[tt] Sciam: How long will the world's uranium supplies last?

[Eugen Leitl]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:15:25AM -0800, Mark Plus wrote:
> 
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
> 
> Ask the Experts -  January 26, 2009
> How long will the world's uranium supplies last?
> Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer
> 
> How long will global uranium deposits fuel the world's nuclear reactors at present consumption rates?

There are many problematic assumptions with this statement. 

Uranium deposits are less interesting than richness, geographic ore
distribution, mining damage and EROEI of uranium spent. Things
do not look good there. 

Present consumption rates are not very interesting, since some
1000 reactors need to be built until 2050 to meet the demand growth gap. 
Apart from the fact that we can't build them at that rate because
of production and financing bottlenecks, their presence would make
peak uranium happen around 2040.
 
> Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer:
> If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption.

Current rates of consumption, again.
 
> Most of the 2.8 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity generated worldwide from nuclear power every year is produced in light-water reactors (LWRs) using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. About 10 metric tons of natural uranium go into producing a metric ton of LEU, which can then be used to generate about 400 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, so present-day reactors require about 70,000 metric tons of natural uranium a year.
> 
> According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Extraction has to have an EROEI of 20:1 or better.
 
> Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Ash processing isn't happening in practice. Ash burial has huge technical issues (e.g. failed Halle
has to be fixed at taxpayer's expense).
 
> Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Extraction of uranium from seawater has negative EROEI. Fast breeders don't exist in reality.
Alternative fuel cycles (thorium, molten salt reactors) don't exist in reality. 

We need to have things fixed yesterday, not in 30 years. We don't have another 30 years.
 
> Editor's Note: This question was submitted by G. Peck of Seward, Alaska and will be printed in the March 2009 issue of Scientific American.

For some reason I see a distinct revival of old skool pro-nuclear lobby.
While I don't demonize indiscriminately, fission is more a problem than
a solution. Hopefully, we'll have thin-film PV roll out on time.
 
> 		--------------------
> "Around 2010 the world will be at a new orbit in history. . .  Life expectancy will be indefinite. Disease and disability will nonexist. Death wll be rare and accidental -- but not permanent. We will continuously jettison our obsolescence and grow younger." F.M. Esfandiary, "Up-Wing Priorities" (1981).
> http://www.box.net/shared/static/ay9lub60ha.pdf
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/10948503/Up-Wing-Priorities

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE