooo sounds fun!! nuclear waste, unsustainable living, mass resource depletion, carrying capacity are all overrated treehugger drivel. Man rules nature. BIGGER! BETTER! FASTER! YOU can live the American Dream!
User avatar
MadScientist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00

Ore to fuel

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 11:06:49

"Okay, so where did I goof (this time)?"

Did you remember to convert the tons of raw ore into processed reactor fuel? Also, where did your number for the total energy available in a pound of uranium come from?

Regarding reserves, I posted a link earlier that give a pretty good overview of world-wide reserves.
Doctor Doom
 

Re: Ore to fuel

Unread postby Guest » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 11:17:22

Doctor Doom wrote:"Okay, so where did I goof (this time)?" Did you remember to convert the tons of raw ore into processed reactor fuel?

yes. Well, pretty much, yes. The number represents yellowcake which is almost exclusively (by weight) pure. I'm not expert enough to be anymore exact.
Also, where did your number for the total energy available in a pound of uranium come from?

A multiple and fairly consistant 'web standard' of 125,000 BTU's per gallon of gasoline and a likewise consistant 'web standard' of 1,000,000 gallon's of gasoline per pound of Uranium (I'm assuming a combined isotope calculation but I could be mistaken)
Regarding reserves, I posted a link earlier that give a pretty good overview of world-wide reserves.

I'm interested in checking my numbers so please give a link.
Guest
 

THE Nuclear Weapons/War Thread (merged)

Unread postby Robert Espy » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 11:27:44

MadScientist wrote:GREAT!

Lets build a couple thousand new reactors to power the world through the next thousand years. We can get the world's population up to 20 billion or so and then we will have space colonization and can start to take over the galaxy. woohooo sounds fun!! nuclear waste, unsustainable living, mass resource depletion, carrying capacity are all overrated treehugger drivel. Man rules nature. BIGGER! BETTER! FASTER! YOU can live the American Dream!


I read your past no less than three times but I still cannot fathom your motive for posting it. It's a bit confusing because the 20 billion population number you cited just happens to be a number I recognize (perhaps incorrectly) from published academic studies as the natural level-off point for world population in the future (absent clamities and assuming 3rd world nations develop into 1st world)

The nuclear waste issue is a political one. It doesn't really apply as far as I can see. One mans waste is another mans...etc.

There is no such thing as 'unsustainable living' for the obvious reasons.

What i'm saying to you is, "stop the handwaving" and get down to the basics.
Robert Espy
 

Unread postby MadScientist » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 13:03:08

I think massive upscaling of the nuclear waste situation is a bit more than "political".

There most certainly is such a thing as unsustainable living- for about to be obvious reasons.

I wont "handwave" in your polite discussion anymore. sorry ><
"The future power is manpower"
User avatar
MadScientist
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed 19 May 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Ore to fuel

Unread postby Guest » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 15:06:12

The link is near the top of the thread, but here it is again:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/mining.htm

This gives 3.1 million metric tonnes as world recoverable reserves, pretty close to your figure. This is U3O8 - same as yellowcake? So how does that convert to enriched reactor fuel?
Guest
 

Re: Ore to fuel

Unread postby Robert Espy » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 17:03:14

Anonymous wrote:The link is near the top of the thread, but here it is again:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/mining.htm

This gives 3.1 million metric tonnes as world recoverable reserves, pretty close to your figure.

This is U3O8 - same as yellowcake?

Yes.

So how does that convert to enriched reactor fuel?



Depends on what you mean by enriched I suppose.

Do you mean enriched as in pure uranium vice uranium oxide? I'm guessing here but wouldn't it be the same as the ratio of their individual atomic weights? If so, it feels like roughly five parts uranium to one part oxygen (by weight).

Do you mean enriched as it pertains to the individual isotopes (U235 vise U238)? It doesn't matter since you can burn the natural stuff without enriching it.
Robert Espy
 

Unread postby Robert Espy » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 17:07:32

MadScientist wrote:I think massive upscaling of the nuclear waste situation is a bit more than "political".

With the exception of a bigger/deeper hole to put it in, I disagree. The largest difficulty with it seems to be NIMBYism.

There most certainly is such a thing as unsustainable living- for about to be obvious reasons.

No. Unsustainable living is dying. Cue Clint Eastwood dialog, "dying ain't much of a livin', now is it boy?"

I wont "handwave" in your polite discussion anymore. sorry ><

thanks
Robert Espy
 

Re: Ore to fuel

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 17:49:27

Thanks, that makes some sense. I guess I thought that you had to enrich the natural stuff a bit to increase the percentags of U235 for reactor fuel. I'm just going to make up numbers now, but suppose that you need to enrich to 5% U235 to make a fuel rod, and it's naturally just 1%, then that would mean that you'd need 5 pounds of natural U to make 1 pound of enriched U as fuel for the reactor. Remember we are talking about trying to go without breeder technology right now, so the other 4 pounds are sold off as "depleted U" for use making weapons to fight the next oil war (j/k). I guess I'm thinking that the "web conversion" ratio of 1 million pounds of gasoline = 1 pound of U was comparing versus the 1 pound of enriched U. That would force you to divide your 8000 year estimate by 5 using my made-up numbers. If the actual percentages are worse, then you might end up having to divide by a big factor, like say 100. All that is in addition to dividing by the mass-ratio of 5/6 that you have for ditching the useless oxygen from the yellowcake.

P.S. the reason I think this calculation is so important is that nukes strike me as the one technology mankind has that could reasonably stave off disaster for long enough to develop fusion or something else (think 100s of years given the pathetic progress made on fusion).
Doctor Doom
 

More on nukes

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 17:58:08

From my first site:

http://www.uic.com.au/whyu.htm

The following factoids:

1. The processed fuel is U02, enriched to 4% U235
2. The fuel has 500,000 megajoules / kg, versus 45 for oil, 40 for natural gas

From this site:

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ov ... ineenr.cfm

I get this factoid:

3. Natural U is 0.7% U235.

So I would say the enrichment requires 6 pounds in for 1 pound of fuel-grade U out.
Doctor Doom
 

Re: More on nukes

Unread postby Robert Espy » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 18:36:19

Doctor Doom,

Thank you for your input. My understanding of the enrichment process was the same but I also know that natural uranium is usable as fuel as well. I do not know the relationship between enriched/natural, breeder/once-through. Even in the worst case, I don't think it really matters so long as either process is properly managed. Breeding for either Pu or Th makes it moot. The supply is practically limitless on a cultural scale.

My only point in this exersize is to demonstrate, to myself if no others, that peak-oil does not equate to peak-energy. I think I've said that oil and nuclear are not necessarily interchangable. Certainly you can use oil to generate electricity but it's pretty troublesome to put a nuclear reactor under the hood of your car. Battery technology is emerging but I'm not seeing much promise. Nuclear could be used to create synthetic fuel but I need more data to evaluate that even on the novice scale of which I am capable.
Robert Espy
 

And yet more

Unread postby Doctor Doom » Fri 11 Jun 2004, 18:41:58

From this site:

http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter ... -chemical/

We get this factoid:

4. Pure octane = 49 megajoules / kg.

So I think the "web standard" of 1 pound of U = 1,000,000 gallons of gas is probably not accurate and just something that someone made up.

Assuming gas were pure octane (it isn't), and rounding to 50, versus the 500,000 figure for U, gives us a factor of 10,000 for U over gas for equal weights. So a pound of U = 10,000 pounds of gas unless I've made a mistake.

A gallon of water is 8 pounds, a gallon of crude is about 7.5 pounds. Using 7.5 as a guess for gasoline, that means 10,000 pounds of gas = 1300-1400 gallons.

That is a factor of about 700 worse than the "web standard". I'm going to assume that your 8700 year figure was correctly calculate, but using the incorrect 1,000,000 gallon ration. So if I divide your 8700 year figure by 700 as a correction factor, it drops to 12 years.
Doctor Doom
 

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 guests

cron