3 ms·

> Relying strictly on conventional uranium fission reactors would burn through known reserves in a few decades -- 30-80 years. While strictly speaking true, th

> Relying strictly on conventional uranium fission reactors would burn through known reserves in a few decades -- 30-80 years. While strictly speaking true, this is completely irrelevant. "Known reserves" refers to the surveyed amount that is technically and economically feasible to extract at present market prices. The cost of uranium ore is a vanishingly small part of running a nuclear plant -- fuel costs are less than 10%, and the vast majority of that is enrichment and processing. Uranium market prices could go up by two orders of magnitude without endangering the industry, and at that point, we have milennia of known reserves (mostly in seawater).

dredmorbius 14y ago
No, it's not irrelevant. If you're going to claim that, at least have the intellectual honesty to point to models of probable reserves or advanced recovery methods. I haven't looked extensively at the fission fuel issue, but that estimate is one that's fairly widely disseminated, including by the nuclear power industry. I see values from 5.4 - 6.3 megatons of uranium. The problems are that: 1. Existing scale of fission energy generation is a small fraction of a "total replacement" estimate. 2. Even if there are extensive amounts of uranium, recoverability and net EROEI matter. Unless the extraction process is tremendously complex, nuclear chemistry should tend to make this favorable, though it may still be expensive in terms of time, plant, technology, and/or other limiting inputs. 3. This calls for betting the farm on unproven technolgies or reserves. We do know that solar is sufficient for at least the next century or so. During which hopefully humanity can get its population back under control and to sustainable levels. I'm aware of the concept of proven reserves. I'm also familiar with models of resource extraction and exhaustion such as Hubbert's work in oil, though not of the specifics as applicable to uranium. The IAEA's got some light reading on the topic: http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/1357/Methods-for-the-Estimation-of-Uranium-Ore-Reserves-An-Instruction-Manual http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/1357/Methods-for-the... And as mention, breeder designs change the maths a bit. Sources / math: http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3675/Energy%20Challenge.pdf.download http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3675/Energy%20Challenge.pdf.download http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/prn201009.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/prn201009.... (And the math done here showing we'd exhaust those reserves building the first 5,000 of the 17,000 1GW plants required to meet present demand at a cost of $52 trillion: http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe-enough-peak-uranium/ http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe...) http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe-enough-peak-uranium/ http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe...
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  1) True. Which is why we should be building more... 2) EROEI is fantastically, ridiculously good for everything nuclear-related. Even the worst uranium mining schemes beat everything else by a million times. And the costs are still minimal even with the more exotic extraction schemes. There have been trials of them, they have been successful. 3) Solar is incapable of being used as baseline generation. All intermittent capacity needs to be backed by something else. Right now, that's gas turbines. Fracking will make this feasible for ~30 years, beyond that we need something else. The Hubbert's work in oil is not really applicable to Uranium, simply because there are effectively unlimited reserves of it at an economically acceptable price points and fantastic EROEI levels.

dredmorbius 14y ago

No, it's not irrelevant. If you're going to claim that, at least have the intellectual honesty to point to models of probable reserves or advanced recovery methods. I haven't looked extensively at the fission fuel issue, but that estimate is one that's fairly widely disseminated, including by the nuclear power industry. I see values from 5.4 - 6.3 megatons of uranium. The problems are that: 1. Existing scale of fission energy generation is a small fraction of a "total replacement" estimate. 2. Even if there are extensive amounts of uranium, recoverability and net EROEI matter. Unless the extraction process is tremendously complex, nuclear chemistry should tend to make this favorable, though it may still be expensive in terms of time, plant, technology, and/or other limiting inputs. 3. This calls for betting the farm on unproven technolgies or reserves. We do know that solar is sufficient for at least the next century or so. During which hopefully humanity can get its population back under control and to sustainable levels. I'm aware of the concept of proven reserves. I'm also familiar with models of resource extraction and exhaustion such as Hubbert's work in oil, though not of the specifics as applicable to uranium. The IAEA's got some light reading on the topic: http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/1357/Methods-for-the-Estimation-of-Uranium-Ore-Reserves-An-Instruction-Manual http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/1357/Methods-for-the... And as mention, breeder designs change the maths a bit. Sources / math: http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3675/Energy%20Challenge.pdf.download http://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3675/Energy%20Challenge.pdf.download http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/prn201009.html http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2010/prn201009.... (And the math done here showing we'd exhaust those reserves building the first 5,000 of the 17,000 1GW plants required to meet present demand at a cost of $52 trillion: http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe-enough-peak-uranium/ http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe...) http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe-enough-peak-uranium/ http://terrydyke.com/2011/06/even-if-nuclear-power-were-safe...

Tuna-Fish 14y ago
1) True. Which is why we should be building more... 2) EROEI is fantastically, ridiculously good for everything nuclear-related. Even the worst uranium mining schemes beat everything else by a million times. And the costs are still minimal even with the more exotic extraction schemes. There have been trials of them, they have been successful. 3) Solar is incapable of being used as baseline generation. All intermittent capacity needs to be backed by something else. Right now, that's gas turbines. Fracking will make this feasible for ~30 years, beyond that we need something else. The Hubbert's work in oil is not really applicable to Uranium, simply because there are effectively unlimited reserves of it at an economically acceptable price points and fantastic EROEI levels.