Best of the Week
Most Popular
1.UK General Election BBC Exit Polls Forecast Accuracy - Nadeem_Walayat
2.UK General Election 2017 Seats Final Forecast, Labour, Conservative Lib-Dem, SNP - Nadeem_Walayat
3.UK General Election 2017 Forecast: Conservative 358, Labour 212 Seats - Nadeem_Walayat
4.Theresa May to Resign, Fatal Error Was to Believe Worthless Opinion Polls! - Nadeem_Walayat
5.UK House Prices Forecast General Election 2017 Conservative Seats Result - Nadeem_Walayat
6.The Stock Market Crash of 2017 That Never Was But Could it Still Come to Pass? - Sol_Palha
7.[TRADE ALERT] Write This Gold Stock Ticker Down Now - WallStreetNation
8.UK General Election Results Map 2017 vs 2015 vs Opinion Polls - Nadeem_Walayat
9.Orphaned Poisoned Waters,Severe Chronic Water Shortage Imminent - Richard_Mills
10.How The Smart Money Is Playing The Lithium Boom - OilPrice_Com
Last 7 days
Gold Back With A Vengeance As Bitcoin Bubble Bursts - 26th Jun 17
Crude Oil Trade & Nasdaq QQQ Update - 26th Jun 17
Gold and Silver Ongoing Consolidation May End Soon - 25th Jun 17
Dollar May Become “Local Currency of the U.S.” Only - 25th Jun 17
Sheffield Great Flood of 2007, 10 Years On - Unique Timeline of What Happened - 24th Jun 17
US Stock Market Correction Could be Underway - 24th Jun 17
Proof That This Economic Recovery Narrative is False - 24th Jun 17
Best Cash ISA for Soaring Inflation, Kent Reliance Illustrates the Great ISA Rip Off - 24th Jun 17
Gold Summer Doldrums - 23rd Jun 17
Hedgers Net Short the Euro, US Market Rotates; 2 Horsemen Set to Ride? - 23rd Jun 17
Nether Edge By Election Result: Labour Win Sheffield City Council Seat by 132 Votes - 23rd Jun 17
Grenfell Fire: 600 of 4000 Tower Blocks Ticking Time Bomb Death Traps! - 22nd Jun 17
Car Sales About To Go Over The Cliff - 22nd Jun 17
LOG 0.786 support in CRUDE OIL and COCOA - 22nd Jun 17
More Stock Market Fluctuations Along New Record Highs - 22nd Jun 17
Understanding true money, Pound Sterling must make another historic low, Euro and Gold outlook! - 22nd Jun 17
Green Party Could Control Sheffield City Council Balance of Power Local Election 2018 - 22nd Jun 17
Ratio Combo Charts : Hidden Clues to the Gold Market Puzzle - 22nd Jun 17
Steem Hard Forks & Now People Are Making Even More Money On Blockchain Steemit - 22nd Jun 17
4 Steps for Comparing Binary Options Providers - 22nd Jun 17
Nether Edge & Sharrow By-Election, Will Labour Lose Safe Council Seat, Sheffield? - 21st Jun 17
Stock Market SPX Making New Lows - 21st Jun 17
Your Future Wealth Depends on what You Decide to Keep and Invest in Now - 21st Jun 17
Either Bitcoin Will Fail OR Bitcoin Is A Government Invention Meant To Enslave... - 21st Jun 17
Strength in Gold and Silver Mining Stocks and Its Implications - 21st Jun 17
Inflation is No Longer in Stealth Mode - 21st Jun 17
CRUDE OIL UPDATE- “0.30 risk is cheap for changing implication!” - 20th Jun 17
Crude Oil Verifies Price Breakdown – Or Is It Something More? - 20th Jun 17
Trump Backs ISIS As He Pushes US Onto Brink of World War III With Russia - 20th Jun 17
Most Popular Auto Trading Tools for trading with Stock Markets - 20th Jun 17
GDXJ Gold Stocks Massacre: The Aftermath - 20th Jun 17
Why Walkers Crisps Pay Packet Promotion is RUBBISH! - 20th Jun 17

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

The MRI 3D Report

Peak Uranium - And Other Threats To Nuclear Power

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

By: Andrew_McKillop

Commodities

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 http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/

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 http://www.tenex.ru/en/press/events/?id=311 , 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.

NOT ENOUGH FUEL

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.

RUBE GOLDBERG AND HEATH ROBINSON SOLUTIONS

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.  http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article24378.html

SWORDS TO PLOUGSHARES

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

Contact: xtran9@gmail.com

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.


© 2005-2017 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Comments

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 vs2020.com


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 http://theenergycollective.com/charlesbarton/35111/will-we-run-out-uranium.

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

Catching a Falling Financial Knife