I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Yes, a nuclear engineer gives a well-founded reasoned counter argument to the non-sense theory of peak uranium and it is classed as 'wishful thinking'.
Just about sums up the doomer mentality for me.
Also Hubbert's peak year was 1990-1995 and as we know he wanted nuclear to replace fossil fuel power.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:05 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
mkwin wrote:
Yes, a nuclear engineer gives a well-founded reasoned counter argument to the non-sense theory of peak uranium and it is classed as 'wishful thinking'.
Just about sums up the doomer mentality for me.
The well-founded reasoned counter is all supposition, possibly well-founded supposition, but supposition nonetheless. If you think we should go full pelt on the basis of supposition and start to become as dependent on another finite resource, then I'm afraid I'd have to profoundly disagree. If we've learned anything from the fossil fuel fiasco, surely it is that if we must depend on a secure supply of energy, it must be renewable energy, and only at a rate that doesn't deplete finite resources that are needed to harness that energy, that doesn't exceed the renewal rate of the renewables, and doesn't harm our environment.
The doomer mentality is with those who constantly seek the impossible, of infinite growth in a finite world.
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Uranium was not formed by chance geological events that happened millions of years ago as with oil and gas.
High-grade uranium ore currently on the books as resources would last 85 years at current rates of consumption but that is because there has, until recently, been no economic need to waste tens or hundreds of millions dollars finding and developing other resources. The renewed drive in 2004 has already significantly increased the proven reserves and that is based on a relatively low spot price.
As of the beginning of 2003 World Uranium reserves were:
Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) = 3.10 - 3.28 million tonnes. Additional reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) = 10.690 million tonnes.
As of the beginning of 2005 World Uranium reserves were:
Reasonable Assured Reserves recoverable at less than $US130/kgU (or $US50/lb U3O8) = 4.7 million tonnes. Additional recoverable Uranium is estimated to be 35 million tonnes
The substantial increase (almost 50%) from 2003 shows the results of the world-wide renewed exploration effort spurred by the increase in Uranium prices which commenced in 2004. This increase in activity has continued through to 2006. Thus, the provable uranium resources amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves. It is worth noting that the numbers above do not reflect the considerable increase in Uranium exploration that has taken place in 2005 and 2006.
Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast react
or technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years.
However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation.
The spot price of uranium has also increased fivefold since 2001, fuelling major new initiatives and investment in exploration. Worldwide exploration expenditures in 2004 totalled over US$ 130 million, an increase of almost 40% compared to 2002, and close to US$ 200 million in 2005. This can be expected to lead to further additions to the uranium resource base. A significant number of new mining projects have also been announced that could substantially boost the world´s uranium production capacity.
In the longer term, continuing advances in nuclear technology will allow a substantially better utilisation of the uranium resources. Reactor designs are being developed and tested that are capable of extracting more than 30 times the energy from the uranium than today´s reactors.
By 2025, world nuclear energy capacity is expected to grow to between 450 GWe (+22%) and 530 GWe (+44%) from the present generating capacity of about 370 GWe. This will raise annual uranium requirements to between 80 000 tonnes and 100 000 tonnes. The currently identified resources are adequate to meet this expansion.
The URR for uranium is also far more price elastic in that, as the price increases, a huge amount more resources will be economically viable. This is true even without thorium fuel or breeder reactors or highly effcient 4th generation reactors, which would effectively remove all potential uranium supply restrictions. As with most things in the peak oil/energy debate, economics of the alternatives are the reason the current energy system exists in the way and form it does. Uranium is a derived demand of nuclear energy (and weapons) which has been on a downward trend since the 1970's. Hence development and exploration of resources has been low and the use of atomic materials from former warheads has further depressed the market for uranium.
Quote:
In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.[39] The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years[33] although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.[40] It is estimated that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times.[41]
The key is the price elasticity of supply of uranium and the fact the fuel costs are a far smaller component of the cost of nuclear energy that fossil fuels. At $95 the current developed resources might only be viable at a profit for 30-50 years but if you increase the spot price to $400 the economically viable resources increases by a large order of magnitude. It is that simply. The resources are known and the prices at which commercial organizations can make a profit extracting them can be estimated with some certainty.
It just amazes me that intelligent people can not understand this concept. I am fully behind the concept of, the geologically exceptional resource, oil declining in th near future. But uranium? Come on. Peak oil is not peak energy! it is a liquid fuel problem.
Quote:
The doomer mentality is with those who constantly seek the impossible, of infinite growth in a finite world.
Who said anything about infinite economic growth? I am talking about energy production from a proven technology.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2051 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
This is the first time I've read of known economic reserves being of the order of 85 years at current consumption rates; all articles I've read up until now have talked of 40-45 years (even one that tries to debunk nuclear critics).
I guess one will always tend to seek out, and pounce on, anything that supports one's current thinking.
Not that such figures mean very much when a long term growth in the consumption of those resources are envisaged.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:13 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
I put breeder reactors into the same category as cold fusion. Where are these reactors producing power in any significant amount? You have the same "pro nuclear" people telling us how nuclear can power anything and everything as you do in the solar industry ("A solar field the size of 10% of state of Arizona can supply USA electrical needs"), wind industry and coal industry (yeah coal can be "clean"). They have all been debunked, completely, up until this point of time.
People saying that uranium reserves increase exponentially based on price? The price over doubled and a supposed 44% increase in reserves occurred. The fact that no one seems to question the mining companies whose share price increases based on their tonnage "find" is mind boggling. We already have 100s of cases of mining companies misleading investors with bigger than reality finds. Not to mention the exporting of uranium is becoming a bigger and bigger hurdle for some countries due to foreign policy (will Australia keep sending U3O8 to China if a war develops with the USA or human rights violations continue? Not at $100/lb it won't).
If nuclear power is going to save us from an otherwise dark world then regardless of the uranium issue is the building of upto 7-10 times the current reactor capacity by 2040. Even if all the hurdles were cleared to allow these reactors to be built, could it be done? You would bet your life on saying 'no'. All the resources you use to build them are increasing in price, some significantly. Any major construction project (like reactors) are constantly undergoing "budget recalculations" due to this. _________________ Introducing the human evolution.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Quote:
I put breeder reactors into the same category as cold fusion. Where are these reactors producing power in any significant amount?
That is completely ridicules. Cold fusion is a controversial theoretical energy source. Breeder reactors have been around since the 1980's. Yes not many have been produced because they are not cost competitive.
The BN-600 reactor is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, in Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Designed for 600 MW (electric), it produces 560 MW (electric) dispatching energy to the Middle Urals power grid. It has been in operation since 1980.
Quote:
People saying that uranium reserves increase exponentially based on price? The price over doubled and a supposed 44% increase in reserves occurred. The fact that no one seems to question the mining companies whose share price increases based on their tonnage "find" is mind boggling.
'People' are not saying there is a 'supposed' increase in resources the IEA is. That is the International Energy Agency, who makes their estimation based on expert opinion and knowledge. Maybe you are a more experienced geologist or energy analyst than the entire IEA. If so, please share you unique insight. It would also be interesting to see evidence of these companies apparently inflating their reserves. Do you have any quotes or examples?
Quote:
If nuclear power is going to save us from an otherwise dark world then regardless of the uranium issue is the building of up too 7-10 times the current reactor capacity by 2040.
Otherwise dark by 2040? Gas may not have peaked worldwide even by then and its very unlikely coal will of either. It would be reasonable to expect 20-30% of electricity to be coming from renewables as well by then.
A large expansion to nuclear construction would take a lead in time of say 5-7 years. Factories producing components would need to be set-up. Engineers trained or retrained. Sites selected for development and construction companies engaged. If a large scaling up of plant production is unfeasible how did the French do it in the early eighties when inflation was 15%?
Reasonable open-minded people can recognize, based on the facts and relatively simple concepts, supply is not a problem. Throwing unfounded speculation based on nothing but a tunnel vision doomer mentality is not going to change that. .
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
mkwin wrote:
Quote:
I put breeder reactors into the same category as cold fusion. Where are these reactors producing power in any significant amount?
That is completely ridicules. Cold fusion is a controversial theoretical energy source. Breeder reactors have been around since the 1980's. Yes not many have been produced because they are not cost competitive.
Those reactors are heavily subsidized and only exist for various political (bombs) and scientific reasons. Again, maybe in the future technology may improve to make them viable for electrical production, however, why would you use them when they "cost" twice (most likely MANY times more as they are subsidized beyond belief) as much compared to traditional reactors? It's completely similar to fusion in that you wouldn't do it because it's less efficient than other means to produce power given the same materials.
So yes, keep waiting on technology to make them viable.
mkwin wrote:
'People' are not saying there is a 'supposed' increase in resources the IEA is. That is the International Energy Agency, who makes their estimation based on expert opinion and knowledge. Maybe you are a more experienced geologist or energy analyst than the entire IEA. If so, please share you unique insight. It would also be interesting to see evidence of these companies apparently inflating their reserves. Do you have any quotes or examples?
I have no time to find examples, I have seen the news reports and investigations. You will too, just do a google search.
However where do you think the IEA gets it's data? It's from the companies SPENDING money to do the tests. Data which is biased when taken in context of finds = share price. The IEA does very little independent investigation. If it did we would have good numbers for oil reserves in the middle east.
mkwin wrote:
Otherwise dark by 2040? Gas may not have peaked worldwide even by then and its very unlikely coal will of either. It would be reasonable to expect 20-30% of electricity to be coming from renewables as well by then.
A large expansion to nuclear construction would take a lead in time of say 5-7 years. Factories producing components would need to be set-up. Engineers trained or retrained. Sites selected for development and construction companies engaged. If a large scaling up of plant production is unfeasible how did the French do it in the early eighties when inflation was 15%?
We need a linear increase to 2040 of nuclear reactors, not a "well we can build maybe 40% of them within 20 years, with the other 60% coming in the next 10 years" otherwise the energy instability alone will stop it all (wars, civil unrest, whatever).
Comparing the wild over spending budgets of the 80s to now is hilarious. Look at France now, almost in an economic collapse. Either way the raw cost of materials used in building big things has ballooned. As raw ingredients become more expensive some constructions are no longer viable. It is why governments now prefer the simple capital outlays (natural gas, coal) for fiscally responsible budget management.
Building of upto 10 times the current nuclear reactor capacity would probably equal nearly *all* the construction which occurred worldwide from 1980 till now. I just can't see how it's possible in a theoretical sense, let alone a realistic sense (most people don't want nuclear power atm, maybe when the lights turn off they might). _________________ Introducing the human evolution.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Quote:
why would you use them when they "cost" twice (most likely MANY times more as they are subsidized beyond belief) as much compared to traditional reactors? It's completely similar to fusion in that you wouldn't do it because it's less efficient than other means to produce power given the same materials.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Cold fusion has never left the lab and has never produced anything more than tiny amounts of electricity. Fast breeder reactors have produced commercial quantities of electricity.
You are right, Breeder reactors will not be used as long as uranium reserves are suffcient (although both China and India are developing a fast breeder program) which they are. As mentioned in one of the articles I linked. The reactors currently under development are up to 30 times more fuel effcient than current ractors, which would vastly expand the time scale current reserves will last for. But this is not the point, the point is current reserves and probable reserves will likely last hundreds of years anyway even with current technology.
Quote:
However where do you think the IEA gets it's data? It's from the companies SPENDING money to do the tests. Data which is biased when taken in context of finds = share price. The IEA does very little independent investigation. If it did we would have good numbers for oil reserves in the middle east.
Have you any experince with company reporting and accounting? Listed public countries have very strict accounting and valuation procedures. Most current uranium production is done is Canada and Australia who are subject to strict reporting standards. The situation with Middle Eastern oil reserves are complete different. the national oil companies are not subject to the legal and accounting processes of public listed companies in the western world.
Quote:
We need a linear increase to 2040 of nuclear reactors, not a "well we can build maybe 40% of them within 20 years, with the other 60% coming in the next 10 years" otherwise the energy instability alone will stop it all (wars, civil unrest, whatever).
Why do we need s linear increase? The history of nuclear energy has not been linear. There was a rapid increase in capacity from the mid 70's through to the early eighties then countruction reduced significantly due to Chernobyl.
Quote:
Comparing the wild over spending budgets of the 80s to now is hilarious. Look at France now, almost in an economic collapse.
France, economic collapse? have you ever been to France? Compared to the US and UK France is doing very well in the current economic crises and is one of the most beatiful countries in the world and the 7th biggist economy in the world. If you think 58 nuclear reactors are some how responsible for 'economic collapse' you over estimate what effect 100 billion euros of construction can do.
Quote:
Building of upto 10 times the current nuclear reactor capacity would probably equal nearly *all* the construction which occurred worldwide from 1980 till now.
Why would it be needed to produce 10x the current nuclear capacity by 2040? That would equal approximately 180% of current worldwide electricity production.
Quote:
I just can't see how it's possible in a theoretical sense, let alone a realistic sense (most people don't want nuclear power atm, maybe when the lights turn off they might
Are you an energy planner? Do you have any education in construction or civil enginneering? What are you basing your assement on?
Nuclear energy is making a comeback worldwide and will be a significant element in future energy production but it won't be the only one. Safety concerns have given way in many countries to new public acceptance of nuclear power.
Nuclear does not have to replace all other forms of energy, renewables are going to continue to increase in many countries and fossil fuels are not going to disappear between now and 2040. I would expect when peak oil finally gets mainstream cover and acceptance peak gas will be everyones concern and that will spur a move away from gas to nuclear and renewables in many countries on a fairly rapid scale.
Energy production has never been easy and it can seem scary especially when you read alarmist reports that don't present the facts in a coherant and balanced way. The energy industry is, however, one of the most extensive industries in the world. Oil will start to decline certainly by 2020 but probably as soon as 2012 and will certainly cause massive economic problems. However, while a wider energy problem is not unimaginable it is unlikely. There are now so many new potential solutions as well as old technology. Energy projects like oil fields or nuclear plants seem like huge projects to me and you but the energy industy has been building them for decades. Will the industry expand? Sure it will if demand is there. There is no shortage of skilled engineers or construction materials and there is no shortage of uranium in the medium to long-term. Nuclear energy can and will expand to partly fill the gap of fossil fuels. In fact, Britain has just announced the first phase of a new reactor programme, which will renew and expand our nuclear capacity.
...not when you take into account the uranium-peak, the energy return on energy invested in the nuclear life-cycle, and the prospect of much of the legacy of nuclear waste being abandoned for ever.
_________________ "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
...not when you take into account the uranium-peak, the energy return on energy invested in the nuclear life-cycle, and the prospect of much of the legacy of nuclear waste being abandoned for ever.
The theory of peak uranium has been fully addressed it is a non-issue.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
mkwin wrote:
The theory of peak uranium has been fully addressed it is a non-issue.
Right, it's been addressed by doing the old bait and switch. Whenever uranium supply issues are raised the nuke fanatics say "doesn't matter, breeder reactors my friend, breeders, unlimited energy". When breeder reactors are found suspect it's "thorium will save us, and there's unlimited supplies of thorium". People like you think you can extract uranium out of sea water and granite using 'technology' to have a positive EROEI, it's laughable. People like you think technology is going to make breeders cost effective. Sure it's possible it may end up working but when? You seem to think it's yesterday, a sign you are completely biased due to lack of reasoning. Even if they do manage breeder technology, they are still supply limited, it's not a never ending supply of energy growth.
There are massive supply issues of uranium coming up if the 40000 tonnes of mining doesn't increase to cover the shortfall from non mining sources and growth of the industry, which will probably spit ball any governments attempts to build reactors, thankfully.
Mkwin you are a nuke fanatic _________________ Introducing the human evolution.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Quote:
Right, it's been addressed by doing the old bait and switch. Whenever uranium supply issues are raised the nuke fanatics say "doesn't matter, breeder reactors my friend, breeders, unlimited energy". When breeder reactors are found suspect it's "thorium will save us, and there's unlimited supplies of thorium". People like you think you can extract uranium out of sea water and granite using 'technology' to have a positive EROEI, it's laughable. People like you think technology is going to make breeders cost effective. Sure it's possible it may end up working but when? You seem to think it's yesterday, a sign you are completely biased due to lack of reasoning. Even if they do manage breeder technology, they are still supply limited, it's not a never ending supply of energy growth.
Did you read any of the articles I posted?
I am not talking about any potential new nuclear technology. Forget the ultra-effcient 4th generation nuclear reacotrs currently being tested, forget breeders or any non-traditional fuel.
They are talking about current proven reserves and probable reserves being suffcient for existing technology and ignoring all of the things in development or possible innovations.
You same i am biased due to lack of reasoning? I am basing my points on fact. It is fact that estimated reserves grew by 50% between 2004 and 2006. Why? Because it was profitable to look. Geologists estimate there could be 35 million tons of standard uranium extractable at a cost of $130. 35 million!!! Even if we doubled nuclear capacity using current techology, that would equate to 350 years of supply of standard uranium. Its not that bloody hard to understand. First a post by a nuclear engineer completly debunks the uranium problem, I then post an IEA article also undermining it and an academic study undermining it and you come back at me saying i am baised due to lack of reason?? Why don't you try reading those articles and make a constructive argument against them rather than talking non-sense to maintain your own personal doom mentality.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
mkwin wrote:
You same i am biased due to lack of reasoning? I am basing my points on fact. It is fact that estimated reserves grew by 50% between 2004 and 2006. Why?
Estimated reserves? Why don't you just grow it by 5000000% and add granite and seawater to your "reserves". It's meaningless.
mkwin wrote:
Because it was profitable to look. Geologists estimate there could be 35 million tons of standard uranium extractable at a cost of $130. 35 million!!!
What's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade crap uranium, am I right (we've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground) ? Or uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all. I laugh at the people who try to cost things (usually using the year prior as data) as well as estimate how many million tonnes there are. It's an ESTIMATE, based on faulty data (or "estimates" if you want to phrase it nicely) from mining companies. Either way, it is an estimate on estimates, not proof that 35 million tonnes is extractable with a solid return on EROEI at $130 2008 dollars.
The problem is you didn't even read that article on the oil drum, I've read the links you've posted and it hasn't told me anything... unless I should just believe what some ghost writer on the internet tells me "Like um be calm, theres bakillions of uranium out there". Yeah. You act like a document which references the IEA is proof that the other document is valid, or that anyone who believes the IEA is to be trusted. A circle jerk is a circle jerk. _________________ Introducing the human evolution.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
ANewHuman wrote:
What's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade crap uranium, am I right (we've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground) ? Or uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all. I laugh at the people who try to cost things (usually using the year prior as data) as well as estimate how many million tonnes there are. It's an ESTIMATE, based on faulty data (or "estimates" if you want to phrase it nicely) from mining companies. Either way, it is an estimate on estimates, not proof that 35 million tonnes is extractable with a solid return on EROEI at $130 2008 dollars.
Talking about energy return on uranium is meaningless nonsense. Measured energy cost.
The Rossing mine produced 3037 tonnes of Uranium in 2004, which is sufficient for 15 GigaWatt-years of electricity with current reactors. The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine. The ore grade from the rossing mine is lower than most other comercial ore grades at 300 ppm.
The resources and reserves avaliable today are certainly higher than the estimate of the IAEA redbook because those are avaliable resources at $130/kg when the spot price is nearly twice that today.
This is before we start doing fairly conservative steps like DUPIC, extra enrichment, and MOX fuel... which we'll unlikely ever need to do simply because uranium is so damned plentiful.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Quote:
"reserves". It's meaningless
Maybe you consider reserve estimates as meaningless but regulatory authorities, the law and investors do not. Do I recognised they are unlikley to be 100% accurate, yes. But a P90 estimate is relatively assured. I trust BP's P90 estimate why wouldn't I trust Rio Tinto's? Reporting reserves by transparent public companies is not meaningless.
The main point is though the scale of the increase in reserves from the 2003 to 2005 figures simply because exploration and development took place.
Quote:
What's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade crap uranium,
Standard uranium refers to relatively high density ore that can be developed for a cost of $130 kg. The stuff listed as P90 reserves.
Quote:
we've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground
It is interesting you refer to scientists as 'retards'. I read an article on sea water extraction. Personally I am not an engineer so I can't comment on the technical or economic feasability of something like that but I do not presume to think they are 'retards', actually I am sure they are quite the opposite. In terms of resource estimates, they are done by trained geologists based on a science well over a hundred years old. Are they right 100% of the time, no. Are they 'retards' who always get it wrong certainly not. If that were the case, business news would be constantly full of mining and oil companies being sued by investors and prosecuted by governments.
Quote:
Or uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all.
EROEI in nuclear is the point were opinion differ the most.
The study I linked was carried out by Melbourne University and was based on peer review it is the most neutral and objective study i have ever found. The was no connection or biase by the researchers on either side of the debate. They are very critical of a study often used by the opponents of nuclear energy to argue gainst it on the basis on EROEI of uranium quality.
Quote:
It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). The difference is that Vattenfall actually measured their energy inputs whereas Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith employed various theoretical relationships between dollar costs and energy consumed. This paper also grossly over-estimates the energy cost of mining low-grade Ores and also that the efficiency of extraction of Uranium from reserves would fall dramatically at ore concentrations below 0.05%. Employing their calculations predicts that the energy cost of extracting the Olympic Dam mine's yearly production of 4600 tonnes of Uranium would require energy equivalent to almost 2 one-GigaWatt power plants running for a full year (2 GigaWat-years). You can follow this calculation here. This is larger than the entire electricity production of South Australia and an order of magnitude more than the measured energy inputs.
The Rossing mine has a lower Uranium concentration (0.03% vs 0.05% by weight) than Olympic Dam and the discrepancy is even larger in the case of Rossing. Here SLS predict Rossing should require 2.6 Giga-Watt-Years of energy for mining and milling. The total consumption of all forms of energy in the country of Namibia is equivalent to 1.5 GigaWatt-Years, much less than the prediction for the mine alone. Furthermore, yearly cost of supplying this energy is over 1 billion dollars, yet the value of the Uranium sold by Rossing was, until recently, less than 100 million dollars per year. Since Rossing reports it's yearly energy usage to be 0.03 GigaWatt-years, SLS overestimates the energy cost of the Rossing mine by a factor of 80.
The argument against EROEI just doesn't stack-up. This is without considering the 4th generation nuclear plants rather than light water reactors.
The people against nuclear are often irrational. Thousand of people are killed each year by coal power and many more by air pollution. Nuclear is far safer than coal. You said I am a nuclear fanatic. I am not. But i recognise the potential of nuclear to be maintained and expanded along with renewables to make up for some or the majority of the deficit of power from the decline of fossil fuels over the next 50 years.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
