Are we facing Peak Uranium?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 08 Nov 2006, 14:55

John Stepek, 25/10/2006, Money Week:
http://www.moneyweek.com/file/20488/are ... anium.html

?Losing Cigar Lake in the uranium world is like the oil market having to deal with the loss of Saudi Arabia,? reports Toronto-based Sprott Asset Management?s Kevin Bambrough."

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Nov 2006, 04:14

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. and Philip Smith (2004), "Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance", at www.stormsmith.nl, stated that there is only enough nuclear fuel in the world to last three years if all electricity was generated by nuclear.

A good precis of the case by Flemming is available at
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/ ... _power.htm

I did, however, meet a gentleman at a recent seminar who said that Thorium based nuclear was viable and there is plenty of thorium fuel available for donkeys years. He had worked in the field until retiring recently. I've not done any research to prove or disprove this statement

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 09 Nov 2006, 06:48

According to ?Uranium ? a sustainable energy source? produced by the Analysis Group of Swedish Nuclear Training and Safety Centre ?at present, economically viable deposits ? would last for 50 years?. It goes on to say ?doubling the price of uranium ? would increase reserves to hundreds of years.?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Nov 2006, 14:57

It not a cost thing it's EROEI again. Uranium ores are found in very low concentrations. The problem is the amount of energy required to separate the Uranium from the ore.

economically viable deposits ? would last for 50 years?

This is on the basis of current usage. Increase the rate of usage and you're down to a few years. Read my link

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/ ... _power.htm

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 09 Nov 2006, 19:40

kenneal wrote:I did, however, meet a gentleman at a recent seminar who said that Thorium based nuclear was viable and there is plenty of thorium fuel available for donkeys years. He had worked in the field until retiring recently. I've not done any research to prove or disprove this statement

World Nuclear Association's (predictably positive) discussion on Thorium: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm

SaturnV · Post by **SaturnV** » 10 Nov 2006, 06:33

The thorium cycle is even more problematic than the breeder cycle to develop apparently.

Joules · Post by **Joules** » 22 Feb 2007, 11:20

$10 hike in the Uranium price this week:

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_Prices.aspx

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 22 Feb 2007, 12:30

kenneal wrote:It not a cost thing it's EROEI again. Uranium ores are found in very low concentrations. The problem is the amount of energy required to separate the Uranium from the ore.

economically viable deposits ? would last for 50 years?
This is on the basis of current usage. Increase the rate of usage and you're down to a few years. Read my link

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/ ... _power.htm

Economically viable oil in 1980 would of lasted 35 years at 1980's levels of consumption.

With demand growth we should of peaked by 1989 and run out completely 5 years ago...

But we haven't... (well on the latter point anyway)

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 22 Feb 2007, 12:31

kenneal wrote:It not a cost thing it's EROEI again. Uranium ores are found in very low concentrations. The problem is the amount of energy required to separate the Uranium from the ore.

economically viable deposits ? would last for 50 years?
This is on the basis of current usage. Increase the rate of usage and you're down to a few years. Read my link

http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/ ... _power.htm

Economically viable oil in 1980 would of lasted 35 years at 1980's levels of consumption.

With demand growth we should of run out completely 5 years ago...

But we haven't...

These types of statements are misleading are they not?