Peak Oil News and Message Boards

At $113/lb, the total value of the uranium used worldwide last year (66,000 tonnes) is only about $16 billion. Note that pizza is a $30+ billion/year industry in the U.S. alone.

In a Scientific American article Deffeyes et al. estimated that a 10x increase in the price of U would lead to a 300x increase in reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium).

Regards,
M.R.F.

Bullshit

Reactor fuel cost 1800$/kg * 66*10^6 = 1188 Billion $

The nuclear fuel crunch


Hard Facts

Mea Culpa


118,8 Billion$

M_B_S wrote:Bullshit

Reactor fuel cost 1800$/kg * 66*10^6 = 1188 Billion $

The nuclear fuel crunch


Hard Facts

Your mixing your math again, the 66*10^6 figure is for the natural Uranium component which is 8.9 times as much as the reactor fuel feed. 66,000,000/8.9=7.4*10^6

(7.4*10^6)*1800/kg=13.32*10^9=$13 Billion, not the 1188 Billion you claimed above.

mrflora: I thinks this peak uranium is an awesome opportunity to make money, especially if it can go as high as 1130$ without demand destruction!

IF a person could only buy one stock to try and cash in on a jump in uranium prices, which stock would that be? I will limit it to a "western" company, i.e. European, US, Canadian, or Australian.

For those who care here is the EIA data for Uranium production in the USA for 1996-2006.

Quarterly Uranium report

Half way down is a lovely graph showing that the lull year for the USA was 2003 and we are currently back up to over year 2000 levels now. At the bottom stated production capacity with all mines operating is 13.1 million pounds per year, not counting the byproduct production potential. 4 Million of this capacity are not currently operating, but are expected to be doing so within the year.

BTW in 1996 the USA produced 6.3 million pounds. Then the price bottom fell out of the market due to the end of the cold war and the introduction of downblended weapons Uranium and use of excess weapons enrichent capacity to enrich partially depleated tails instead of making fresh weapons grade material.

Tanada wrote:I'll make you a deal, you stop blathering on about Peak Uranium and I will admit I am wrong when my local fission powerplant shuts down for lack of fuel.

So why would you think that, given that the uranium supply is limited (as is oil's), that its production will not also eventually peak, especially with rising demand?

SevenTen wrote:

Tanada wrote:I'll make you a deal, you stop blathering on about Peak Uranium and I will admit I am wrong when my local fission powerplant shuts down for lack of fuel.

So why would you think that, given that the uranium supply is limited (as is oil's), that its production will not also eventually peak, especially with rising demand?

Given that I have never said Uranium lasts forever I can gladly say Uranium will someday peak, but the reallity is that day is so far in the distant future that nobody alive todays great grandchildren will be alive to see it, barring human imortality.

Tanada wrote:

SevenTen wrote:

Tanada wrote:I'll make you a deal, you stop blathering on about Peak Uranium and I will admit I am wrong when my local fission powerplant shuts down for lack of fuel.

So why would you think that, given that the uranium supply is limited (as is oil's), that its production will not also eventually peak, especially with rising demand?

Given that I have never said Uranium lasts forever I can gladly say Uranium will someday peak, but the reallity is that day is so far in the distant future that nobody alive todays great grandchildren will be alive to see it, barring human imortality.

Really? So far in the distant future? That would be pretty simple to prove, so how about trotting out:
* current usage of uranium
* current supply and reserves
* an adequate growth rate, realizing all the slack that needs to picked up from the peaking of oil, the peaking of natural gas in a few years, and the peaking of coal somewhere in the next 20 years

Then calculate the doubling time using the growth rate above (the REAL way, not using the rule of 72). Then bring the results here and we'll have a look-see about it peaking so far in the distant future that only the immortals will see it.

And please source your data.

SevenTen wrote:

Tanada wrote:

SevenTen wrote:

Tanada wrote:I'll make you a deal, you stop blathering on about Peak Uranium and I will admit I am wrong when my local fission powerplant shuts down for lack of fuel.

So why would you think that, given that the uranium supply is limited (as is oil's), that its production will not also eventually peak, especially with rising demand?

Given that I have never said Uranium lasts forever I can gladly say Uranium will someday peak, but the reallity is that day is so far in the distant future that nobody alive todays great grandchildren will be alive to see it, barring human imortality.

Really? So far in the distant future? That would be pretty simple to prove, so how about trotting out:
* current usage of uranium
* current supply and reserves
* an adequate growth rate, realizing all the slack that needs to picked up from the peaking of oil, the peaking of natural gas in a few years, and the peaking of coal somewhere in the next 20 years

Then calculate the doubling time using the growth rate above (the REAL way, not using the rule of 72). Then bring the results here and we'll have a look-see about it peaking so far in the distant future that only the immortals will see it.

And please source your data.

I think, it is foolish to assume, that uranium will replace all FF after their depletion.
That would require to build abut 10 000 of 1GW nuclear reactors and further 10 000 of them to maintain economic growth.
Construction work would have to be completed within about 5 - 6 decades from now on.
Once you have all of them, you would have to carry on building one a day worldwide and decommissioning one a day, just to maintain steady state.
That would be impossible, regardless of availability of uranium or thorium fuel.
That is why nuclear will not replace FF in terms of power output, but nevertheless is is probably the only power source known to us, which will enable us to maintain baseload of electricity amounting to 30-40% of current consumption level for long term future, which can be measured in millenias, if we are clever enough.
Rest must come from renewables etc or we have to do without it.

SevenTen wrote:Really? So far in the distant future? That would be pretty simple to prove, so how about trotting out:
* current usage of uranium
* current supply and reserves
* an adequate growth rate, realizing all the slack that needs to picked up from the peaking of oil, the peaking of natural gas in a few years, and the peaking of coal somewhere in the next 20 years

Then calculate the doubling time using the growth rate above (the REAL way, not using the rule of 72). Then bring the results here and we'll have a look-see about it peaking so far in the distant future that only the immortals will see it.

And please source your data.

Current usage is laid out about two dozen times in this thread, as are the disputes over supplies and reserves. If you are too lazy to read through this whole thread then look them up on the internet.
As for taking up all the slack from Petroleum, Natural gas and Coal, wherever did you get the idea that it is my job to justify such arbitrary conditions for your amusement? Of course we should ignore the fact that electrified railroads and nuclear powered freighters coupled with nuclear powered electricity production pretty much wipes out the shipping of goods via fossil fuels. For human transport, why should having a few Billion private cars even be a goal? If you do want a few Billion private cars then you will have to go electric for those as well, which would be expensive but not impossible.

I choose not to play your game of 'adequate growth rate' in my opinion growth for the sake of growth is not a goal, it is a sign of cancer.

Fission won't give you Utopia any more than any system will, what it will do is provide energy for vital transport, electricity for residential, commercial and industrial use, and workarounds for the decline of fossil fuels without screwing up the environment beyond all recognition or increasing the chances of flipping the climactic tipping point and returning us to the hothouse end of the climate cycle where subtropical trees lived in northern Canada.

Up until the last 100 years the average human being was born and died within 20 miles of the same spot, the insane desire to travle everywhere you can is a fossil fueled aberation, not a normal way of life.

Tanada wrote:

SevenTen wrote:Really? So far in the distant future? That would be pretty simple to prove, so how about trotting out:
* current usage of uranium
* current supply and reserves
* an adequate growth rate, realizing all the slack that needs to picked up from the peaking of oil, the peaking of natural gas in a few years, and the peaking of coal somewhere in the next 20 years

Then calculate the doubling time using the growth rate above (the REAL way, not using the rule of 72). Then bring the results here and we'll have a look-see about it peaking so far in the distant future that only the immortals will see it.

And please source your data.

Current usage is laid out about two dozen times in this thread, as are the disputes over supplies and reserves. If you are too lazy to read through this whole thread then look them up on the internet.
As for taking up all the slack from Petroleum, Natural gas and Coal, wherever did you get the idea that it is my job to justify such arbitrary conditions for your amusement? Of course we should ignore the fact that electrified railroads and nuclear powered freighters coupled with nuclear powered electricity production pretty much wipes out the shipping of goods via fossil fuels. For human transport, why should having a few Billion private cars even be a goal? If you do want a few Billion private cars then you will have to go electric for those as well, which would be expensive but not impossible.

I choose not to play your game of 'adequate growth rate' in my opinion growth for the sake of growth is not a goal, it is a sign of cancer.

Fission won't give you Utopia any more than any system will, what it will do is provide energy for vital transport, electricity for residential, commercial and industrial use, and workarounds for the decline of fossil fuels without screwing up the environment beyond all recognition or increasing the chances of flipping the climactic tipping point and returning us to the hothouse end of the climate cycle where subtropical trees lived in northern Canada.

Up until the last 100 years the average human being was born and died within 20 miles of the same spot, the insane desire to travle everywhere you can is a fossil fueled aberation, not a normal way of life.

It has nothing to do with my being lazy, I wanted to see how far you were going to go to make your point, and you gave up as I expected, claiming that my requirements for your rebuttal were for my amusement. You will need to bring your game up several notches to amuse me. Not that you should expend any energy in the attempt.

I have no doubt that growth in population and resource exploitation will cease and decline. I'm not looking for Utopia (though it is likely available in a smallish primitive community). You were the one who suggested that "peak uranium" was nothing but blather.

I have already researched the uranium supply issue, and it is thorny. But nothing I found suggested uranium production won't peak. Just like oil, just like coal, just like natural gas. And thus goes our modern world, and the bulk of civilization.

I'm not happy that I won this debate, it was too easy.

EnergyUnlimited wrote:I think, it is foolish to assume, that uranium will replace all FF after their depletion.

I assumed no such thing. I know nuclear isn't a silver bullet. Part of the reason there's no silver bullet is because of the peaking of production of the natural resources upon which we rely and increasingly exploit.

I was attempting to lead Tanada into a trap because he claimed that uranium production won't peak (or, more accurately, called it "blather"). I claim it will, because it's a limited resource.

It won't solve our problems, because regardless of our intentions, there eventually won't be enough of it. This is not trivial.

Uranium Contract To Debut on Nymex
Interest Is Surging As Nuclear Power Gets a Fresh Look
By MATT CHAMBERS
April 16, 2007

Looking to capitalize on surging interest in uranium investment, the New York Mercantile Exchange plans to launch a uranium futures contract, people familiar with the situation said Friday.

The futures contract would be designed to offer the operators of nuclear-power plants a vehicle to hedge against rising prices. It would also provide a forum to bet directly on gains and falls in the price of uranium, rather than speculating on the fortunes of companies that mine the metal.

Wall Street Journal
subcription may be required

Seems that China thinks there is going to be shortfall.

Nuclear power not the solution for China: official

Nuclear power is not the long-term answer to China's energy needs due to limited global uranium supplies and problems with nuclear waste disposal, state media on Monday quoted a top official as saying.

"Nuclear power cannot save us because the world's supply of uranium and other radioactive minerals needed to generate nuclear power are very limited," Chen Mingde, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in comments quoted by the China Daily newspaper.

Link

MonteQuest wrote:Seems that China thinks there is going to be shortfall.

Yes. A shortfall for China.

BBC wrote:Australia, which has 40% of the world's known uranium deposits, sells uranium only to members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The two countries had previously failed to agree a deal amid concerns China would use the uranium in its nuclear weapons programme.

Australia insists that potential uranium buyers must agree to a separate bilateral deal stipulating that they will not divert nuclear fuel into weapons programmes.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Chinese counterpart, Premier Wen Jiabao - on a four-day visit to the country - looked on as their foreign ministers signed the pacts.

Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer stressed the importance of ensuring the uranium would never be used in military schemes.

BBC wrote:Under the terms of the deal, Australia will export 20,000 metric tons of uranium to China each year, beginning in 2010, the AFP news agency reports.

BBC wrote:China is desperate for energy to fuel its booming economy, the BBC's Daniel Griffiths reports from Beijing.

The old coal mines that the country relies on cannot keep up with demand and there is not enough oil to go around.

With power shortages and blackouts in big cities common, the government is looking for new sources of energy and nuclear is top of the list.

Beijing wants to build 40 to 50 nuclear reactors over the next 20 years and a steady supply of uranium is vital.

I wonder if this deal with Australia isn't going so well.

MonteQuest wrote:Seems that China thinks there is going to be shortfall.

Nuclear power not the solution for China: official

Nuclear power is not the long-term answer to China's energy needs due to limited global uranium supplies and problems with nuclear waste disposal, state media on Monday quoted a top official as saying.

"Nuclear power cannot save us because the world's supply of uranium and other radioactive minerals needed to generate nuclear power are very limited," Chen Mingde, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in comments quoted by the China Daily newspaper.

Link

Beijing, April 24: China will purchase four state-of-the-art nuclear reactors from the United States at an estimated cost of USD 8 billion.

The US has agreed to the transfer of AP1000 technology, which is believed safe, cost efficient and advanced compared with the 1970s-era reactors that dominate in China.

The deal with Westinghouse Electric Company, in which the extent of technology transfers includes design of equipment and nuclear facilities as well as technical support, will be completed in May, and the first of the four reactors will begin to generate power by 2013, the state media reported today.

Meanwhile, China is looking to fuel its nuclear power industry with largely self-developed technology by 2020 as it gradually reduces its reliance on imported technology, a senior academic of the nation's top science institute said.

from ZEENEWS appears to be directly in contrast to the link you posted. It would be nice if everyone would publish honest numbers and transparent reports but it seems wew will have to keep whinowing information from the net that is of muddy clarity.

BTW these modern AP-1000 reactors are designed to run on 100% MOX cores and China is planning to build breeder reactors and reprocessing plants. If they do so then fuel will not be a problem for them, and with a state controlled energy sector relative costs will be shared and/or concealed.

Hi Guys

Here I am

200$/lb no a joke

But have a look on these nice link


WISE Uranium

M_B_S wrote:Hi Guys

Here I am

200$/lb no a joke

But have a look on these nice link


WISE Uranium

Got to hand it to WISE they know how to package, manage and slickly market their viewpoint.