Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Crude Oil and Water: How Climate Change is Threatening our Two Most Precious Commodities - Richard_Mills
2.The Potential $54 Trillion Cost Of The Fed's Planned Interest Rate Increases - Dan_Amerman
3.Best Cash ISA Savings for Rising UK Interest Rates and High Inflation - March 2018 - Nadeem_Walayat
4.Fed Interest Hikes, US Dollar, and Gold - Zeal_LLC
5.What Happens Next after February’s Stock Market Selloff - Troy_Bombardia
6.The 'Beast from the East' UK Extreme Snow Weather - Sheffield Day 2 - N_Walayat
7.Currencies Will Be ‘Flushed Down the Toilet’ Triggering a ‘Mad Rush into Gold’ - MoneyMetals
8.Significant Decline In Stocks On The Cards! -Enda_Glynn
9.Land Rover Discovery Sport Extreme Driving "Beast from the East" Snow Weather Test - N_Walayat
10.SILVER Large Specualtors Net Short Position 15 Year Anniversary - Clive_Maund
Last 7 days
Will Powell’s Actions Pop Stock Market Perfection - 21st Mar 18
Economic Moral Hazards of the International Criminal Court - and Philippines Withdrawal - 21st Mar 18
Larry Kudlow vs. Vladimir Putin on Gold - 21st Mar 18
Trump Builds Economy and War Machine - 21st Mar 18
This Stock Market "Illusion" Can Destroy Once-Vibrant Portfolios - 21st Mar 18
Gold Short-term Pull Back in Progress - 20th Mar 18
Stocks Appear to be Under Pressure - 20th Mar 18
Time To Eliminate Your Wall Street Tax? - 20th Mar 18
The Beast from the East Snow, UK Roads Driving Car Accidents - 20th Mar 18
Can Bitcoin Price Rally Continue After Paypal Fake FUD Attack? - 19th Mar 18
2018 Reversal Dates for Gold, Silver and Gold Stocks - 19th Mar 18
This Tech Breakthrough Could Save The Electric Car Market - 19th Mar 18
Stocks Set to Open Lower, Should You Buy? - 19th Mar 18
The Wealth Machine That Rising Interest Rates Create Conflict With The National Debt - 19th Mar 18
Affiliate Marketing Tips and Network Recommendations - 19th Mar 18
Do Stocks Bull Market Tops Need Breadth Divergences? - 19th Mar 18
Doritos Instant £500 Win! Why Super Market Shelves are Empty - 19th Mar 18
Bonds, Inflation & the Market Amigos - 19th Mar 18
US Housing Real Estate Market and Banking Pressures Are Building - 19th Mar 18
Stock Market Bulls Last Stand? - 18th Mar 18
Putin Flip-Flops Like A Drunken Whore On Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Legalization - 18th Mar 18
How to Legally Manipulate Interest Rates - 18th Mar 18
Return of Stock Market Volatility Amidst Political Chaos and Uncertain Economy - 18th Mar 18
Bitcoin Price Trend Forecast, Paypal FUD Fake Cryptocurrency Warning - 17th Mar 18
Strong Earnings Growth is Bullish for Stocks - 17th Mar 18
The War on the Post Office - 17th Mar 18
GDX Gold Mining Stocks Fundamentals - 16th Mar 18
Nationalism, Not the Russians, got Trump Elected - 16th Mar 18
Has Bitcoin Bought It? - 16th Mar 18
Crude Oil Price – Who Wants the Triangle? - 16th Mar 18
PayPal Cease Trading Crypto Currency Bitcoin Warning Email Sophisticated Fake Scam? - 16th Mar 18
EUR/USD – Something Old, Something New and… Something Blue - 16th Mar 18
DasCoin: A 5-Minute Guide to How It Works - 15th Mar 18
Stock Market Downward Pressure Mounting - 15th Mar 18
The Stock Market Trend is Your Friend ’til the Very End - 15th Mar 18
6 Easy Ways to Get What Women Want, for Less! - 15th Mar 18
This Isn’t Your Grandfather’s (1960s) Inflation Scare - 15th Mar 18
Eye Opening Stock Market Index, Volatility, Charts and Predictions - 15th Mar 18
Gold Cup At Cheltenham – Gold Is For Winners, Not For Gamblers - 15th Mar 18
Upcoming Turnaround in Gold - 14th Mar 18
Will the Stock Market Make Another Correction this Year? - 14th Mar 18
4 Ways To Writing An Interesting Education Research Paper - 14th Mar 18
China Toward Sustainable Economic Growth - 14th Mar 18
Stock Market Direction Is No Longer Important - 14th Mar 18
Trade Tariffs Defeat Globalists and Return Prosperity - 14th Mar 18
Stock Market Crash is Underway and Cannot be Stopped! - 14th Mar 18
Are Energy Sector Stocks Bottoming? - 14th Mar 18
Nasdaq Stocks Soars to New Record High After Strong Job Reports - 14th Mar 18

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Urgent Stock Market Message

Peak Uranium - And Other Threats To Nuclear Power

Commodities / Uranium Apr 14, 2011 - 10:18 AM GMT

By: Andrew_McKillop


Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleWe have nearly all heard about Peak Oil despite doubts on very basic elements like how we define “oil” compared with oil condensed from natural gas, but the possibility of there simply not being enough uranium to keep present and planned reactor fleets going is new.

The case for Peak Uranium is made by several nuclear experts, such as Dr Michael Dittmar of CERN

In brief, Dittmar argues that the most worrying problem is the belief that uranium is plentiful. It is in fact quite a rare mineral, with a crustal abundance about 4 parts per million, ranking it far less abundant than many minerals and metals we consume in large quantities. The world’s 440-odd nuclear plants (Japan having lost several, making it difficult to give an exact number in operation) ate through about 68,000 tons of uranium in 2010, but uranium mining industry supplied only 55,000 tons. The rest came from secondary sources including mining stocks, reactor building company stocks, reprocessed “spent” fuel, recycled atomic warheads, and military uranium sources, among others.

As Dittmar says:

“....without access to military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013”, writing before the late 2010 agreement by Obama and Medvedev to further extend the “Megatons to Megawatts” programme.

Dismantling mainly Russian surplus atomic warheads will therefore continue, but with considerable and calculated lack of clarity on how long bomb stocks and security considerations will allow this, and the exact tonnages that will be made available.

This lack of clarity has many reasons including the technical details of what types of highly enriched uranium and other materials, including plutonium, recovered from the atomic weapons and supplied by Russia's TENEX , then “down blended” with weakly enriched uranium, and other materials. The reactor fuel priduced is similar to MOX fuel, also produced by “down blending”, of spent reactor fuel contaminated by highly active and very dangerous long-lived radionuclides, especially plutonium, and notably used in one of the stricken Fukushima reactors.


In fact this source of “cut down” fuel, produced from atom bomb warheads is completely unable to cover more than around 9 percent of current total civil reactor fuel needs (about 68 000 tons in 2010), despite brave claims that it covers “at least 15 percent” of world needs and “45 percent of US needs”. Through simple scarcity, and shown every day by uranium sector buy-outs and financial operations, the world's reactor operating companies are forced to look absolutely everywhere for more uranium.

In addition they are also forced to think of ways how they might no longer depend on uranium as the main fuel for nuclear reactors in a rapidly approaching future.

Obviously this would require the design, development, financing and building of an entirely “new generation” of electricity generating reactors and the extremely expensive replacement of the world's exisiting reactors.

What we find is that countries relying on imported uranium such as Japan, the UK, Germany, France and in fact the bulk of other “old nuclear” countries, and the emerging economy giants China and India, already face recurring uranium shortages.

This shortage is already acute, and may become very large by as soon as 2013.


The simple and basic shortage of uranium of course immediately challenges the supposed “silver bullet” image of nuclear power ensuring high levels of energy security in a troubled world, that is claimed by the nuclear lobby and promoted by many governments. What in reality we find is that the fundamentals of uranium supply and demand are decidedly not “nuclear friendly”.

The Achilles heel of uranium shortage has mothered a host of imaginative, but unworkable solutions, or claimed solutions to the problem. New technologies such as fast-fission breeder reactors generating more plutonium fuel than they consume, nuclear fusion machines (also heavily criticized by Michael Dittmar), thorium reactors which are particularly promoted by India, and underground 'build and forget' reactors are among the many quick fix solutions on offer.

A large number of nuclear experts are pessimistic about fast breeders. In the words of Dittmar:   “Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant,”. To this we can add that the environmental, human health, and weapons proliferation implications of building up massive national stockpiles of plutonium would be extreme, in the event of the so-called “plutonium economy” ever coming about.

To be sure the USA and Russia have good reason to continue “recycling” atomic weapons and recovering reactor fuel from them. According to the USA's specially created and tightly controlled entity charged with “recycling warheads” from Russia to feed US civil reactors – the USEC – this nuclear material replaced 'about 45 percent' of US uranium fuel needs in 2009, but many independent observers doubt this claim.


Megatons to Megawatts is periodically given large media attention because of the nice image of old and surplus atom bomb warheads of Russia and the USA, dating from the Cold War are being turned into fuel, but this immediately underlines one especially dangerous fact.

The difference between “nuclear civil” and “nuclear military” is very slight, and always has been.

Well may the UN's IAEA atomic agency proclaim that it seeks to increase and enhance the use of peaceful nuclear power, while also acting as the “nuclear proliferation cop”, but nuclear electricity inevitably produces the basic materials for making nuclear weapons. As we are painfully reminded today with the Fukushima disaster, categorized at 7 on the IAEA's INES scale of nuclear accidents – the same as Chernobyl – civil nuclear power is above all dangerous and polluting when accidents occur, as they inevitably do.

By mid-April the Fukushima disaster has been estimated as spewing about 15 times more radiation into the environment than the total from the Hiroshima atom bomb of 1945, that is about one-tenth as much as the final and total radiation release from the Chernobyl disaster, which probably killed more than 150 000 pesons.

The consequences of the Fukushima disaster for human health, farm animals, fish, and food crops in the affected areas will of course be disastrous, as they were at Chernobyl.

The vaunted promise of atomic energy's promoters – that it turns swords to ploughshares – is once again refuted by the real world, as civil nuclear power turns atom bombs into a vast defragmented array of cancerous radiation products.

Together with the Achilles heel of not enough fuel, even for the world's present reactor fleet, this underscores the very strong case for abandoning nuclear power, seeking alternatives, and using less electricity 

By Andrew McKillop


Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop Biographic Highlights

Andrew McKillop has more than 30 years experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary, AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO.

© 2011 Copyright Andrew McKillop - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.

© 2005-2018 - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Dr. Max Ward
14 Apr 11, 20:16
Chinas solution to 'Peak Uranium'

I'm a retired scientist. (power generation industry)

Considering Chinas Thorium plans, the "strong case for abandoning nuclear power" is fast evaporating!

In Feb 2011, China announced that it plans to mass-produce and export thousands of transportable Thorium LFTR units which will gradually replace coal-fired boilers in existing electricity plants worldwide. This announcement will drastically change the whole 'renewable energy' and 'carbon price' debate.

Quoting the Vs20 group.. "These reactors cannot melt-down; have no moving parts; No pressure vessel; they self-regulate and need no staff on-site.

These small power plants will also solve the final hurdles for a massive adoption of Electric Vehicles.

1. Abundant 'carbon free' electricity. (A fifth the price of coal-fired)

2. Local generation of the enormous amount of electricity required by millions of electric vehicles. Few realize how many 'megawatt hours' are in a tank of petrol!

3. Local generation also solves the problem of our reliance on a massive National Grid. And that our existing grid is NOT remotely capable of powering electric vehicles! And the fact that a single ice-storm can black-out 50 million people!

The world has been waiting 50 years for someone with enough money to perfect these reactors. India, Japan, Russia & USA are now all defensively stepping up their LFTR research!

It is ironic that many Senators in the USA have died of old age while trying to lobby for Thorium funding. One little announcement from China and everything changes! China sees this as a way to boost it's sagging export revenue and will invest billions of dollars in this lucrative market.

There is a good article on "zero-carbon-electricity" at www

Tony Wildish
15 Apr 11, 10:12
Peak uranium? A misleading argument that doesn't add up

Dr Dittmar would do well to take a look at

4ppm may well be the average distribution, but there are significant deposits at far higher density. Uranium is also recoverable from seawater at near-competitive prices.

Even 4 ppm is hardly that rare. It's on a par with tin, and about 1000 times more abundant than gold.

The market for uranium doesn't change that fast. New reactors don't come online every day, the mining industry typically has a few years notice of the change in demand. That's enough time for them to open up capacity, and there's no point in digging it up until it's needed.

Finally, are we really expected to believe that, worldwide, all of the people who have constructed these expensive reactors have forgotten to think about fuel for them? Does that really sound plausible? I think not.

Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules