Uranium shortage poses threat

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 30 Sep 2005, 07:18

The point that I was really trying to get too was that after PO the situation changes. Nuclear may look like a viable alternative now but now is with oil. After PO it could well be the case that nuclear is not as good an alternative as we thought as its cost could increase and its energy return may not be as great as expected.

I?m not really sure of the stats for this either but its just my feeling that after PO nuclear will not be a good alternative. I think we are better off if we invest the remaining time that we have in renewables.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 11 Oct 2005, 19:30

I?m not really sure of the stats for this either but its just my feeling that after PO nuclear will not be a good alternative. I think we are better off if we invest the remaining time that we have in renewables.

I am pro renewable too, but the reality is that we haven't got a solution to the intermittancy problem.(what do we do when the wind aint blowing and the sun aint shining etc etc)

The links that clv101 posted (managing demand to supply with renewables etc) looks promising.

In the meantime, while we look for solutions , we need nuclear to buy us time ....

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 12 Oct 2005, 00:05

I'd rather see investment in reversible fuel cells than nuclear.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=848

fishertrop · Post by **fishertrop** » 12 Oct 2005, 08:33

DamianB wrote: No, not really. It's a question of EROEI. The only way it could change is if the machinery or mining techniques changed significantly.

Don't forget tho, that in the current paradigm, it doesn't matter if the EROEI is negative so long as the montary ROI is positive.

And we're only taking about the ROI on a subset of the uranium cycle - the mining.

So long as the mines can sell the refined ore for a montary profit, the EROEI nor the full cost of the full uranium cycle matters (to them).

Cheap oil and several-hundred-dollar uranium might make even that sh*tty low grade ore economically viable.

Which highlights the generic flaws in our current system, namely:
1) Everything assumes cheap primary energy for the processes
2) EROEI doesn't matter so long as the montary ROI is high enough
3) Side effects such as HUGE waste/poluution from low-grade extraction processes have no associated costs
4) It's ok to make a one-time montary profit from a non-renewable reosurce without factoring in the "cost" of that resource having gone from the ground forever

Look at the low-grade copper processing industry, it's a great example - huge HUGE volumes of energy in, HUGE volumes of waste and pollution out, long term damage to wide tracts of lands, teeny-tiny percentages of copper extracted from the giga-tons of rock - but a montary profit for the companies.

What an advanced and civilised system we have....

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 12 Oct 2005, 13:04

Agreed.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 22 Feb 2006, 22:15

googling "uranium price trends" yielded this (the most up to date I could find):

http://www.scotiacapital.com/English/bn ... scomod.pdf

Spot uranium prices also climbed from US$34.50 per pound in late November to US$36.25 by late December. Uranium has advanced further in mid-January to US$37.00 ? 76% above a year earlier. Prices remain on track to approach our US$43.40 target by late 2006 ? the previous peak in 1978

Another hit was this, it's older, but clearly shows the trend.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip36.htm

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 23 Feb 2006, 08:50

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11541-0-asc-510.html

There is a good graph on this link showing prices in constant 2005 $ (allowing for inflation)

We are still some way off the 70's peak price.

Also there new mines coming on line, but in the short term we will have to endure higher prices.

The largest new mine, Olympic Dam in Australia, controlled by BHP Billiton, is not expected to start production before 2011. Output is forecast to rise from 3.0m pounds at start-up to 22m pounds by 2017.

in a second high-grade mine, Cigar River, which is expected to start production next year and produce about 18m pounds of uranium oxide by 2010.

From the same link.

Joules · Post by **Joules** » 07 Sep 2006, 12:02

Totally_Baffled wrote:http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11541-0-asc-510.html

There is a good graph on this link showing prices in constant 2005 $ (allowing for inflation)

We are still some way off the 70's peak price.

Uranium price can increase very fast and the price increases can be readily accepted without any problems by the power plants.

They're not kidding - check out the latest price hike:
http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 28 Feb 2007, 06:32

This article from the WNA is interesting - especially Figure 9.......

Nuclear expansion? Forget it........

* Report *

* Slides *

"Critical Juncture" indeed:

* Uranium Production Response Wanting
* Questions about Enrichment Expansion
* Utilities Have Limited Supply Choices
* Utilities Far More Concerned About Supply Today Than They Were in 2004

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/subindex.htm

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 28 Feb 2007, 21:40

http://www.consolidatedabaddon.com/i/pd ... tation.pdf

Page 21 of this presentation has a forecast production for uranium.

Doesnt look like a supply peak yet. (demand currently 50,000t for reference)

Dont know if they allowed for PO effecting the uranium mining business though!! (I doubt it somehow!)

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 28 Feb 2007, 22:02

Page 21 of this presentation has a forecast production for uranium

...that runs to 2030. Other parts of the document indicate a peak followed by "level off" (in other words, not wanting to speculate beyond that).

The overarching message I get from these reports is one of real concern about the ability of Uranium supply to meet demand growth.

enso · Post by **enso** » 12 Mar 2007, 20:15

Just stumbled across this useful little article that I think nicely sums up why nuclear is not a panacea to peak fossil fuel or climate change.

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/analisis/925.asp

Apologies if this one has done the rounds before.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 12 Mar 2007, 22:15

...that runs to 2030. Other parts of the document indicate a peak followed by "level off" (in other words, not wanting to speculate beyond that).

And who can blame them given the forecast accuracy of 25 year projections for oil and gas for example!

Just stumbled across this useful little article that I think nicely sums up why nuclear is not a panacea to peak fossil fuel or climate change.

Doesnt have to be a "panacea", it just has to make a contribution to the mix along with many other sources of energy.

There isnt a single energy source that is a "panacea" for climate change or FF depletion.

enso · Post by **enso** » 13 Mar 2007, 22:04

Totally_Baffled wrote:
Doesnt have to be a "panacea", it just has to make a contribution to the mix along with many other sources of energy.

There isnt a single energy source that is a "panacea" for climate change or FF depletion.
Oh, I quite agree. I'm probably in the minority in that I'm not opposed to nuclear power in principle but rather in the proposed application. There seems to be a train of thought out there (I mean in the big wide world, not on powerswitch) that states that nuclear energy can provide BAU with low carbon emissions. I keep seeing this in the media etc. I don't think that has even the remotest chance of happening.

Nuclear power, properly strategically planned and probably utilising fast reactors could be a very useful technology in assisting a controlled transition to the post-carbon future. My concern is that as a society we will still continue to fail to see the "big picture" or to think and plan long-term. Instead we'll spend a fortune on new reactors, run out of (affordable?) fuel before they reach the end of their operating life and be stuck with a load of redioactive waste we can't deal with in a low energy, bankrupt nation. Ho-hum.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 13 Mar 2007, 23:56

enso wrote
run out of (affordable?) fuel before they reach the end of their operating life and be stuck with a load of redioactive waste we can't deal with in a low energy, bankrupt nation.

My nightmare too. That's one of the reasons that I'm completely against nuclear. Another is that our government and civil service couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery, so when the energy does run out we would still be stuck with dozens of festering piles of radioactive concrete and steel from the last lot.