Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy

http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear.htm

<snip>

Uranium production is subject to the same “Hubbert” cycle which characterised US oil production, which peaked in 1970. In spite of improved extraction technology it has declined since then, so in that in 2005 around 65% of US oil demand will be imported. An individual uranium mine provides a rapid build-up followed by uniform production over 5 –10 years after which it declines and is closed. To maintain supply a series of mines have to be opened in succession. The aggregate of the individual mine supply curves produces a world “Hubbert” peak in uranium production which will eventually limit the level of “once-through” nuclear power generation, whereby spent fuel is not re-cycled.

<snip>

In 2004 world annual mine production totalled only 39,000 tonnes/annum of uranium, of which Canada produced 12,000 tonnes and Australia 9,000 tonnes resp. Only Canada has reserves of high grade ore, while the grade of the ores remaining in Australia progressively lowers. The balance of 29,000 tonnes required to meet the 2004 nuclear generators’ demand for 68,000 tonnes/annum came from inventories, ex-weapons material, MOX and re-worked mine tailings. This secondary uranium supply is due to run out within a decade, so primary production would have to be increased 150-fold to match the anticipated global energy needs exclusively from nuclear power in 2020. (3)

<snip>

There is a current world building programme of around 23 new stations, with some 39 further stations on order or planned. Some existing stations are having their operational life extended and some are now being de-commissioned. The current uranium fuel consumption of 68,000 tonnes/annum supports 441 operating stations averaging 834 MWe capacity.

As the secondary sources of uranium, which currently provide 40% of the fuel demand are expected to be exhausted by 2012, many of the operating stations will close within a decade for lack of fuel, depending on how many have become obsolete and closed, how many have their operation lives extended and how many are built and commissioned in the intervening period.

<more>

but reducing if not eliminating the concept of "nuclear waste" altogether?

The former makes highly radioactive and extremely difficult to handle. It has a half-life of ~69 years and would take a long time to decay to levels that would allow it to be handled routinely.

The latter is a fission poison (it absorbs neutrons required to sustain the nuclear chain reaction). The 235U content of spent uranium would have to be enriched considerably to make into a useful reactor fuel (at great expense in terms of $$$ and energy invested).

No nation that reprocesses spent fuel uses spent uranium.

...and the cost of reprocessed plutonium is extraordinarily high: ~$2000 per kg (as opposed to ~$30 a pound for uranium on the spot market).

It ain't no bargain...

...of any type, is marginal. Most of the cost of a reactor is down to to capital and running costs: Trebling or quadrupling the cost of fuel has little impact on the cost of the power produced. Maybe a 1 or 2%, at most.

radioactive waste - for thousands of years (assuming of course this really can be done.)

Who wrote this? I could not find an authors name or credentials anywhere.

I think we do need to include nuclear power as part of an overall plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels along with solar, wind, and other sources.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Other options include increased efficiency, renewables, and carbon sequestration, and all may be needed for a successful greenhouse gas management strategy. This study, addressed to government, industry, and academic leaders, discusses the interrelated technical, economic, environmental, and political challenges facing a significant increase in global nuclear power utilization over the next half century and what might be done to overcome those challenges.

This study was supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and by MIT's Office of the Provost and Laboratory for Energy and the Environment.


MIT RELEASES INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY ON "THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY"

Professors John Deutch and Ernest Moniz Chaired Effort to Identify Barriers and Solutions
for Nuclear Option in Reducing Greenhouse Gases

July 29, 2003

Washington, D.C. – A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy."

The report maintains that "The nuclear option should be retained precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power."

"Fossil fuel-based electricity is projected to account for more than 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions by 2020," said Deutch. "In the U.S. 90% of the carbon emissions from electricity generation come from coal-fired generation, even though this accounts for only 52% of the electricity produced. Taking nuclear power off the table as a viable alternative will prevent the global community from achieving long-term gains in the control of carbon dioxide emissions."

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. <snip>

make lots of little lights shine, instead of that instant megaton glow.

What we need is solar power satellites that beam power down with microwaves; fusion reactors that can run on the hydrogen isotopes, and basically a couple of lunar power station.

Fission lets us keep running long enough to get moon bases built and power satellites in orbit, and lets us get people off of earth so the when next meteor that smashes into Texas kills everything on the planet that weighs more than 10 kilos, we don't lose it all. Once we have a permanent base in space, we can capture the solar wind for power, we can send crews to the asteroid belt to push raw materials back towards earth, and we can think about getting to Jupiter to pick up fusion fuels.

It's science fiction now, but forty years ago, so were iPods. If we are ever going to preserve this planet, we've got to stop living so hard on it. And that means we have to live elsewhere.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4026.html

Uranium prices are set to climb - supplies dwindle even as Asia builds more nuclear reactors

<snip>

"We've got customers who are highly-concerned about the supply chain of uranium," said Brook at WMC, who is also in charge of the company's uranium marketing. "I can assure you the pricing that they have in mind is not going backward. Our expansion and one planned by Cameco won't fill the gap" between supply and demand, he said.

World demand will outpace supply by 11 percent in the decade ending in 2013 as inventories decline, the World Nuclear Association estimates.

The decline in stockpiles has been hastened by the decision of Russia, the world's biggest uranium exporter after Canada, in October 2003 to limit its exports to conserve fuel for 25 plants it wants to build by 2020.

Reactor fuel made from former Russian nuclear weapons powers one out of every 10 U.S. homes, according to the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute trade group.

<more>

When it's so cheap overseas, and you don't have to deal with those pesky environmental rules.

A doubling of uranium price would affect the cost of nuclear generated electricity by what percent?

If the world supply of Uranium is in such doubt, why did the MIT study not mention that as one of it's four concerns with nuclear power?

for a dwindling supply.

France, Japan, the UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland and Mexico import all of their uranium.

India and China are importing large quantities of uranium as well.

The US is heavily dependant on imported uranium (>65% annual consumption). US uranium production peaked in 1980 at ~43 million pounds per year.

US reactors currently consume ~62 million pounds of uranium each year - US mines produce ~2 million pounds per year. Stockpiles of uranium accumulated in the '70's and early '80's are making up the shortfall in production and demand. When those run out, the US will be almost entirely dependent on foreign uranium.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0903.html

At no time in its entire history did US mines produce enough uranium to satisfy domestic demand - let alone an expanded reactor program.

China and Japan are locking in their future uranium supplies - and locking the rest of the world (including the US) out.

Russia has halted uranium exports to ensure they will have enough domestic supply to satisfy their expanded nuclear program. If Canada and Australia expand their nuclear programs, will they keep their uranium for themselves???

In the event of a preemptive US nuclear strike against Iran's "peaceful" nuclear infrastructure, would Australia and Canada ban the export of uranium to the US??????

Japanese interests recently bought a share in a New Mexico uranium mine. We will be exporting US uranium to Japan during a period increasing uranium imports.

Go figure.

Nuclear power is a stop-gap dead-end technology and completely unsustainable.

Why shovel more money into this pit when sustainable alternatives are available?????

Why didn't MIT address this??

Good question.

"The US is heavily dependant on imported uranium (>65% annual consumption). US uranium production peaked in 1980 at ~43 million pounds per year."

This statement doesn't mean, nor does it imply, that the US is unable to provide it's own Uranium, only that the US Uranium market is unwilling to supply it's own Uranium at current prices.

There's a 'Hubbard's Peak' for all resources, even those you espouse: there are only so many sites that can produce wind or solar electricity at any given price.

Part I
Part II

It's worth reading both parts and the dialogue in the comments if you're interested in the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I believe nuclear will only be part of a mix of interim energy-producing and energy-saving technologies until we move to orbital and lunar solar, or possibly fusion, for our long term energy needs. But the idea of "peak uranium" is misleading. Plenty of uranium does exist, but we will have to change from mining to harvesting it from seawater.

every year to satisfy current global uranium demand is enormous.

The concentration of uranium in seawater is 3.3 micro-grams per liter.

Global uranium demand is currently ~68,000 tonnes per year.

Assuming 100% extraction efficiency, we would have the process ~21,000 cubic kilometers of seawater each year (and much much more at realistic extraction efficiencies) to meet current demand - that's 38 times the average annual discharge of the Mississippi River and 290 times the volume of Chesapeake Bay.

Furthermore, if the cation exchange material is deployed in its hydrogen ion form (H+ binding to the exchange sites) it will acidify the water it processes.

The claimed adsorption capacity of this material is also several times greater than any commercially available cation or anion exchange resin used by chemical oceanographers. The authors also claim that microbial biofouling does not interfere with the adsorption characteristics of this material.

These are "extraordinary" claims and need to be independently verified by marine chemists. It's all a little "too-good-to-be-true" and I'm highly skeptical...

Seawater extraction of uranium = pie-in-the-sky

(and thanks for the Peak Oil Debunked website link...)

Personally, I had no idea that seawater was in short supply. I'm pretty sure we can find 21,000km³ of seawater: try looking in the seas, I think there's some there.

As to acidifying the oceans, you never commented on the CO² produced by PV production. That winds up in the oceans too, y'know. Or do you think PV carbon is different from "normal" carbon? Another point you didn't answer, like your claim that PV silicon production is different from "normal" silicon.

As to if the claims "need to be independently verified by marine chemists", I'd point out that the claims are made by chemists in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal. Is "marine chemistry" different from normal chemistry?

recovered which is useful:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/207-uranium-from-seawater-part-1.html



"You need to understand that most of the uraniums are not useful nuclear fuels. There are U238 and U235. You need U235, which is one part of 137 part of total Uranium.

They harvested 1 kg of Uranium in terms of yellow cake. Of these, there is maybe 7 gram of the useful U235. That, at the cost of 350 kg of specially made material and one years of operation of the facility. You have got to wonder whether that 7 gram of U235 would give you back enough energy to pay back the energy cost of manufacturing the special material and the operation of the facility. So, ah ha, EROEI gets in your way again.

The earth does not lack Uranium, which is more abundant than even the lead. But the earth lacks economically mineable uranium. Uranium from the sea water may not be economical, in terms of EROEI.

Quantoken"

I noted a while back that the "Union of concerned scientists" - more anti-nuke rubbish - have a policy of getting 25% of electricity from renewable resources, and nothing beyond that.

The anti-nuke mob tend not have a replacement policy: Except for "sortir du nucleaire" of france, who want a massive coal program. Dipshits.

With oil, we've covered the entire planet and pretty much know where all of the significant deposits are.

Is this also true for uranium?