Thread for Karn

[Kratos]

What do you think about the future of the Uranium supply?

[shifty_git]

What do you think about the future of the Uranium supply?

2 new power stations going to be built where i live!

so uranium is good for a while yet!

[MartínFierros]

I agree with gifty but i'm afraid that nobody has the right answer. por example, nobody is absolutly certain about what China is planning to do in the future. North America will be the leading country in nuclear capabilities for a long time.

Perhaps this link may help. check it out pag. 3

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Rep...p2006_full.pdf

[Hoggage_54]

I know they're shutting down the largest coal plant in North America not far from me and replacing it with a nuclear plant.

http://www.thestar.com/article/346024

[Kärnfysikern]

There is more uranium than we can ever hope to use even in geological timespans Here is a rough overview on the uranium ammounts on earth by concentration.



When uranium deposits are mentioned they usualy mention not the ammounts that exist, but the known ammounts that is economic to mine with todays uranium prices. That ends up around 20 million tons or so. But the cost of natural uranium is a almost insignificant part of the cost of producing electricity in a nuclear power plant. If uranium prices is multiplied by 5 it only means half a cent or so per kWh more expensive electricity production cost. we could go down to 20-100 ppm and mine that without nuclear power becoming uneconomic. There is over 20 billion tons of uranium in those concentrations. If we build 100 times as many reactors as today that would still last for 3000 years.

But todays reactors are horribly inefficient, they can only extract around 0.5-1% of the energy content of uranium. So with better technology we can extract 100 time as much energy from the same ammount of uranium. Meaning we have energy for 300 000 years.

Then there is the uranium in seawater that is continously replenished by rivers. We could run the entire world on uranium from seawater with the next generation nuclear reactors for as long as earth will be habitable. With the methods currently beeing developed seawater extraction is roughly 2-3 times as expensive as regular mining, but its probably going to be pushed down further so it might be a competitive uranium source within a close future.

Then there is also thorium that can be used as fuel in next gen reactors, there are 5 times more thorium than uranium in the world. So even without thinking about extracting uranium from the sea we have reserves that can last for over a million years.

The only problem right now is that nuclear power is starting to expand rapidly but the mining industry has been in a decline since everyone thought nuclear would die out. Alot of todays fuel comes from downblending weapons grade uranium from dismantled russian warheads. So there is a gap betwen what mines produce and what plants consume. There might be a shortage of supply within 20 years or so until the mining industry catches up. But in the long term there is no problem

[Kärnfysikern]

I agree with gifty but i'm afraid that nobody has the right answer. por example, nobody is absolutly certain about what China is planning to do in the future. North America will be the leading country in nuclear capabilities for a long time.

Perhaps this link may help. check it out pag. 3

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Rep...p2006_full.pdf

To be honest north america isnt leading anymore. France and Japan are building better light water reactors, Russia are building the best fast spectrum reactors. China and South africa are leading the way with pebble bed reactors and India are in the lead in using thorium. Those 5 countries has very extensive and ambitious plans for nuclear power. China alone wants to build as many reactors as there are in the entire world today.

The rest of europe and america are going down the drain when it comes to nuclear know how. Carter screwed over american nuclear alot when he banned reprocessing and Clinton finished the job when he put the IFR project to death, since then nothing new and exciting has been happening in america.

[MartínFierros]

again karn...awesome post...thanks

[Kratos]

Thanks for the responses guys, and Karn thanks for your quick reply. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear from you. I've always been a fan of nuclear power and I know a bit about it but not on your level. I have a friend who is a nuclear engineer for the navy but he had no clue on this issue. I have been hearing a lot of negative talk about the Uranium supply and there are some pessimistic predictions out there. I'm glad the future is bright.

[Kratos]

From wikapedia
World peak uranium

Pessimistic predictions of future uranium production

Robert Vance - 1980
Robert Vance, while looking back at 40 years of Uranium production through all of the Red Books, found that peak global production was achieved in 1980 at 69,683 tU from 22 countries.[57] In 2003, uranium production totaled 35,600 tU from 19 countries.


Meacher - 1981
According to Michael Meacher, the supply of uranium has already reached its peak, in 1981.[58]


European Nuclear Society - 1991
The European Nuclear Society maintains that "global uranium mining has decreased since 1991, but development in the individual countries varies considerably."[59]


Rohit Ogra and Edward Moore - 2009, ????
Lehman Brothers Holdings analysts Rohit Ogra and Edward Moore predict uranium will hit a peak in 2009. However, they see it as a temporary peak because supplies of uranium won't exceed demand until 2012.[16]


Willem and van Leeuwen - 2034
Jan Willem and Storm van Leeuwen, independent nuclear analysts from Ceedata Consulting, shows that supplies of the high-grade uranium ore required to fuel nuclear power generation will, at current levels of consumption, last to about 2034.[60] Afterwards, the cost of energy to extract the uranium will exceed the price the electric power provided.


Earth Watch Group - 2035
The Energy Watch Group has calculated that, even with steep uranium prices, uranium production will have reached its peak by 2035 and that it will only be possible to satisfy the fuel demand of nuclear plants until then.[61]


Optimistic predictions of future uranium production

M. King Hubbert - Next Few Centuries
In his 1956 landmark paper, M. King Hubbert wrote "we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs for at least the next few centuries of the "foreseeable future.""[2] His study assumed that breeding and reprocessing would not have problems and would extend the uranium supply nearly indefinitely.


Huber and Mills - Never
Huber and Mills believe the energy supply is infinite and the problem is merely how we go about extracting the energy.[62]

[Kratos]

also it is said the energy cost of extracting uranium from seawater exceeds the energy you get back from the uranium. Not taking into account reactor efficency I'm sure but we need to be mindful of how much energy we are expending.

My thoughts were a 1 design nuclear plant. It seems like every nuclear plant in this country, while they share the same principals and basic design, they are somewhat different. I just thought it might help enhance safety.

[Kärnfysikern]

No problem bro Uranium supplies is someting I have looked into alot because it is a topic I debate very often.

Uranium production "peaked" because there was no incentive to open new mines or expand the current ones. The megaton to megawatts program flooded the market with cheap russian uranium from dismantled russian nukes. I think something like 50% of the uranium consumed in the us today is from russian nukes, but I would have to check to be sure. Regular mining could not compete with that, there has been no interest to prospect for new deposits either for a very long time. But that is all changing now that nuclear is starting to expand again.

IAEA predicts that uranium production will rise to over 100 000 tons/year within a not to distant future, far above the former production peak. Uranium production wont peak and then decline since there is no problem expanding mining more or less indefinetly. The price is the sole determination of what is minable. The problem with oil is that the remaining old after the peak will become harder and harder to extract. Its somewhat true that uranium in lower grades are harder to mine, but going down just a small bit in grades means enormous increases in aviable ammounts. In africa they are already mining as low as 300 ppm and there is 100 million tons or so aviable in those concentrations. Enough for hundreds of years.

When it comes to energy required to mine that is a myth that the greens are trying to push hard nowdays. Its easiest dispell by considering that any energy used to mine uranium has to be paid for by the mining company. One kg of uranium can produce electricity worth around 60 000 dollar. One single kg! The cost of uranium has never been above 200 dollar/kg and extraction from the sea is estimated to cost around 200 usd/kg. Now the question to the greens is who is giving away the 59 800 dollars worth of energy that is used by the mining companies according to them
I suspect extracting uranium from seawater consumes alot less energy than regular mining, but I havent seen any life cycle assesment on the method yet. Its still to undeveloped for that. The energy density of uranium is so incredibly large that you could in theory mine it from granite or any other comon rock and still have a net energy gain at the end.

In reality today something like 1-1,5% of the energy produced is used in mining, enrichment, building the plant and storing the waste. with new technology(gen 4 reactors, less energy consuming enrichment processes, closed fuel cycles) that can be decreased to small fractions of a %.

Building lots of plants of one design is what the french did and thats a very sucessfull approach. The companies building reactors are taking just that approach now everywhere, so the major screwups and economic problems that all the various designs caused in the US will be avoided now during the second nuclear age.

[Kärnfysikern]

Ohh yes, one thing about Storm van Leeuwen that is cited on wikipedia. Hes totaly nuts and a crackpot, he cant even get his so called "research" properly published and his estimates of energy requirements is way off. I guess "independent nuclear analysts" means no one wants to hire him

If you use his methods to estimate the energy required to mine uranium at 300 ppm and then compare it to the acctual energy requirements of a real mine mining at that concentration his method is off a factor of 80!! Read this page for a bit more on that.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/...fNuclear_Power

[kfrost06]

Uranium?

RUN everyone RUN!!!

we are all going to grow extra limbs and a third eye, radio active, nuclear waste, chernobyl





Global warming is fake but this is real^^^

You see Karn, it would never work the bad press would out weigh any and all benefits

[Kärnfysikern]

The bad press from nuclear? Well I dont think its going to make much of a difference, in some countries like germany, sweden and perhaps the states it will be a battle to get the first new reactors built. But in the countries that count, china and india, they are building new reactors as fast as they can.

I dont think it will be a problem there in the states either, there are alredy a dozen or so reactor projects in the licensing process.

[MuscleScience]

The bad press from nuclear? Well I dont think its going to make much of a difference, in some countries like germany, sweden and perhaps the states it will be a battle to get the first new reactors built. But in the countries that count, china and india, they are building new reactors as fast as they can.

I dont think it will be a problem there in the states either, there are alredy a dozen or so reactor projects in the licensing process.

What about fusion power, It seemed to has much promise a few years ago, that last time I talked to my physics buddies they seem to elude to the fact that its all but dead.

[kfrost06]

The bad press from nuclear? Well I dont think its going to make much of a difference, in some countries like germany, sweden and perhaps the states it will be a battle to get the first new reactors built. But in the countries that count, china and india, they are building new reactors as fast as they can.

I dont think it will be a problem there in the states either, there are alredy a dozen or so reactor projects in the licensing process.

nuclear safety inspectors do not have a good reputation.

[MuscleScience]

[QUOTE=kfrost06;3884942]nuclear safety inspectors do not have a good reputation.


"Its pronounced NU Cle RR,"
Homer J Simpson

[Pooks]

What about fusion power, It seemed to has much promise a few years ago, that last time I talked to my physics buddies they seem to elude to the fact that its all but dead.

i remember that from simcity

[MartínFierros]

Very interesting all your posts. Some questions come to my mind. Darn, the prospect you have just outlined is excelent from an economic point of view. This is very good news considering that urgent concerns about energy supply are now at the top the agenda of any country of the world. But I’m thinking that energy resources are not only an economic problem. They are a geopolitical problem too. To realize it, one just has to consider the case of the OPEC in the 70’ and the cases of Venezuela or Iran today. I think that to certain extent the colective security and the internacional peace is envolved.

As you have discussed, there have been a shift: today developing countries are leading the way in the production of nuclear energy. In a way developed countries are at the rear. One may expect that this situation necessarily will bring changes in the internacional order.

From an economical point of view developing countries will attend to an increase in their rate of growth and will have stronger economies in the future in conection with weaker economies in the developed world.

Apparently, the development of nucler energy with civilian purposes provides the necessary knowledge for a military use. It’s not crazy to think that countries managing nuclear energy will improve their arsenal strengthening their nacional security. In fact they have begun to do it.

Therefore from a political point of view, the NPT, which guaranteed to get under the developments in nuclear research under control at international level will become useless. In a context of proliferation of nuclear reactors controlling will more difficult and consequently the leakage of information easier.

I think this means that we will possibly live in a more insecure world. The analysts of foreign relations have been warning us of a change in the world order from an unipolar order to a multipolar order. It seems that it is the worst possible scenery. They argue tragically that a multipolar order was the cause that led to the WW1. Other concern of the analysts is what will happen with terrorism. In the future terrorist will have more opportunities of getting nuclear weapons secretly.

I know that all what I am saying may sound a period piece and that perhaps these considerations are not appropriate at the level you are speaking but I found it worth mentioning.

[Kratos]

druken dribble from 3:30am

[Kratos]

drinking and posting = poor quality posts

[Kärnfysikern]

What about fusion power, It seemed to has much promise a few years ago, that last time I talked to my physics buddies they seem to elude to the fact that its all but dead.

Cant say that I know very much about fusion, but I bet we wont se a electricity producing fusion reactor before 2050, if even by then. Unless there is some revolutionary advancment made I doubt it will be a economic source of energy in this century

Very interesting all your posts. Some questions come to my mind. Darn, the prospect you have just outlined is excelent from an economic point of view. This is very good news considering that urgent concerns about energy supply are now at the top the agenda of any country of the world. But I’m thinking that energy resources are not only an economic problem. They are a geopolitical problem too. To realize it, one just has to consider the case of the OPEC in the 70’ and the cases of Venezuela or Iran today. I think that to certain extent the colective security and the internacional peace is envolved.

As you have discussed, there have been a shift: today developing countries are leading the way in the production of nuclear energy. In a way developed countries are at the rear. One may expect that this situation necessarily will bring changes in the internacional order.

From an economical point of view developing countries will attend to an increase in their rate of growth and will have stronger economies in the future in conection with weaker economies in the developed world.


Apparently, the development of nucler energy with civilian purposes provides the necessary knowledge for a military use. It’s not crazy to think that countries managing nuclear energy will improve their arsenal strengthening their nacional security. In fact they have begun to do it.

Therefore from a political point of view, the NPT, which guaranteed to get under the developments in nuclear research under control at international level will become useless. In a context of proliferation of nuclear reactors controlling will more difficult and consequently the leakage of information easier.

I think the NPT has to be either modified or replaced completely with something new. Going from civilian nuclear energy to military nuclear weapons is quite a leap that require extensive reprocessing or enrichment plants so Im personaly not very worried about third world countries building power plants alone. The sad truth is while its very hard to get a nuclear weapon any nation with the will and motivation to get one can if they just invest enough time and resources, if they have civilian nuclear power plants doesnt make much of a change.

If they have reprocessing or enrichment facilities its another story, the NPT should be modified so that the worlds enrichment and reprocessing facilities are owned and shared by several nations and under strickt IAEA control. That would allow a peacefull expansion of nuclear power without any increased proliferation risk. But this would probably require that the current nuclear weapon states put their enrichment and reprocessing facilities under international rule and that seems unlikely.

I think this means that we will possibly live in a more insecure world. The analysts of foreign relations have been warning us of a change in the world order from an unipolar order to a multipolar order. It seems that it is the worst possible scenery. They argue tragically that a multipolar order was the cause that led to the WW1. Other concern of the analysts is what will happen with terrorism. In the future terrorist will have more opportunities of getting nuclear weapons secretly.

I think the risk of terrorist obtaining nuclear weapons in the future will be eclipsed by the risk of them obtaining biological weapons. The rapid progress in biotech now is wonderfull, but its opening up the possibility of developing bioweapons very easily and cheaply. One of the reasons the united states shut down their bioweapons research was because they realised it would be folly to develop wmds as powerfull as nuclear weapons but ten times as easy to produce.

I agree that the wold is going to be less safe, but Im afraid that the focus on nuclear proliferation is pulling the attention away from the proliferation of biotech that might pose a even greater threat. Technology is becoming so powerfull in all areas that the potential to do great harm is increasing exponentially, the world as a whole has to figure out how to handle this.

The number one step to decrease the risk of terrorist obtaining nuclear weapons is for the current nuclerar weapon states, especially russia and the us, to step up disarmament efforts even more. The us defense secretary himself admit that its impossible to even keep all the us nukes secure indefinetly. http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/p.../20071112.html

I know that all what I am saying may sound a period piece and that perhaps these considerations are not appropriate at the level you are speaking but I found it worth mentioning.

Its a interesting topic no doubt, weapons proliferation is one of the great political challanges. There are many ways to reduce the risk of proliferation by improving technology, but a determined nation can still build up their own facilities. The main challanges is to find out how we can reduce the motivation for any country to try to obtain nuclear weapons. Of course the IAEA should get alot more resources and alot more power, they are doing perhaps the most important job in the world.

[MartínFierros]

The number one step to decrease the risk of terrorist obtaining nuclear weapons is for the current nuclerar weapon states, especially russia and the us, to step up disarmament efforts even more. The us defense secretary himself admit that its impossible to even keep all the us nukes secure indefinetly. http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/p.../20071112.html

Thank you for the info Darn. The other day after posting my opinion I didn’t feel happy with it because I felt I was expresing the concerns of a great power or a would-be great power (China, India). But those aren’t the concerns of countries like mine. So I must say that nuclear energy might be a way to solve some of our urgent problems. I’ll try to show some cases. Surely you know them much better than me. Sorry for possible blunders.

I’m from Argentina and the countries in my region have problems of energy supply (gas and electricity) at the moment. For example Chile is one of the most solid economies in the region, so solid that it was not much affected by the financial crisis in the 90’, but the situation there is especially pressing. The energy supply is tight. They lack the natural resources and they can’t buy it from their neighbours, because they are tight on it too and must meet their domestic demand. There is also a bilateral problem between Chile and Bolivia, so no easy solution can come from there.

In my country the energy supply is tight too and we sell energy resources to Chile. The winter was pretty cold last year. It snowed in Buenos Aires. It had been more than 50 years since it had snowed. There were real doubts about the possibility of meeting the demand of energy. The government took actions. One of them was setting up restrictions to the factories. This is not the best of all worlds. These restrictions cause a slow down in the production, that results in a price increase in a highly inflacionary context for other reasons. At the present, energy supply and inflation are big issues in my country. We have two nuclear power stations, which provide roughly the 8% of the electricity. Other nuclear power station is in construction.

Brazil has an enormous economy but the energy supply was always a problem.

Contrasting with this, Brazil and Argentina had made great progress in the field of nuclear energy in the past and still have the potencial for expanding it. Unfortunatelly I don’t know if governments are seeing nuclear energy as a real option. Surely investment and time of construction must be an issue.

I just wanted to point out how important the pros of what you’r saying could be.

[Kärnfysikern]

You certainly dont have to be a citizen of a superpower to express concern about proliferation. Just look at us tiny swedes always preaching

I think we are going to se alot of developing countries turning to nuclear during the coming 10-20 years, the options are scare. What is the political attitude in Argentina towards nuclear power? Political opposition is imo the biggest obstacle nuclear power faces, but it seems like its mostly prevalent in europe and north america and not so much south america and asia?

South Africa faces the same problems you mention Chile has and they are thinking about ordering a whopping 12-17 reactors!
http://89.151.116.69/NN/Eskom_How_mu...en_310108.html

[MartínFierros]

You certainly dont have to be a citizen of a superpower to express concern about proliferation. Just look at us tiny swedes always preaching

You know...there is a distinction...only superpowers care about high politics, the others just have trade relations

What is the political attitude in Argentina towards nuclear power? Political opposition is imo the biggest obstacle nuclear power faces, but it seems like its mostly prevalent in europe and north america and not so much south america and asia?

It's a difficult question. There are many factors that had an influence on the energy policies of the different governments in my country. You should consider the economic crisis during the last 50 years or the possible external pressures. Generally nuclear energy research and exploitation have made progress during governments with a nationalistic stance. Argentina took the decision of seeing the nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource in the 50s. This industry grew until the 90 (contruction of a nuclear power station in 1974; construction of other power station in 1984 and the construction of a third one is begun in 1980 but then it was stopped). There was also the possibility of having an atom bomb during the dictatorship in the 70s (Brazil was in the same position) but finally Argentina signs the NPT in 1995. In the 90s nuclear energy was absolutely put aside.

The present administration have changed the attitude towards this resource. The administration have decided to continue the contruction of the third nuclear power station. As you say, regarding econological concerns, nuclear energy is seen as a better way of meeting the demand of energy than the exploitation of petroleum (one of our industries at the moment anyway). One reason given by the officials is that the nuclear energy is the industry that most provide a treatment for its waste. Other reason is that the use of petroleum is very harsh on the global warming. Furthermore there are programs intended to preserve and avoid any possible damage to the environment that might come from this industry.