The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data?

This is the third part of a four-part guest post by Dr. Michael Dittmar. Dr. Dittmar is a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, and he also works at CERN in Geneva.

For more than 40 years, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations have published a bi-annual document with the title "Uranium Resources, Production and Demand." This book, known as the IAEA/NEA 2007 Red Book, summarizes data about the actual and near future nuclear energy situation and presents the accumulated world-wide knowledge about the existing and expected uranium resources. These data are widely believed to provide an accurate and solid basis for future decisions about nuclear energy. Unfortunately, as it is demonstrated in this article, they do not.

The conventional world-wide uranium resources are estimated by the authors of the Red Book as 5.5 million tons. Out of these, 3.3 million tons are assigned to the reasonably assured category, and 2.2 million tons are associated with the not yet discovered but assumed to exist inferred resources. Our analysis shows that neither the 3.3 million tons of "assured" resources nor the 2.2 million tons of inferred resources are justified by the Red Book data and that the actual known exploitable resources are probably much smaller.

Despite many shortcomings of the uranium resource data, some interesting and valu­able information can be extracted from the Red Book. Perhaps most importantly, the Red Book resource data can be used to test the "economic-geological hypothesis," which claims that a doubling of uranium price will increase the amount of exploitable uranium resources by an even larger factor. The relations between the uranium resources claimed for the different resource categories and their associated cost estimates are found to be in clear contradiction with this hypothesis.

(Links to 1st and 2nd parts)

1. Introduction

Policy makers almost never discuss uranium resources and many other important resource issues in public. One reason seems to be that most energy resources are still considered to be a non-issue, and consequently, are ignored by world-wide policy makers and their economic or academic advisors.

The rapid increase in crude oil prices in the spring of 2008 has led to an attitude change with respect to the oil resource situation. Ever more people start to pay attention to questions of geological and technological limits to oil extraction capacities. This has resulted in the wish to obtain accurate oil and gas resource data, especially from the OPEC countries [1].

In contrast, the uranium resources appear to be accurately documented in the Red Book: Uranium Resources, Production and Demand. In this book, updated every two years, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) of the United Nations together with the NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) of the OECD countries have presented, for more than 40 years [2], their collective knowledge about uranium resources and its use for civilian nuclear energy. The latest update, the 2007 edition, was published in June of 2008 [3]. This book provides more than 400 pages of detailed information about uranium resources in a large number of countries. A long history of reporting world-wide uranium resource data with an indicated accuracy of between 1/1000 and 1/10,000 is believed to demonstrate that reliable resource data are available. The findings of the Red Book 2007 edition were presented for example in a NEA press communiqué [4] as follows:

There is enough uranium known to exist to fuel the world's fleet of nuclear reactors at current consumption rates for at least a century, according to the latest edition of the world reference on uranium published today. Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, also known as the Red Book, estimates the identified amount of conventional uranium resources which can be mined for less than USD 130/kg* to be about 5.5 million tons, up from the 4.7 million tons reported in 2005. Undiscovered resources, i.e. uranium deposits that can be expected to be found based on the geological characteristics of already discovered resources, have also risen to 10.5 million tons. This is an increase of 0.5 million tons compared to the previous edition of the report. The increases are due to both new discoveries and re-evaluations of known resources, encouraged by higher prices. (* On 26 May 2008, the spot price for uranium was listed as USD 156/kg.)

After reading such a declaration, most people will obviously assume that the uranium supply situation is safe. Why should one even bother to look into the accumulated uranium data or doubt these well respected international organizations with their large scientific staff? As a consequence, individuals and organizations with different philosophical views about nuclear energy almost never question the objectivity and precision of these data [5].

Unfortunately, as shall be shown in the following, the Red Book uranium resource data do not measure up to their indicated levels of accuracy.

In this article, the third part of The Future of Nuclear Energy [6], we analyze the uranium resource data given in the Red Book 2007 [3]. First, we present and discuss the overall world-wide uranium resource data and their evolution in Section 2. In order to investigate the basis for these data, the uranium resource data for the 10 countries with more than 100,000 tons of reasonably assured resources (RAR) are analyzed in Section 3. Combined, these 10 countries represent about 80% of the world's total RAR and 95% of those RAR that are most economical, i.e., RAR that can be economically produced at a price of < 40 dollars/kg. As shall be demonstrated in detail, the Red Book 2007 uranium resource data often exhibit amazing changes with respect to previous Red Book editions, with some of these individual country resource changes appearing to be totally unbelievable.

In Section 4 of this article, the long-term uranium supply situation and its consequences for the future of conventional nuclear fission power plants will be summarized.

2. World-wide uranium resources and their evolution

As highlighted already in parts I and II of this report, the authors of the Red Book do not ignore the possibility that "uranium supply shortfalls could develop if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner." However, the media have essentially only reported the statement that "the identified conventional uranium resources have increased from 4.7 million tons in the previous edition to 5.5 million tons in the current edition of the Red Book." In the following, we shall analyze this apparent 20% increase in conventional uranium resources in detail. In order to do this, we start with the methodology on how the authors of the Red Book obtain their data and present the definitions of the different uranium resource categories.

2.1. Red Book methodology, resource categories and extraction costs

The authors of the Red Book describe the content and the methodology to obtain the relevant data in their own words as follows [7]:

"The Red Book features a comprehensive assessment of current uranium supply and demand and projections to the year 2030. The basis of this assessment is a comparison of uranium re­source estimates (according to categories of geological certainty and production cost) and mine production capability with anticipated uranium requirements arising from projections of installed nuclear capacity. In cases where longer-term projections of installed nuclear capacity were not provided by national authorities, projected demand figures were developed with input from expert authorities... The Red Book also includes a compilation and evaluation of previously published data on un­conventional uranium resources... This publication has been prepared on the basis of data obtained through questionnaires sent by the NEA to OECD member countries (19 countries responded) and by the IAEA for those states that are not OECD member countries (21 countries responded and one country report was prepared by the IAEA Secretariat). The opinions expressed in Parts I and II do not nec­essarily reflect the position of the member countries or international organizations concerned. This report is published on the responsibility of the OECD Secretary-General."

In Appendix 2 of the Red Book, a list of reporting organizations and contact persons is given for a large number of countries [8]. This list indicates that uranium resource data are a compilation of data from the different government agencies, sometimes supplemented by the data from private transnational mining companies. As large national and private interests are involved, the objectivity and the accuracy of the presented data are certainly not assured. Thus, the resource data do not represent the results of an accurate scientific analysis of geological data. Unfortunately, such possible shortcomings of these resource estimates and possible large uncertainties are not mentioned in the Red Book.

However, in absence of better data and in line with the required political consent from many countries, it seems that the editors of the Red Book try to encourage the different countries to provide useful and comparable resource data. As a result, using the US dollar as a universal standard, consistent categories for uranium resources are defined.

Unfortunately, a few comments presented in the Appendix 4 [9] seem to indicate that the Red Book resource data are not as accurate as otherwise stated.

For example it is written that:

  • "The categories are defined according to a believed level of confidence." Yet, associated probabilities for the believed existence of the resources are not quantified.
  • "The resource categories are defined in terms of the uranium recovery costs at the ore processing plant." However, no explanation on how this cost could have been calculated for "non-existing ore processing plants" in "not yet known environments" is offered. It must therefore be concluded that such estimates are highly speculative.
  • "It is not intended that the cost categories should follow (undefined) fluctuations in market conditions" [10]. This can only mean that cost estimates have been done independently from the mining costs. Not everybody will agree that the increased mining costs of the past few years, related among other things to the energy costs and in particular to the oil price, are just simple "market fluctuations."

In summary, the used methodology leaves some "freedom" on how the correspondents from the different countries should present their resource data. This "freedom" could explain some large RAR resource changes found for different countries from subsequent Red Book editions.

The uranium resources are separated into "conventional" and "non-conventional" re­sources. The conventional resources are divided into Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) and the believed-to-exist Inferred Resources (IR). The RAR and IR categories are further subdivided according to the assumed exploitation cost in US dollars. These cost categories are given as < 40 dollars/kg, < 80 dollars/kg, and < 130 dollars/kg.

The non-conventional resources are split into "Undiscovered Resources (UR)," further separated into "Undiscovered Prognosticated Resources (UPR)" with assumed cost ranges of < 80 dollars/kg and < 130 dollars/kg, and "Undiscovered Speculative Re­sources (USR)." The USR numbers are given for an estimated exploitation cost of < 130 dollars/kg and also for a category with unknown cost.

For the purpose of this analysis, the data from the inclusive "< x dollars/kg" categories are used to calculate the sometimes more informative exclusive resource data with extraction costs between 40-80 dollars/kg and 80-130 dollars/kg.

A critical reader of the Red Book will express doubts about the quality of the data, when only roughly known numbers are given with an unbelievable precision of 0.1% or better. In this respect, it seems to be an ironic mistake that the best known numbers in the RAR categories are given with an accuracy of 1/1000 but the speculative IR and UR categories are presented with an accuracy of 1/10,000, although some progress has been made since the Red Book 2005 edition, when the claimed accuracy was presented with an accuracy of 1 part per million. Names like "Undiscovered Resources" and "Undiscovered Speculative Resources" should leave the reader with serious doubts about the reliability of the claims made concerning the amount of uranium available in these categories in spite of the claimed accuracy.

A more accurate assessment methodology would include effects from changes in uranium mining technology and its related costs, the quality of the mining equipment, the oil price, salaries, and the often ignored huge costs to repair environmental damages following previous uranium exploration. In addition, detailed information should be provided on (1) how variations of the dollar exchange rate have modified the resource data, and (2) how past uranium extractions have been taken into account.

We leave it to the reader to reflect on the question whether the used Red Book methodology results in accurate estimates for the discovered and undiscovered uranium resources.

2.2. The economic-geological hypothesis about uranium resources

According to geological estimates, we know that uranium is not a particularly rare metal. Expressed in the words of the relevant WNA document, we are being informed that [11]:

"Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentra­tions of it are not uncommon."

Table 1 shows uranium or grade concentrations for different minerals in the earth crust and in sea water given in parts per million (ppm).


Table 1: The numbers are taken from the August 2009 version of the WNA information paper "Supply of uranium" [11]. The * in the WNA document is associated with very low grade uranium mining from the Rossing mine in Namibia. The document [11] states: "If uranium is at low levels in rock or sands (certainly less than 1000 ppm), it needs to be in a form which is easily separated for those concentrations to be called 'ore' - that is, implying that the uranium can be recovered economically. This means that it needs to be in a mineral form that can easily be dissolved by sulfuric acid or sodium carbonate leaching."

It is generally accepted that the producible amount of uranium increases dramatically if ore with a lower concentration of uranium can be economically mined. K.S. Deffeyes and I.D. MacGregor [12] have estimated by generally accepted geological methods that this trend must continue until the average uranium concentration of 2.8 ppm is reached. According to Deffeyes and MacGregor, one may expect that the amount of extractable uranium increases approximately by a factor of 300, if the grade of economically exploitable ore decreases by one order of magnitude. However, they also added the usually ignored statement that:

No rigorous statistical basis exists for expecting a log-normal distribution. This is just an approximate argument as the enormously complex range of geochemical behavior of uranium and its wide variety of different [chemical] binds [determine] the economic deposit. (The two words placed in brackets were added by the author.)

It is thus important to keep in mind that resource calculations based on the above methods may ignore important factors that limit the amount of even­tually extractable uranium. For example, one could imagine that a hypothetical super-rich amount of highly concentrated uranium ore exists a few hundred meters below surface. However, if these rocks are isolated from each other and from any other interesting mineral concentration, it can be safely assumed that sizable amounts of these rocks will never be extracted. Thus, in addition to the av­erage ore concentration, one finds that the amount of uranium available at this concentration, its chemical composition, and its surroundings play all an important role in a potential extraction and the associated energy cost.

A consequence of this hypothesis is that, no matter which growth scenario is being assumed, sufficient uranium resources exist in theory if the extraction cost is allowed to increase. It is usually added that the uranium price has only a negligible effect on the overall production cost of the kWhe. Arguments that, instead of the monetary price, the energy return on energy invested (EROEI) needs to be taken into account are usually dismissed with the comment that current uranium extraction costs are small compared to other production costs, and the very-low grade Rossing mine in Namibia is often given as a proof that we can still go a long way before the extraction cost will become a determining factor [13].

However, rather than exchanging endless arguments about the limitations of this approach, we propose to use the Red Book uranium resource data base to test the above hypothesis, called in the following the economic-geological hypothesis. This can be done fairly easily as the Red Book quantifies the RAR and IR uranium resources according to almost equal and increasing cost intervals of 40 and 50 dollars, respectively. According to this hypothesis, much larger uranium quantities are expected for the higher cost categories.

The economically-extractable-uranium-resources-are-limited hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis assumes that uranium is no different in its use in the energy sector in comparison with any other energy resource. Consequently, the "law of diminishing returns" applies also to uranium, and the economical exploitation and use of uranium can be determined in accordance with the following arguments:

  • The usage of uranium starts with the finding and exploitation of the big and high-ore grade uranium deposits.
  • Once the "big elephants" have been hunted, one turns to smaller and lower-grade uranium deposits. One tries to keep on going by developing and using better and better technology.
  • Eventually, the interesting deposits at the mine become too small and too diluted, and the production is terminated. This moment is reached in a similar way for oil and for uranium, and according to the argument of M. K. Hubbert [14] when he replied to David Nissen of Exxon:

"[T]here is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be."

While this hypothesis is theoretically very attractive, it cannot be used easily to make a quantitative test. For example, the energy extraction cost and the total energy cost are rarely given in the required detail. Furthermore, it is essentially impossible to quantify the potential "next round of technological improvements." For example, breakthrough new reactor concepts, based on the fuel breeding concept and including perhaps the use of thorium, and much better (but so far unknown) uranium extraction techniques can always be imagined. Thus, as is the case with the peak oil hypothesis, most people will accept this idea only, once an exact peak date for the nuclear energy can be determined. This, of course, can be done only some time after the final decline has become obvious.

2.3. Evolution of uranium resources according to the Red Book

2.3.1. A consistency check of the NEA press declaration

We now turn to two claims made in the 2007 edition of the Red Book (abbreviated in the following as RB07) and transmitted by their own press declaration to the media [4]:

  1. "There is enough uranium known to exist to fuel the world's fleet of nuclear reactors at current consumption rates for at least a century, according to the latest edition of the world reference on uranium published today. Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and De­mand, also known as the Red Book, estimates the identified amount of conventional uranium resources which can be mined for less than USD 130/kg to be about 5.5 million tons, up from the 4.7 million tons reported in 2005."
  2. "The currently identified resources are adequate to meet the expansion of nuclear power plants from 372 GWe in 2007 to between 509 GWe (+38%) and 663 GWe (+80%) by 2030."

Let us recalculate the numbers presented to the media. The yearly uranium needs to operate the existing nuclear power plants with the 2009 capacity of 370 GWe are about 65,000 tons. As it is claimed above and quantified in the RB07, the conventional uranium resources of 5.5 million tons are the sum of the RAR (< 130 dollars/kg), given as 3,338,300 tons, and the believed to exist IR (< 130 dollars/kg), given as 2,130,600 tons. Following this logic, a simple division tells us that these 5.5 million tons of uranium resources, at constant usage, are sufficient at best for 85 years or "almost a century" and not for "at least a century"!

Furthermore, a more cautious press declaration would perhaps state that:

"The well known RAR numbers have remained roughly constant during the past years, and these known resources are sufficient to operate the current world's reactor fleet for about 51 years. However, since the amount of believed-to-exist IR resources has increased by about 700,000 tons, another 34 years can be added if this additional IR uranium can indeed be extracted."

Next, we can ask ourselves how long the conventional uranium resources will last under the conditions of +38% or +80% growth scenarios between 2007 and 2030.

Given these growth assumptions, the yearly natural uranium requirements would be between 90,000 tons/year and 115,000 tons/year by the year 2030.

For simplicity, we may assume that the above increase is to be achieved with an average 23 year growth rate of +1.4%/year and +2.5%/year, respectively. Following this growth model, between 1.76 and 2.02 million tons of uranium will have been used already by the year 2030. By the year 2030, the world reactor fleet will need between 90,000 tons/year and 115,000 tons/year. If one assumes furthermore the unlikely case that nuclear energy will remain constant after 2030, the claimed conventional uranium resources from 2007 could thus fuel the 509 GWe power plants scenario up to the year 2071 and the 663 GWe scenario up to the year 2060. Consequently, one finds that the operating life-span of the reactors built during the years 2020 to 2030 will be limited by the amount of identified fuels and not by the expected 60 year life-time.

These simple examples show that the claims made in the NEA press declaration are not justified by their own data, as documented in RB07.

2.3.2. A 20% increase of conventional uranium resources?

As the reported increase of conventional uranium resources between 2005 and 2007 is relatively large, it might be interesting to learn, where and in which price category the increase has happened. Furthermore, one might be curious to see, how the reduced dollar value and the increased mining costs are reflected in the pseudo-precise resource data, and whether a reduction accounting for the yearly uranium extraction is included for the different countries.

We first present, Tables 2-5, the world total resource estimates for the different categories and their evolution as given in the last 4 Red Book editions from 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007, respectively [15]. In order to simplify the discussion, the numbers are recalculated such that the uranium amounts for a given cost interval can be compared. Table 2 shows the evolution of the conven­tional resources since 2001. As one can see, the always highlighted huge increase is essentially only associated with changes in the undiscovered-but-believed-to-exist IR resources. Fur­thermore, the presented RAR data do not indicate that the yearly uranium extraction of roughly 40,000 tons has been taken into account. Tables 3 and 4 show the corresponding evolutions for the RAR and IR categories, split according to the estimated extraction cost range.


Table 2: Evolution of the conventional uranium resources split into the reasonably assured resource (RAR) and the inferred resource (IR) categories from the latest four Red Book editions. Especially remarkable is the fact that the RAR numbers have increased by only a small amount and remained essentially unchanged since 2003. Hence the claimed large increase in conventional uranium resources since 2001 and especially during the past 4 years is only based on an increase in the IR numbers.


Table 3: Evolution of the reasonably assured resource (RAR) category from the latest four Red Book editions. Especially remarkable is that the highest uranium numbers are found in the lowest cost category and this category has, after regular large increases, suddenly decreased since 2005 by about 180,000 tons.

The RAR numbers, even though claimed to be known with incredible precision, fluc­tuate by a large amount. The drop of 180,000 tons in the cheapest and best understood < 40 dollars/kg category between 2005 and 2007 is remarkable, and more details about this reduction will be given in Section 3.

Ups and downs of up to ±10% may appear reasonable. For example, one might expect that inflation moves some resources from a cheaper to a more expensive category. Such an explanation, however, would also require that a certain amount be moved out of the highest cost category into a yet more expensive category.

Next we turn to more speculative uranium resources. In Table 4, the not-yet-found-but-believed-to-exist IR uranium data are presented. Especially suspicious is the large increase of 400,000 tons in the < 40 dollars/kg IR category. This increase can be compared with the corresponding RAR numbers from Table 3, which decreased during the same period by 180,000 tons.

The situation becomes even more suspicious when one compares the evolution of the IR category during the past six years from 2001 to 2007. For example, the < 40 dollars/kg IR category increased by a factor of 2.2, and the 40-80 dollars/kg category increased by a factor of 3.5. In comparison, the amount in the 80-130 dollars/kg category changed by only a factor of 1.3. Finally, one can compare the evolution of the conventional resources in the RAR category and the more speculative IR category. As mentioned already, large exploration efforts during the past years have left the total RAR numbers essentially unchanged but have increased the believed-to-exist IR figure by a large amount. This means that the claimed increase from 2005 to 2007 in the conventional uranium resources is not based on real discoveries, but on an unexplained hope factor associated with the IR deposits that remain to possibly be discovered.

More details about these changes will be discussed in the individual country analysis below.


Table 4: Evolution of the not-yet-discovered-but-believed-to-exist IR uranium resources as given in the last four editions of the Red Book. Remarkable is the claim that the cheaper cost categories increased by a large amount, whereas the highest cost category has even decreased.

Table 5 shows the evolution of the undiscovered prognosticated and speculative UPR and USR resource categories. In contrast to the increase from 2003 to 2007 in the conventional IR resources, only relatively minor changes are claimed for the even more uncertain UPR and USR resources.


Table 5: Evolution of the undiscovered prognosticated UPR and speculative USR uranium resources according to the past four Red Book editions. In comparison to the large relative changes in the IR data, the numbers presented show a surprising stability.

One finds from Tables 3-5 that the uranium resources in the RAR, IR, and UPR categories decrease for the higher cost intervals. Furthermore, one observes that the estimated world RAR, IR, and UPR numbers have changed in peculiar and unnatural ways.

Consequently, the overall uranium resource data and their evolution are in contradiction with the economic-geological hypothesis presented in Section 2.2.

Furthermore, with inflation effects being ignored, one would expect that the changes of the uranium quantities in the RAR, IR, and UPR categories should follow similar patterns. As the uranium resource data do not confirm such expectations, one is left with the conclusion that the true quality of the presented uranium data is considerably poorer than claimed by the Red Book.

3. Evolution of uranium resources in selected countries

In order to understand how and where uranium resources have changed during the past few years, one needs to study the information provided by the correspondents from a few different countries with large resources. To this end, the Red Book editions from the years 2003 (RB03), 2005 (RB05), and 2007 (RB07) will be used. We restrict the discussion to those 10 countries that claim to have more than 100,000 tons of extractable RAR uranium resources for < 130 dollars/kg within their territory. Combined, these 10 countries cover a surface area of about 52 million km2 or more than 1/3 of the total land area of our planet. After at least 50 years of non-negligible world-wide geological research efforts, these countries claim to have 80% of the remaining known world uranium resources and up to 95% of the uranium in the economically most interesting < 40 dollars/kg RAR category. Roughly 90% of the total uranium extraction in 2007 came from these 10 countries.

Tables 6 and 7 show the claimed amount of RAR uranium resources for these countries in the < 40 dollars/kg and 40-130 dollars/kg categories.


Table 6: Evolution of the lowest-cost RAR uranium category for the 10 countries claiming to have a total of more than 100,000 tons of RAR resources on their territory. An especially remarkable change during the years 2005 to 2007 can be seen for Niger. (* The USA report does not offer a number for the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category. For this reason, the amount claimed in the < 80 dollars/kg has been used here.)

Some spectacular ups and downs can be observed for the three Red Book editions. For example between 2005 and 2007, the RAR reserves in the < 40 dollars/kg category decreased by 15% (minus 40,000 tons) for Kazakhstan and by 88% (minus 150,000 tons) for Niger. Drastic changes during these two years are also reported in the 40-130 dollars/kg RAR category for Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, Russia, and the Ukraine. Despite the fact that the RAR numbers, especially in the < 40 dollars/kg category, are assumed to present the most accurate estimate, no explanations for the often dramatic changes are offered.


Table 7: Evolution of the higher-cost RAR uranium category for the 10 countries claiming to have a total of more than 100,000 tons of RAR resources on their territory. Especially remarkable are the changes from 2005 to 2007 for Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, Russia, and the Ukraine. A comparison of these changes with the ones in the low-cost category presented in Table 6 is also interesting. (* As the USA does not report the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category separately, the amount in the 80-130 dollars/kg category has been used here.)

The changes for the yet unobserved-but-believed-to-exist IR resources offer even more interesting insights. As presented in Section 2, and in contrast to the essentially unchanged claimed total RAR resources, the data reported for the IR category at the < 130 dollars/kg price tag have increased by almost 700,000 tons between the years 2005 and 2007. Spectacular and unlikely relative changes for some countries can be observed from Table 8, where we present ratios of the resource numbers found presented in RB07 and RB05 for two IR cost categories and for the UPR category. An especially remarkable increase is observed for Russia. It is claimed that their IR 40-130 dollars/kg category increased by a factor of 17.7 from 19,000 tons to 337,000 tons. The reported changes of the IR data for Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, and the Ukraine are also interesting.


Table 8: The IR resource ratios as obtained from the Red Book 2007 and 2005 editions for the 10 countries claiming to have a total of more than 100,000 tons of RAR resources on their territory. Not all countries have submitted or updated these numbers for the 2007 edition. Especially remarkable changes are observed for Russia, where the category IR (40-130 dollars/kg) is now estimated to be 337,000 tons. Changes for Australia, Kazakhstan, Niger, and the Ukraine are also interesting.

As we have seen already in Section 2, the celebrated increase of the conventional uranium resources does not come from new discoveries of interesting uranium deposits, but from a new evaluation of the supposed-to-exist IR resources. This statement can now be made more quantitatively. The data show that this claimed increase of the IR resources comes essentially only from Russia (from 40,652 tons to 373,300 tons), Australia (from 396,000 tons to 518,000 tons), Kazakhstan (from 302,202 tons to 439,200 tons), and the Ukraine (from 23,130 tons to 64,500 tons).

A closer look at Russia shows that this increase is highly suspicious. Whereas the IR number in the < 40 dollars/kg category changed by only 15,000 tons from 21,572 tons to 36,100 tons, an incredible increase from 19,080 tons to 337,200 tons is presented for the 40-130 dollars/kg category.

Kazakhstan is another example of a country with drastic changes of its IR data. From the RB05 and RB07, one finds that the IR number for Kazakhstan in the < 40 dollars/kg category increased from 129,252 tons in the 2005 estimate to 281,800 tons in 2007, whereas the 40-130 dollars/kg number decreased from 172,950 to 157,400 tons. The very speculative UPR and UPS data for Kazakhstan remained essentially unchanged.

As discussed in Parts I and II of this report [6], the evolution of uranium mining in Kazakhstan is of particular importance to avoid a world uranium supply shortage during the coming 5-10 years. It is claimed that, provided enough investments in the mining sector are done, this country can triple its uranium extraction within the next 10-15 years from 6637 tons in 2007 to 21,000 tons in 2015. A high estimate for future uranium discoveries in the low-cost category certainly helps to raise foreign interest in investments in the Kazakh uranium mining infrastructure.

Australia and South Africa also claim large increases, but their resources increased only in the < 40 dollars/kg IR category. In contrast, the IR data for Canada, Brazil, and the USA remained unchanged at their 2005 values.

The above examples demonstrate that a large percentage of the claimed uranium resources and their evolution are not backed up by geological methods.

3.1. Are some uranium resource data not based on geological meth­ods?

If one accepts that uranium resource data for some countries are not based on geological methods, it follows that other methods have helped to fill the tables of the Red Book.

Consequently and in absence of explanations, one is somehow invited to formulate ideas about why some particular countries, probably with the help from large mining companies, might be interested in presenting either too high or too low resource numbers.

For example, one can imagine that "sudden" increases in resource numbers, as observed for Aus­tralia, Kazakhstan, Russia, and South Africa, will help to attract foreign investments.

In contrast, a sudden and drastic reduction in the most interesting < 40 dollars/kg RAR category, as observed for Niger, could be motivated by wishes to (1) keep potential uranium mining competitors out of the country, or (2) prevent the government and the people of a country to become informed about the exact wealth of a mining company that wants to either reduce its tax burden in this way or dissuade the government from expropriating it.

3.2. Relations between different cost categories

We now compare the individual country resource data with the economic-geological hypothesis presented in Section 2.2. Starting with the lowest and highest RAR and IR cost categories of < 40 dollars/kg and 80-130 dollars/kg, one finds that some country estimates show surprisingly large differences in these categories with respect to the world average. For example, 53% of the world RAR resources are expected in the < 40 dollars/kg categories, but only 22% are expected in the 80-130 dollars/kg category, which is in strong disagreement with the economic-geological hypothesis.

The disagreement with this hypothesis becomes even stronger for Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan. Australia claims 98% of the RAR to be in the low-cost category. Too high numbers for this category are also reported from Canada (82%) and Kazakhstan (62%).

In contrast, the numbers in this cost category for Russia (28%) and Niger (9%) are very low. For Niger, the uranium amount in this class is now given as 21,300 tons, which is about 150,000 tons smaller than the amount claimed in the 2005 edition, when 96% of the country's RAR resources were assigned to the < 40 dollars/kg category.

The data reported for the IR category show similar discrepancies between the world average ratios and the ones from individual countries. One finds that world-wide, 56% of the IR resources are predicted in the < 40 dollars/kg, whereas 13% are predicted in the 80-130 dollars/kg categories. In comparison, the correspondents from Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan think that 94%, 88%, and 64%, respectively will be found in the < 40 dollars/kg category. The three countries thus predict that their not-yet-discovered IR resource fractions match almost perfectly the corresponding RAR fractions.

In contrast, the correspondents from Russia assume that only 9.7% of their IR resources will eventually be found in the low-cost category. For Niger, the low-cost IR fraction is given as 42%, and is thus close to the world average.

The Red Book uranium resource data show that the economic-geological hypothesis is not backed up by the data. This conclusion is strengthened beyond any doubt, if one believes that Australia and Canada provide the most reliable resource data.

The relation between the RAR numbers and the IR numbers is also interesting. For the < 40 dollars/kg category, Australia assumes to know about 709,000 tons RAR and expects to find another 487, 000 tons in the IR category, or 69% of the RAR number. In contrast for Canada, the RAR number is given as 270,000 tons and the IR number is presented as 82,000 tons, thus only 30% of the RAR number.

3.3. Uranium mining and its effect on resource data

Finally, we would like to see how uranium extraction, claimed to be known accurately to the ton, e.g. far better than with a 0.1% accuracy, influences the remaining amount of uranium in the different RAR resource categories and in some selected countries.

For this investigation, we remind the reader that world-wide about 40,000 tons of uranium are mined on average every year. For many years and despite non-negligible efforts made by many countries, only three countries extract about 60% of this uranium and individually more than 5000 tons per year. Another 25% of this uranium come from three countries that contribute about 3000 tons/year each, and further 12% stem from three additional countries that together extract roughly 5000 tons/year.

Furthermore, the uranium extraction is concentrated in the hands of a few transnational mining companies. The four biggest among them: Rio Tinto, Cameco, Areva, and KazAtomProm provided about 26,000 tons/year to the world uranium market, about 59% in 2008. Despite the claim that plenty of cheaply extractable uranium can be found almost everywhere on the planet and that the extraction cost does not play a significant role, 66% of the 41,000 tons extracted in 2007 came from only 10 uranium mines.

The biggest mine today, McArthur River in Canada owned dominantly by Cameco, extracted 7200 tons of uranium in 2007, or about 18% of the world-wide production.

This number might be compared with today's stressed world oil situation, where the largest oil field ever, Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, contributes about 6% of the total world oil production. It might thus be more accurate to compare the fraction of uranium production from this one mine alone with the fraction of oil produced by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait combined.

The mine started only about 10 years ago and reached 7200 tons/year during the years 2002-2007. Since the startup in the year 2000, about 58,000 tons have been extracted. According to Cameco, this mine exploits the world largest high-grade uranium deposit with proven and probable reserves of 332.6 million pounds of U3O8. This corresponds to an equivalent of 130,000 tons of natural uranium, with about 65,000 tons assigned to the proven reserves as of December 31, 2008 [17]. This mine seems to be past its peak by now, as in 2008, only 6383 tons were produced, and the output of the first half of 2009 reported by Cameco on August 12, 2009, appears to again be 12% lower than the one obtained during the same period in 2008 [18]. If one assumes that about 50% of the economically extractable uranium had been mined up to 2005/06, the presumed peak year, one could estimate that, instead of the 65,000 tons claimed, only about 45,000 to 50,000 tons remain to be mined. The next few years will tell, if the decline rate observed since 2007 will continue.

The next two mines, Ranger in Australia and Rossing in Namibia, produced together 8000 tons of uranium in 2008, about 25% more than the McArthur River mine alone. Combined, the three largest mines produced 33% of the total and slightly more than the next 7 big uranium mines together. This fraction corresponds roughly to the entire OPEC share of the world oil production.

Thus, uranium extraction is much more centralized and monopolized than any other energy resource. In fact, if the world oil situation, with a few giant oil companies and a country cartel, frightens policy makers and most oil consumers, the uranium situation is by all standards even more dangerous.

We shall now analyze whether the amount of uranium extracted during the past years has some effect on the RAR numbers. For this study, we use the uranium quantities extracted during the past few years as provided in the different editions of the Red Book and summarized in a single table in a WNA information paper [16].

Starting with the largest producer country, Canada, one finds that the three large existing mines extracted essentially 100% of the 9477 tons and 9000 tons in 2007 and 2008, respectively. During the years 2003-­2004 and 2005-2006, the total extracted uranium is given as 22,055 tons and 21,491 tons, respectively. Table 6 shows that the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category decreased during these two year periods by 10,064 tons and 17,100 tons, respectively. As it seems reasonable to assume that the existing big uranium mines operate and deplete only the < 40 dollars/kg category currently, the numbers show that only 50% (2005) and 80% (2007) of the decrease can be accounted for directly. Two explanations are possible, (1) about 12,000 tons (2003+2004) and 4000 tons (2005+2006) of new deposit in the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category have been discovered during the considered two-year periods, or (2) the extraction figures are not adequately taken into account.

We now turn to Australia, the second-largest contributor of uranium. During the four years from 2003 to 2006, a total uranium extraction of 33,663 tons is reported, while the < 40 dollars/kg category increased by 20,000 tons in accordance with Table 6. As Australia does not claim to have significant amounts of uranium in the 40-­80 dollars/kg and 80-130 dollars/kg RAR categories, one concludes again that essentially all of the extracted uranium came from the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category. Consequently, the new findings in this category from 2003 to 2006 must have been about 54,000 tons. However, such large new uranium discoveries over a four-year period are puzzling as the other two RAR cost categories of 40-80 dollars/kg and 80-130 dollars/kg remained unchanged between 2003 and 2005 and even decreased by 8000 tons and 22,000 tons between 2005 and 2007. Thus, the extraction numbers from Australia are clearly inconsistent with the reported RAR numbers.

As a last example, we analyze the situation in Niger, a former French colony, that became indepen­dent in 1960. It is one of the poorest countries in the world with an electricity production of roughly 0.234 billion kWh (2005), corresponding to an almost negligible amount of 18 kWh per year and per person. Yet, the 3032 tons of uranium extracted in 2008 allowed to fuel almost 20 GWe of nuclear power plants in France and other European countries, which produced roughly 140 billion kWh during that year. Between 2003 and 2006, about 13,000 tons of uranium have been extracted from the mines operated dominantly by Areva, a French transnational nuclear company.

In 2003, the RAR resources were reported as 89,800 tons in the < 40 dollars/kg and 12,447 tons in the 40-130 dollars/kg category. These numbers changed in 2005 by incredible amounts to 172,866 tons and 7600 tons, respectively. Another drastic change is reported in the 2007 Red Book, where the corresponding RAR numbers are now given as 21,300 tons and 222,180 tons, respectively.

Clearly, the 13,000 tons of uranium extracted during these 4 years are not accounted for, and the Red Book authors do not care to comment about the incredibly large jumps back and forth between the < 40 dollars/kg and 40-130 dollars/kg RAR categories.

These numbers must contain a substantial fantasy factor, which can perhaps be explained with the misinformation hypothesis. This suspicion is further supported by Areva's problems with the real owners of the mines, often referred to as "Tuareg rebels," who (somewhat understandably) ask for a larger share in the profits.

In summary, the claimed "high-precision" uranium resource data and the known extraction data from the past few years do not match up. These and the other inconsistencies described in Sections 2 and 3 of this article raise suspicions about the reliability of the RAR uranium data.

4. Consequences for the long-term nuclear energy future

The analysis presented in Sections 2 and 3 of this article demonstrates that the uranium resource data, prepared, updated, and published every two years by the IAEA and the NEA in the Red Book, do not measure up to the claimed high-precision standards. On the contrary, it even seems that some individual country resource data are not based on a scientific geological resource estimate.

Consequently, fairly large error margins should be associated even with the reasonably assured resources (RAR) category. As an example, one could assume the RAR resource numbers reported by Australia and Canada, who claim almost all of their RAR resources in the low-cost category, to be most reliable. If this idea is applied to the entire world, one would guess that only the numbers in the < 40 dollars/kg RAR category are reliable and therefore relevant. As a result, the known uranium resources could be guessed as ≤ 2 million tons, corresponding to a resource life-time of just 30 years at the current consumption rate.

Such an evaluation would certainly discourage the idea of constructing new standard light water reactors with a presumed life-time of 60 years.

This simple-minded example demonstrates that more realistic uranium resource information is urgently needed. Such an analysis, clearly beyond the scope of this paper, would have to be based on a critical mine-by-mine and country-by-country analysis.

At the current time, however, the Red Book uranium resource data are the only existing and usable data base. These data, including large uncertainties, demonstrate that the economic-geological hy­pothesis is contradicted by the data. This widely used hypothesis states that more and more uranium can be extracted if only the price is allowed to increase. This claim is in total disagreement with the overall resource data and with the data offered by many individual countries.

Thus, one is left with the choice of either rejecting the Red Book data completely and sticking with an unproven hypothesis, or giving up that unproven hypothesis.

In summary, we point out that countries interested in the construction of a new nuclear power plant within the next 10-20 years should find a way to guarantee their needed uranium fuel for at least 40 years, before they invest perhaps up to 4 billion Euro per GWe of installed power.

The warning applies to all Western European countries, Japan, and South-Korea, which depend to almost 100% on stable uranium deliveries from far away. These countries should take one particular paragraph from the Red Book 2007 NEA press declaration very seriously:

"At the end of 2006, world uranium production (39,603 tons) provided about 60% of world reactor requirements (66,500 tons) for the 435 commercial nuclear reactors in operation. The gap between production and requirements was made up by secondary sources draw down from government and commercial inventories (such as the dismantling of over 12,000 nuclear warheads and the re-enrichment of uranium tails). Most secondary resources are now in decline and the gap will increasingly need to be closed by new production. Given the long lead time typically required to bring new resources into production, uranium supply shortfalls could develop if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner."

Many other reports have studied the world uranium supply situation in detail. Even though most of these reports assume, contrary to our study, that the Red Book uranium resource data are largely correct, very similar conclusions about the short- and long-term critical uranium supply situation are reached. The list below provides references to some recent studies that reach the conclusion that the known uranium deposits and techniques of uranium extraction are not sufficient to fuel a nuclear energy renaissance based on conventional light water reactors.

The following three studies are from groups that favor nuclear energy. They find that even a small 1% annual nuclear power growth scenario will be faced with serious and unsolved uranium supply problems during the first half of the 21st century.

  • A report published in 2002 entitled: A Technological Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems [19] points out that the known conventional uranium resources will only last between 30-50 years. Thus, a new conventional nuclear power plant, which might be operational in 2020, may only obtain uranium fuel until sometime between 2040 and 2050.
  • The authors of an IAEA 2001 report entitled Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050 [20] quantify the uranium deficit with respect to the RAR numbers for different scenarios about the future use of nuclear fission energy. The estimated deficit is given in units of millions of tons of uranium. Many details about the potential contributions of uranium from a large number of unconventional resources are presented in that report (Section 5), and especially the remarks about sea water uranium are remarkable: "Research on extracting uranium from sea water will undoubtedly continue, but at the current costs sea water as a potential commercial source of uranium is little more than a curiosity."
  • A 2007 M.I.T. study group concluded that "lack of fuel may limit U.S. nuclear power expan­sion" [21].

Other groups of analysts with critical views concerning nuclear fission energy have also studied the Red Book uranium resource data. All these studies, even if they assume that the Red Book uranium resource numbers are more or less accurate, conclude that a substantial increase of nuclear fission energy, using conventional light water reactors, is essentially impossible.

  • The Energy Watch Group report of December 2006 [22] with Dr. Werner Zittel and Jörg Schindler of the Ludwig Bölkow Systemtechnik GmbH as the principle authors conclude that: "If only 42,000 tons/year of the proved reserves below 40 dollar/kg can be converted into produc­tion volumes, then supply problems are likely even before 2020. If all estimated known resources up to 130 dollar/kg extraction cost can be converted into production volumes, a shortage can at best be delayed until about 2050."
  • The WISE Uranium Project Uranium Supply and Demand [23] contains some interesting graphics that relate the various resource categories from the 2005 Red Book with some modest nuclear growth scenarios and demonstrate the year when the uranium supply cliff will be reached.
  • In the article The Red Face Book published by Sanders Research in September 2008, John Busby analyzed the 2007 Red Book in much detail [24]. Many of the internal inconsistencies of the Red Book 2007 have most likely been pointed out in this article for the very first time. His presented conclusions about the near- and long-term uranium supply troubles are essentially identical to the ones obtained independently and with a somewhat different approach in the first three parts of this four-part article [6].
  • Another important report published in November 2007, The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, by David Fleming [25] has focused on many issues of nuclear energy and their inconsistencies. Fleming concludes his discussion with the statement: "Shortages of uranium and the lack of realistic alternatives leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter."
  • Finally we would like to reference the report Nuclear Power - The Energy Balance by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith and its latest update by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen [26]. This report offers, among other things, an energy balance of the entire nuclear power chain, starting from the mining to the waste disposal. It presents the hypothesis that "economically extractable uranium resources are limited."

5. Summary

Despite the shortcomings of the Red Book and its associated large uncertainties, some valuable information can still be extracted from it. Perhaps the most important results of our analysis are:

  • The "economic-geological hypothesis" that more uranium resources can be extracted if only one is willing to pay a higher price is in direct contradiction with the Red Book resource data.
  • Realistic uranium resource data cannot be obtained directly from the Red Book. However, a detailed comparison of the data from current and past editions of the Red Book and the often far too drastic resource changes reported, following some observations from this analysis, can possibly be used in the future to obtain better resource estimates.
  • The economically extractable uranium resources in many countries are most likely much smaller than generally believed. In absence of a Red Book document that measures up to its claims, only the RAR uranium data in the < 40 dollars/kg category are reliable and believable.

The analysis presented in this and the previous two parts of this four-part article [6] demonstrates that the current uranium extraction and the believed-to-exist uranium resources are incompatible with even a modest growth scenario of conventional nuclear fission power.

A debate about the future of nuclear energy must therefore be based on the two questions:

  1. When – if ever – will reliable and safe commercial breeder reactors based on uranium or thorium become available? and
  2. Will nuclear fusion power be always 50 years away?

The current situation and the prospects about these future hypothetical options will be presented in the fourth and final part of this report.

Our analysis can thus best be summarized with an addition to the recent warning from Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency [27]: "We should leave oil before it leaves us," by stating that "we should also terminate the use of nuclear fission energy based on standard light water reactors before uranium leaves us as well."

References

[1] Cf. for example the Joint Oil Data Initiative available at http://www.jodidata.org/ and the related G8 declaration Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future presented at the G8 Summit 2009, 8 -10 July 2009, in L'Aquila, Italy, available at http://www.jodidata.org/WS_23.htm.

[2] The 2006 review Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective. The Red Book Retrospective can be found at the OECD bookshop http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5L9N4JNZGN0W&LANG=EN. A free online version can be found via Google books.

[3] The detailed numbers are extracted from the Red Book 2007 edition, Ura­nium 2007 Resources, Production and Demand. The book is published ev­ery two years by the IAEA/NEA and can be found at the OECD book store http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?K=5KZLLSXQS6ZV&DS=Uranium-2007. Free online versions of some past editions can be found via "Google books."

[4] Nuclear Energy Agency press declaration of June 3, 2008 concerning the 2007 edi­tion of the Red Book: Uranium 2007 Resources, Production and Demand to be found at http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2008/2008-02.html.

[5] Cf. for example the presentation Long-Term Sustainability of Nuclear Fis­sion Energy by Byron Little presented at the 2006 American Nuclear Society Meeting http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad0606little.pdf. Other examples of the Red Book data use are reported at http://www.inea.org.br/UraniumavailabilityINEAr1.pdf and http://www.wise-uranium.org/uod.html.

[6] Parts I and II of this four-part article have been published at the Oil Drum, August 2009 at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5631 and http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677, respec­tively. The articles are also available at the preprint archive http://xxx.lanl.gov/ filed under Physics and Society at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.0627 and http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0908.3075, respectively.

[7] Cf. reference [3], page 3 (Preface).

[8] Cf. reference [3], pages 383-385 (Appendix 2).

[9] Cf. reference [3], pages 391f (Appendix 4).

[10] Cf. reference [3], page 393 (Appendix 4).

[11] The numbers and the quote are taken from the WNA document Supply of Uranium to be found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html.

[12] For more details cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_depletion and the reference to the publication by K.S. Deffeyes, and I.D. MacGregor at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6665051.

[13] For more information from Rio Tinto about the Rossing mine cf. http://www.rossing.com/. Additional information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossing_Uranium_Mine.

[14] Dr. Hubbert (in response to remarks by David Nissen - Exxon) http://www.oilcrisis.com/Hubbert/to_Nissen.htm.

[15] The numbers are extracted from the Red Book 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 editions: Ura­nium Resources, Production and Demand. The books can be found at the OECD bookshop http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/index.asp?lang=en. Free online versions of some past editions can be found via "Google books."

[16] The data are obtained from the WNA information paper World Uranium Mining to be found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html.

[17] For details about the McArthur River mine cf. the Cameco report at http://www.cameco.com/mining/mcarthur_river/ and the WNA information paper: Ura­nium Production in Canada at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html.

[18] Detailed reports from Cameco can be found in the report: Second Quarter Earnings at http://www.cameco.com/media/news_releases/2009/?id=488.

[19] Cf. the Generation IV Technology Roadmap and the latest evolution at http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/. The uranium resource problem is presented on page 13 of the roadmap document http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf.

[20] The year 2001 IAEA report: Analysis of Uranium Supply to 2050 can be found at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf.

[21] A summary of the MIT study and further links can be found at http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html.

[22] The report from the energy watch group can be found at http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Uranium_3-12-2006ms.pdf.

[23] The slides can be found at http://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd03e.

[24] The Report by John Busby can be found at http://www.after-oil.co.uk/redfacebook.htm.

[25] The report by Dr. Fleming can be found at http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear.

[26] The detailed report and some corresponding discussions with critiques by J.W. Storm can be found at http://www.stormsmith.nl/.

[27] This quote from F. Birol can be found for example at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast%C2%AD1766585.html.

Thank you, Dr. Dittmar, for this closely argued analysis of the assertions contained in the "Red Book" and of the implications for potential power supply from uranium.

A few random comments:

WebHubbleTelescope's Dispersive Discovery model probably matches reality more closely than simply assuming all the big, high-quality deposits are discovered first.

On the accuracy of statistics,

it even seems that some individual country resource data are not based on a scientific geological resource estimate.

My response to this is, "only some?" Industrial geologists have no reason to estimate resource in place beyond their employers' planning horizon, which may be 10 years. It's easy to imagine how some simple extrapolations applied to industrial geologists' results in a simple-minded way by various bureaucrats would give rise to the Red Book estimates. That scenario is lent credibility by the spurious precision of the figures - something that bureaucrats are prone to, but scientists (mostly!) are not.

As you point out, there are strong reasons for individual countries to either over- or under-estimate their resource in place. In addition to the reasons you gave, some strategic ambiguity about uranium resources will help keep potential enemies guessing about a country's nuclear weapons capability. No-one really has an incentive to be honest.

Finally, nuclear weapon risk considerations may help explain why there are relatively few operating mines, even if there are many economic deposits at $40. I imagine that governments would like to have accurate, reliable, and precise accounts of uranium ore extraction and production, even if they do not want to share that information. It's easier to do that if there are few points of supply rather than many. So I imagine that mining permits are very tightly controlled.

Dr. Dittmar has, despite repeated questions, still not analyzed the role of enrichment in the relationship between natural uranium consumption and LWR fuel production.  This is not a small matter, as a change in tails assay from 0.24% to 0.13% increases the fuel yield by almost 20%.  The shortfall he postulates is what, around 10%?

There are also a lot of unconventional uranium out there.  Green Car Congress just ran an article on uranium and germanium recovery from coal ash in Saskatchewan.  I calculated the uranium yield just from the CTL units at nearly 1000 tons per year.

Welcome back EP

while this is not the topic of the paper

but yes the shortfall appears to be about 5-10% without growth (3000-6000 tons)
(in agreement with many groups from the money making industry)

it could be avoided by opening the military reserves from the USA and Russia to the world

or by quickly building up SWU's to have another go with depleted uranium

but current worldwide plans fall short of this SWU capacity!
Russia has ambitious plans true but are they realistic?
I remember that Russia often had such plans during the past 200 years.

michael

No matter when you enter the process, it is always "20 years away" (be in 1950 or 2010).

Some interesting questions you may want to ponder, Michael:

How many SWU are used enriching 0.1% tails in Russia as feedstock for downblending HEU under the Megatons-to-Megawatts programme?

If this capacity is, post 2013, used instead to enrich tails at 0.35%-0.4%, how much of the 9,000 tonnes natural uranium equivalent from HEU would this replace?

I am not sure about what you are asking.
For example it seems that current depleted tails contain 0.25-0.3 u235
but details are not well documented (at least I have not found it in the Red Book.

but just in case perhaps you can first say if one should believe what
Russian sources are claiming (and on what base)

and second

do you think it is a good idea for western europe and japan
to become even more dependent on the good will of some
new russian leaders?

michael

I am not sure about what you are asking.

I asked two very explicit questions, Michael. What is so hard to understand? I will try to simplify even further:

1) Russia uses a portion of its enrichment capacity to upgrade tails with just 0.1% U235 to be mixed with highly enriched uranium for export to the U.S. under the Megatons-to-Megawatts programme. How much enrichment is required? How many SWU? (Google is your friend)

2) Post 2013, the Megatons-to-Megawatts programme ends and this enrichment capacity lies idle. If it is used to enrich higher assay tails from the west (0.3%, 0.35%, 0.4%), how much natural uranium equivalent can it produce per year? Is this less/equal/more than the current supply? (Hint: use Wise Uranium enrichment calculator)

perhaps you can first say if one should believe what Russian sources are claiming (and on what base)

Does Russia not deliver enriched uranium to the U.S.? Does it not use enrichment capacity to achieve downblending?

it seems that current depleted tails contain 0.25-0.3 u235 but details are not well documented

The U.S. alone has 260,000 tonnes of depleted uranium with tails assays higher than 0.30 wt-%, 140,000 tonnes of which is greater than 0.40 wt-%.

do you think it is a good idea for western europe and japan to become even more dependent on the good will of some new russian leaders?

Irrelevant to the discussion. Russia has been a reliable supplier of enriched uranium to the U.S. for decades. If supply is constrained in future, as you contend, then can Russia use its vast enrichment capacity to compensate? (Yes/No)

I asked two very explicit questions, Michael. What is so hard to understand?

Perhaps because they don't make sense?

It does not require the use of an enrichment facility to upgrade DU tails to fuel-grade LEU if you have weapons-grade HEU you want to dispose of. It's a simple physical blending. It may or may not be carried out at an enrichment facility -- I don't know really know those details. But if it is, it's only for convenience of security and materials handling.

As I understand it, however, there is indeed a good deal of idle enrichment capacity in both the US and the FSU, from when all that weapons-grade HEU was being produced in the first place. AFAIK it's still there; there just hasn't been any economic reason to reopen it.

It requires enrichment plant to manipulate isotopic composition of the fuel. This infrastructure, which will idle after 2013, is in question. So they do make sense, however are left unanswered by the author.

Author's ignorance of the role of enrichment (SWU) in uranium supply is rather striking, as it invalidates his thesis of any short term supply crisis. The author should had taken the SWU capacity into account once this omission was pointed to him repeatedly at hist first and the second part.

In the medium to long term, the need to recycle SNF will most likely drive politicians to a closed nuclear fuel cycle (and to mandate cleanups the dangerous and toxic ponds of sludges left after coal), which will solve any long term uranium supply issues for the lifetime of habitable Earth, much before we run out of the easily mined deposits, SNF, (and toxic waste ponds courtesy of coal burning).

It seems to me that the author starts with a conclusion determined by his doomsday mindset, and then he crafts his argument.

have a look in the mirror
(or don't throw stones when you are in a glasshouse)

read the WNA document I posted in reply to EP

and change your tone!

michael

The WNA document assumes a large part of the existing SWU capacity to be replaced by the new enrichment plants. If there is any need for more SWUs, these existing plants will be kept up and running - along with the new capacity, if the margins on SWU will be high enough (such as in the case of your postulated lack of fresh NU). This was already mentioned specifically in the comments at the previous articles in the series. Your respective response does not acknowledge this information.

Besides US HEU which is to be down-blended after 2013, there are MOX plants coming up which can manufacture MOX form weapon grade Pu from the pits. Since the last Obama-Medvedev nuclear deal this July there is more weapon fissile to be used in power plants, and the U3O8 spot price is below $48/lb and going down, despite all the new plants in the pipeline.

Perhaps all those people and companies who managed to build the powerplants, they just forgot to order the fuel? Hopefully this article series will reminded them to place the order.

I don't know really know those details.

Obviously. The Russian HEU contains U-234 and U-236 impurities that would prevent LEU created from simple downblending with natural or depleted uranium from meeting ASTM standards for nuclear fuel. Tails already depleted in U-234 are re-enriched to 1.5% LEU to increase the dilution factor of the HEU and thus meet the ASTM criteria.

The relevant questions for Michael are how much enrichment capacity is used to acheive this and how much natural uranium this could produce from re-enriching high assay tails in a supply crunch?

That is very interesting.  What is the source of the 234U and 236U contaminants?  The amounts in natural uranium are very low even compared to 235U.  Is the Russian uranium re-enriched from spent LWR fuel?

That is very interesting. What is the source of the 234U and 236U contaminants? The amounts in natural uranium are very low even compared to 235U. Is the Russian uranium re-enriched from spent LWR fuel?

236U isn't found in nature, and would have to come from spent fuel. The 234U was presumably concentrated along with the 235U during enrichment.

Hi Roger,

thanks for stepping in.

I agree with that.
there must be some "old" enrichment facility
but not much information can be obtained about
it.

again we need total openness also in this sector!

in addition to Mcrab :
we are not in an examination here!
Bring your numbers yourself and make the point you want to make!

like what happens after 2013 when the Russian delivery of
50% of the USA needs stops.

and how much of the USA military uranium will be delivered
to facilities in Europe and Japan just because we are nice people?

michael

we are not in an examination here!

Au contraire! That is precisely what goes on here below the line. Your arguments and assumptions are put to the test and you defend them. Think of it as an informal type of peer review (although I promise to be kinder than this guy).

A key part of your argument for a near term supply crunch is the assumption that uranium demand is inflexible, with power disruptions if it is not met. In posing both my questions to you I was giving you the opportunity to address this with some hard numbers, assuming for my part your good faith in wanting to honestly evaluate future uranium supply.

To answer my own questions:

1) Production of blendstock for Megatons-to-Megawatts programme uses 5.8 million SWU/year

2) The amounts of natural uranium that can be produced by re-enrichment of tails using 5.8 MSWU is shown in the table below:

Feed Assay (%) Tails Assay (%) Feed Required (tU) NU Produced (tU)
0.40 0.10 13,946 6,973
0.40 0.15 20,524 9,329
0.40 0.20 29,971 11,988
0.40 0.25 45,366 15,122
0.40 0.30 75,719 18,948
0.35 0.10 13,047 5,436
0.35 0.15 20,065 7,296
0.35 0.20 31,328 9,398
0.35 0.25 53,446 11,877
0.35 0.30 119,232 14,904

This enrichment capacity will lie idle after 2013. If there is a 10% (6000tU) shortage, will it not be not put to use, Michael?

Dear MCrab,

Ah you found this "guy" good that the internet exists no?
it is not relevant here but just in case the Fermilab didn't update their result
for the summer conferences and rumors are spreading that
their limit is not anymore what it was .. but who cares?

if you would read what I have posted
you can see the SWU requirements from your own favorite source
(the WNA or are they out of your favour?)

The near future supply shortage of 10% it all depends on Russia and Kazakhstan
and the USA. good will to open their military reserves.
I have always written this if you would read my papers
instead of blindly attacking.

50% of the world SWU and all under the control of russia

if this does not smell like a problem to you
fine with me

reality will soon tell!

by the way why don't you make you
prediction for the growth of the number of TWhe produced from nuclear during the next 5-10 years
so we can compare! my simple minded slow phase out was in chapter two

please add yours!
(and make your numbers for the uranium mining as well)
at least jeppen did

and concerning 2009 it looks like that very little new capacity will come online
Japan is the last hope to have the second year in a row without a single new power plant
connected to the grid!

michael

>>>50% of the world SWU and all under the control of russia <<<

This and other arguments of yours rely on stubborn ignoring what was pointed out to you by me and others, in particular that significant enrichment capacity will be retired. The only basis for such assumption is there will be enough fresh NU from mines. Again, you cannot have it both ways.

have a look at the WNA document

or give a better source and not your religious wishful thinking!

michael

A full 25% of US separation demand is expected to be met by just one new plant, built in New Mexico by Urenco.

Suppose for a moment that the Paducah, KY GD plant is only capable of operating at 75% of capacity.  This turns out to be a good thing, because the full US separation demand can still be met domestically... and the reduction in power demand (from substitution of centrifuges for gaseous diffusion) comes to roughly 750 megawatts.  This power is effectively "free".

I did indeed. If the SWU capacity is not retired, as in the case of the postulated uranium scarcity, the difference is more than enough to make for the difference, and at the same time Russia is going to have less than 1/2 of the world capacity. I am tempted to repeat you back something about a mirror or religious believes, but I wont :)

certainly I can not convince you with the facts from the
IAEA Red Book, the Euratom supply agency (a decrease of 30% in uranium demand for EU by 2025 or so)

so lets the hard facts of the next few year decide!

please make some predictions about
the number of TWhe from nuclear power
and lets compare your(s) and my predictions
on a regular basis with reality.

So we can do hypothesis testing!

the final proof.

so please make a prediction like I did in my chapter 2!

michael

certainly I can not convince you with the facts from the IAEA Red Book, the Euratom supply agency (a decrease of 30% in uranium demand for EU by 2025 or so)

If Europe has decided on a course which cuts uranium demand by 30% over the next 16 years by shutting down generators, that is very different from a decrease in nuclear generation due to a shortage of uranium.  In fact, it contradicts your claim of supply constraints.  However, I can prove (with cites) two things:

  • A change in enrichment practices from a tails assay of 0.24% to 0.13% increases the net amount of LEU by 19%.
  • According to some advocates of thorium, mixed U-235/Th fuel rods can improve uranium economy by 21% over today's 4%-enriched LEU fuel.

Together, this would increase output per ton of NU by 44%, which can account for a 30% reduction in NU demand all by itself.

Edit:  the increase in refueling intervals from the use of higher-burnup fuel would increase the total TWh from nuclear generation even if no new plants were built.  This is another factor which must be considered.

please make some predictions about the number of TWhe from nuclear power and lets compare your(s) and my predictions on a regular basis with reality

I'm not going to do that because I don't know enough about the policy initiatives in places like Germany and Britain, where substantial amounts of nuclear capacity will be affected by decisions having even less to do with the availability of uranium than e.g. the additions to the electrical grid have to do with the reliability of natural gas supplies from Russia.

On the other hand, we have seen a huge increase in nuclear plans in China, and France isn't changing course.  That bodes well for continued production.

You've claimed a near-term supply crisis, occurring by 2015.  I predict that there will be no supply crisis; LEU deliveries will continue to meet demand and average uranium prices will not exceed $80/lb (in 2008 dollars) over this time.

Dear EP,

what I "claim" using the public data is
that the number of TWhe per year from nuclear fission will go down.

sure, a supply crunch can be avoided if the nuclear power plants
close by earthquakes, some minor technical problems etc.

What counts (I always said and wrote this) is

how many TWhe will be produced and how will this evolve!

For sure, and I wrote this clearly as well and citing several times
the warning from the NEA/IAEA press declaration

"if measures are not taken"

you remember?

so far it seems that the measures are not being taken.

I also wrote that yes it can be imagined to open the military reserves for Europe and Japan etc
but this would in my view a kind of divine intervention!

lets see

of course one can imagine, like you do, what action needs to be done

but all the data indicate that this is not being happening!

so try to make a prediction for the future TWHe
in order to see what the different hypothesis are
and who is right or wrong in the data analysis.

sure there is some guessing involved
for you and for me!

michael

Nah, you didnt make much good case for uranium scarcity in previous parts, and no I am not going to present a fortune telling. Someone already did such "counter-prediction" in the discussion then, we can stick to that.

As someone noted then, your sources do not support your claims. This time it is the SWU WNA paper, and the unfounded charges concerning cheating with RAR <$40 in Niger, and with the total conventional resource base <$130.

The market does not support your conclusions either - uranium price is low and falling, despite the nuclear generation capacity is maxed out, and there are new plants are in the pipeline: about 5-10 new reactors coming online a year in the next 6 years.

Hence until you present facts that actually do support your claims, I think your conclusions are wrong (mildly put).

loiz,

what are you afraid of?

put some numbers out
and we can compare.

you do not like my analysis of the IAEA/WNA people.

thats fine

put some better numbers if you have!

whats wrong with guessing?

you might look like a fool or a visionary afterwards perhaps

just try your vision if you don't
you are just making statements not founded even by your view!

just do it!

michael

Michaeld, there is nothing wrong with guessing per se, however I would hesitate to call it "testing of hypothesis". The future of nuclear power is being determined factors independent of uranium availability, in particular the decision of politicians, such as was the case in India. I realized you try to present these factors as "proofs" of uranium scarcity, though it is patently obvious that embargo on India had nothing to do with uranium availability, and everything to do with the desire of political punishment.

Stick with the counter-prediction already made by someone in the previous show, if you like betting numbers.

loiz,

you are not understanding the point about India!

first of all India did not violate the NPT treaty
because they have not signed it!

the other big players did.
The USA leaders tried for some time to follow perhaps the rules with India
as yes they were ``in bed" with Pakistan!

your(?) latest Bush administration tried to change the obligations from the NPT
with respect to deals with India!

now, India run into the uranium fuel shortage
that is a fact.

the question is why the ruling class in this country sitting on thorium
and some uranium as well did not use their great scientific skills to
fill up the gap?

the warning from Russia came early enough!

Isn't this an indication that not all claims about
``uranium abundance and thorium breeding in Candu like reactors
or fast breeder approach are simple and solve all problems"

are just to naive?

michael

" first of all India did not violate the NPT treaty
because they have not signed it! "

Ah, well this makes a huge difference. India did no sign NPT so it is not in violation of NPT. So it is all right to use India as proof the world is running out of uranium.

Lets just ignore the fact that other nations would be in violation of NPT commitments if they sell to India. Bush would agree with you.

I guess you do not care about the NPT treaty or any other international treaty anyway
right?

I do!

so lets not ignore and put all those violators against the NPT on trial
a long list!

michael

I guess you do not care about the NPT treaty

That does not follow.  Hannahan stated what is, not his opinion of what should be.  It is not fair for you to leap to accusations when someone cites a fact.

so lets not ignore and put all those violators against the NPT on trial

How can a country which has not signed the NPT be violating terms it never agreed to follow?  Now, suppliers of uranium which signed the NPT to get access to the markets of the NPT-member countries would have been in violation had they sold to India.  loiz did say that this was due to "the decision of politicians, such as was the case in India."  That happens to be true.

I think Hannahan should answer for himself.

if you read again my statement it was a guess!

but as you ask:

>How can a country which has not signed the NPT be violating terms it never agreed to follow?

let me ask you EP. Have you read the NPT document?

if yes, you should know that NPT member countries should not do any nuclear related
information and technology exchange with non member states.
In contrast all help should be provided to countries who have signed
for the entire chain to make peaceful use of nuclear energy
including enrichment!

Nuclear is loosely defined and it is not obvious if Particle Physics is included or not

But for nuclear energy the statement is very obvious.

So please read the NPT treaty document (again?).

michael

I never said India signed NPT, this is irrelevant. India was being punished by superpowers, by embargo on everything nuclear, including the fuel. This is the main reason why they developed their own indigenous LMFBRs. It takes time if all the international collaboration was denied to them, for (in my opinion) phony reasons. There is nothing naive about it, the first of the four breeders will be up and running next year. It went fast, no?

Shortage like in India is impossible on the global markets, as we have already shown in this and previous discussion under your articles. What I find shocking however is your stubborn believe that you can just close your eyes, ignore gaping holes in your arguments, and get away with it, without any changes in your doom based position.

no,

but what you said was

India violated the NPT treaty!

for

> Shortage like in India is impossible on the global markets

sure like financial chaos we have now was also impossible
but just a few month later the world banking system is showing the opposite.

Thus lets wait and see. My hypothesis can be tested. you have nothing to propose for a test

again please make you prediction about the evolution of the number of TWHe produced
during the next 10-15 years.

michael

According to the WNA's The Global Nuclear Fuel Market Supply and Demand 2009–2030,

Of the three scenarios presented for world nuclear capacity up to 2030, only the lower scenario sees nuclear generation failing to increase above its 2008 level of 371 GWe. The reference scenario sees an overall 2.2% growth rate reaching 476 GWe by 2020 and 600 GWe by 2030, while the upper scenario sees 558 GWe by 2020 and 818 GWe by 2030. Both reference and upper scenarios are higher than in the 2007 edition of the report, reflecting the emergence of India and China as major nuclear nations.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_More_U_mines_needed_as_nuclear_gro...

yes and now compare with their fuel estimates
after 2016 (if Kazakhstan does deliver
if not well before!)

it is only consistent with the slow phase out scenario.

that is what I basically said in my papers as well!

so give the credit to the WNA for this simple observation
that fine with me!

the result is the same

you are inconsistent with your own information sources
(but you have not read the important ones!).

as simple as that!

michael

yes right and excellent WNA news!

read carefully what it says and make a consistency check
with my hypothesis and yours (unfortunately not public right now!)

michael

ps out of the article you link (and you fail to quote for all interested in objectivity why?)

However, although secondary supplies will continue to play an important part, the report warns that the period of primary supply being so far below annual reactor requirements will have to come to an end with a substantial need for new primary production facilities in the longer term. "Uranium production needs to increase dramatically from its current level," Cameco's Penny Buye, co-chair of the drafting group, told the Symposium. The market must ensure that conditions be conducive for this to happen, she added.

you are inconsistent with your own information sources
(but you have not read the important ones!).

I haven't a clue what this means.

ps out of the article you link (and you fail to quote for all interested in objectivity why?)

I quoted the paragraph that seemed relevant; you were asking for speculation about future growth in nuclear power. I don't think anyone disputes that if nuclear capacity increases and we don't move toward breeder technology, then uranium production will need to increase.

don't worry I added the part you missed!

read it again.

for the discrepancy between the 1-2% growth case hoped for
by WNA and others and the missing supply
or the impossibility to increase mining and tails extreactions
and so on
the consequences are obvious
only the slow phase out of worldwide nuclear is consistent with
the future mining according to current actions by the world elite!

I can not check with you hypothesis because you refuse to make one!

that might also say something: You do not have a clue perhaps?

michael

or the impossibility to increase mining and tails extreactions

Just ONE COMPANY has built about 4 million kgSWU of enrichment capacity since 2004.  They're bringing another 3 million kgSWU on-line in New Mexico and intend to expand the plant to 5.9 million kgSWU capacityThis is their investor report for 2009

Russia has signed a deal to increase its sales to 30% of the US market.  Note that this is a replacement for "Megatons to Megawatts"... which you said would leave a gap.  What gap?

There is a possible life extension of the Paducah GD plant past its 2012 closure date if re-enrichment of tails is warranted.  The estimate of the value of the tailings stored at Paducah is some $3 billion.

Does that sound like a shortage of enrichment capacity to you?  Does it sound like there is no capability to respond to a near-term shortage of LEU, or does it sound like matters are well in hand?

I found all of this with just a few minutes using Scroogle.  What's your excuse for not knowing about it?

Dear EP I do not know what is your obsession with the SWU's?

just to remind you:
the present paper is about the Red Book uranium resource data base
and the inconsistencies in it.

do you want to invest other peoples billions and propose a policy based on inferred resources
in Russia for example? perhaps if your job depends on it and you do not care if the money
and efforts will be wasted after you made the bugs?

If you think about the huge potential of secondary resources in the USA and Russia,
the numbers were in paper II. You did not object to the numbers right?
I wrote that one can imagine a "divine" intervention to eliminate the military stocks
and make all the necessary SWU a few years in advance?
So what's the problem?

I give you one:

does it make sense for a believer in Fast Breeders and Thorium breeders
to destroy all this HEU in order to keep on going with the
PWR's?

Can you google for how much HEU is needed in theory to start a 1 GWe
Breeder of type a and b?

here is another one:

Why should the USA and Russia reduce their strategic uranium reserves
to keep their competitors in Europe and Japan moving?

and please

change your tone!

michael

Dear EP I do not know what is your obsession with the SWU's?

I have told you several times:  more SWUs mean more LEU from a ton of NU.  For instance, going from a tails assay of 0.24% (typical of non-Russian practice) to 0.13% (typical of Russian practice) yields about 19% more LEU at the cost of about 60% more SWUs.

You are postulating roughly a 10% shortfall in NU production, based on 170 t/GW-yr NU consumption.  The SWU capacity exists to go to the lower tails assay, which would reduce the NU requirement to about 170/1.19=143 t/GW-yr.  You haven't even considered the impact of this upon the near-term availability of LEU.  I am still raising this issue in Chapter III because you have failed to mention it in Chapters I-II and dance around it in the discussion.

the present paper is about the Red Book uranium resource data base and the inconsistencies in it.

Inconsistencies in the long-term data aren't going to affect the short-term supply.  In the long term, the supply of uranium extends far beyond what the Red Book considers "resources".

do you want to invest other peoples billions and propose a policy based on inferred resources in Russia for example?

Invest billions?  The Russians are doing that; it's their billions.  If they think they can recoup the investment from sales, who am I to tell them not to?

I would rather buy Russian LEU than Russian natural gas.  It is very simple to substitute another supplier of LEU.

If you think about the huge potential of secondary resources in the USA and Russia, the numbers were in paper II. You did not object to the numbers right?

I recall that I did.  I found it impossible to follow your reasoning and asked you for a more succinct summary, to satisfy the group of skeptics.  We didn't get one.

I wrote that one can imagine a "divine" intervention to eliminate the military stocks and make all the necessary SWU a few years in advance?

And several people (including myself) have noted your obsession with exactly that.

Why should the USA and Russia reduce their strategic uranium reserves to keep their competitors in Europe and Japan moving?

The USA doesn't seem to be doing so, but Russia appears to be doing it to make money.  Russia is using its natural gas reserves to keep Europe moving, and I don't see you arguing that this is against their interests.

Can you google for how much HEU is needed in theory to start a 1 GWe Breeder of type a and b?

What are "type a" and "type b" in your lexicon?

I don't need to search for the amount needed for a FBR:  zero.  FBRs can run on plutonium, which can be reclaimed from spent LWR fuel.  The problem with dependence on a new fleet of FBRs is that they require about 20 tons of fissionables per GWe (per LeBlanc), so the ~600 tons of Pu in the USA's spent fuel inventory is only enough to start about 30 GWe of FBR capacity.*

does it make sense for a believer in Fast Breeders and Thorium breeders to destroy all this HEU in order to keep on going with the PWR's?

In case you failed to notice, this is one of the claims (that we must tap the HEU inventory) which is under dispute.  I would like to know this myself, but you are making circular arguments and evading essential parts of the chain of reasoning required to reach that conclusion.

and please change your tone!

If you mean "stop asking difficult questions over and over because they have never been answered to the satisfaction of the skeptics"... no, I will not.  I am a direct and literal person, and I am not going to accept evasions just because you feel uncomfortable.

* Given about 2400 tons/year of discharged fuel and guessing a discharge plutonium concentration of 1.0%, US LWRs are generating about 24 tons/year of Pu.  That's enough to start about 1200 MWe of FBR capacity every year.  At a breeding ratio of 1.03 they would run a very long time on the US inventory of SNF and DU, but they would not generate much excess for other purposes.  Disposal of the actinide inventory would justify it, however.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html

"In the liquid-metal, fast-breeder reactor (LMFBR), the target breeding ratio is 1.4 but the results achieved have been about 1.2 . This is based on 2.4 neutrons produced per U-235 fission, with one neutron used to sustain the reaction."

"The time required for a breeder reactor to produce enough material to fuel a second reactor is called its doubling time, and present design plans target about ten years as a doubling time."

So, using plutonium from just fresh spent fuel, we may start 1% FBRs per year (one per 100 LWRs). Then every 10 years, we may double up. This means in the first decade, we can establish 10% FBRs. In the second decade, we can add 20% FBRs (10% from the LWRs, 10% from doubling up). In the third decade, we can add 40% FBRs, for a total of 10+20+40=70% FBRs. In the fourth decade, we may add 80% FBRs, for a total of 150% FBRs.

Such a schedule would require reprocessing "hot spent fuel", almost fresh from the reactor.

Waiting even two decades to reprocess significantly reduces the specific radioactivity and reduces the number of radioisotopes to worry about (any with half lives <18 months are gone after 20 years).

I think 50 years is a good choice to wait before reprocessing. In which case HEU from weapons has value.

Alan

I did the calculation more as an illustration. In reality, you are right that we'd use weapons material or plutonium from spent fuel from the 70-ies or something. I think initial loading of FBRs are not a big problem.

I think initial loading of FBRs are not a big problem

I agree.

Alan

Such a schedule would require reprocessing "hot spent fuel", almost fresh from the reactor.

If I'm not mistaken, the pyroprocessing system meant for the Integral Fast Reactor was intended to do just that.  The paper I read on a test of fuel from the EBR-II mentioned the heat load from the fission products and the limits of the cell cooling system.  The beauty of purely ionic liquids (no covalent bonds) is that they are immune to radiolysis, and if you have to keep them hot anyway the fission products save you the need to run heaters.

On the other hand, we still have plenty of uranium and enrichment capacity.  If LWRs fell into disfavor, our existing enrichment capacity would provide adequate enriched uranium to start quite a few FBRs or LFTRs every year even if reclaimed SNF and decommissioned weapons material were not available.

the present paper is about the Red Book uranium resource data base and the inconsistencies in it.
Nah, we solved this one already. The resources were re-categorized to a different price brackets.
You have shown no facts otherwise, neither you showed evidence to support your claims about resource base <$130. You just keep silent on evidence, and loud on repeating your gossips, hoping you will get away with it.
This is clowning, not a discourse. And yes such tone is more than appropriate, given the silence of your response to presented arguments and evidence, which proves your suggestions as false, or non-sequitur.

Can you google for how much HEU is needed in theory to start a 1 GWe Breeder of type a and b?

This shows the author obviously did not spent enough time studying the topic which he feels so emotional about.
The answer for both these questions is NILL, even if you restrict yourself to uranium, ignoring all the bred actinides, Pu, Am, etc., which the politicians want to get rid off, and which may provide the start charge for either breeder kind. FBR did run on LEU, and obviously thermal breeders can run on LEU.

I asked two very explicit questions, Michael. What is so hard to understand?

You won't get a straight answer out of him.  I asked him about enrichment back in Chapter II.  I even gave him an enrichment calculator spreadsheet.  He failed to mention SWU anywhere in Chapters I-III or the discussion, and only mentions enrichment in this one in a quote from the 2007 Red Book.

The context of this mention is very telling:  it talks about dismantling of nuclear warheads.  This has been the consistent emphasis of the series so far, to the exclusion of all else.  It is patently obvious that Dr. Dittmar is not writing out of technical concern for the future of nuclear power, but out of his interest in promoting nuclear disarmament.  He is either attempting to fool us, or he has thoroughly succeeded in fooling himself.  Given his refusal to discuss separation in the comments, I have to conclude this:

  • He has already gone over the issue in his preparatory work (it isn't difficult, as has been shown).
  • He has found that it proves false his desired conclusion.
  • Since he is writing for political advocacy rather than technical analysis, he is trying to pretend that the issue does not exist.

My objection to running his series on TOD stems from the view that TOD shouldn't be used for political advocacy without a solid technical basis.  I think this series fails, badly.

Your aggressive tone speaks for itself.
You are not able to read what I wrote (or do not want to read it)
as well as you are not able to read official documents it seems.
You never come up with solid numbers and so on.
As a result you ask for censorship .. great!

but in any case coming back to the point you are talking about:

come up with hard numbers if they differ from the "official" WNA/IAEA documents.

here is what the WNA document says:
(among many other things!)

by 2015 about 50% of the required SWU comes from Russia!
with a planned large increase. Do you and others believe the Russian numbers?
Its your choice.

furthermore:

The trend in enrichment technology is to retire obsolete diffusion plants:
Commercial uranium enrichment was first carried out by the diffusion process in the USA. It has since been used in Russia, UK, France, China and Argentina as well. Today only the USA and France use the process on any significant scale. The remaining large USEC plant in the USA was originally developed for weapons programs and has a capacity of some 8 million SWU per year. At Tricastin, in southern France, a more modern diffusion plant with a capacity of 10.8 million kg SWU per year has been operating since 1979 (see photo above). This plant can produce enough 3.7% enriched uranium a year to fuel some ninety 1000 MWe nuclear reactors.

At present the gaseous diffusion process accounts for about 40% of world enrichment capacity. However, though they have proved durable and reliable, most gaseous diffusion plants are now nearing the end of their design life and the focus is on centrifuge enrichment technology which is replacing them.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html

World Enrichment capacity (thousand SWU/yr)

World Enrichment capacity (thousand SWU/yr)

2002 2006 2015
France - Areva
10,800*
10,800*
7500
Germany-Netherlands-UK - Urenco
5850
9000**
15,000
Japan - JNFL
900
1050
1500
USA - USEC
8,000*
8000*
3500+
USA - Urenco
0
0
3000
USA - Areva

0

0

1000

Russia - Tenex
20,000
25,000
33,000+
China - CNNC
1,000
1000
3000
Other
5
300
300
total SWU
46,500 approx
54,150
67,800+
Requirements (WNA)

48,428
57,000 - 63,000
source: OECD NEA (2003), Nuclear Energy Data; Nuclear Engineering International (2003),
World Nuclear Handbook, USEC, WNA Market Report 2007.
* diffusion ** Urenco reached 10,000 in June 2008. Including the US plant it expects to reach 15,000 in 2012,

thus in summary

in the document are the answers to all your questions!

there is much more from UXC
like
http://www.uxc.com/products/rpt_usec.aspx

unfortunately for normal people the entire report is not "available"

http://www.uxc.com/fuelcycle/enrichment/uxc_EnrCapacityTable.aspx

again it shows that Russia will dominate the future!

good luck!

Michael

double post, missed a slightly important kilo prefix.

Hi
I am a layman on this, and aint gonna be in any heated debate on this topic.
Could I just make a statement which you might just all agree on, EP Mccrab and Michael:
Do I understand correctly from above comments:

the next 5-10 years one can expect about 50000 (+/-20000) kSWUs per year globally (majority in Russia)?
Which can according to Maccrab produce about 10000 tU for reactors per year?
Which is today already being done, and after 2013 we have to "hope" that this will continue...
Hmm, interesting... I hope those military guys let go of some warheads to reactors... or that we are gonna
start transporting like 30000 t assay from Us coast to russia, or by rail through Europe. The anti nuclear are gonna love to stop these transports...

Correct my understanding if I like wrong with more than 50%.

Regards unreliable suppliers: That's an argument for buying supplies many years in advance. Double one's buy rate for 10 years. Stockpile the extra uranium. Then you get at least a 10 year warning zone in which to adjust.

Given that uranium is still a small fraction of total nuclear energy costs can't this be done?

It can be done, and was done by investors. People started to hoard uranium due to perceived supply shortages, encouraged by many "savvy" traders, just to see the price to bust on them.

Some (all ?) Texas utilities buy 15 years worth at a time, rarely let pre-buy get below 5-6 years. Not stock-piled on-site of course.

"Uranium is too cheap to screw up" by running short is a quote from a Texas utility exec.

Alan

Micheald,

My personal hope is that you are wrong in suspecting /believing that uranium supplies are inadequate but I want you to know that your work is appreciated even by those of us who are skeptical.

You have done me a considerable service by presenting your views in this forum as by reading them and the comments I have learned far more in less time in regard to nuclear fuel supplies present and future than I could have by any other means.

Hi,

thanks for your comment. It helps sometimes to read such replies.

for
>My personal hope is that you are wrong in suspecting /believing that uranium supplies are inadequate

well I am not sure what to say about that.

yes I enjoy the current benefits of cheap electric energy in France and
if you want my job depends to some extend on this.

At the same time when I learned the basics of my job
(and I had the best teachers i can imagine) it was first of all
lets figure out what is right or wrong independent of if we like it or not

i found these quotes sometime later:

Science promised us truth, or at least a knowledge
of such relations as our intelligence can seize:
it never promised us peace or happiness
Gustave Le Bon

and

Physicists learned to realize that whether they like a theory or
they don't like a theory is not the essential question.
Rather, it's whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment.
Richard Feynman, 1985

so yes I have to deal with this no matter if i like it or not.

michael
ps I was kind of shocked myself when i realized who much
the so called honest scientific data or "official resource data" are manipulated and unsubstantiated.

Micheal,

You are most welcome!

And I do get it in regard to your Feynman comment-I realize that there is a possibility that you are correct.

I tend myself to distrust just about all the data I run across regardless of the source until i have an opportunity to hear the other side of the story-and stories such as this one have many sides and the real truth may not be known for decades.There may be things that can go wrong that will possibly prevent us from utilizing the low grade ores for instance.

But I STILL HOPE that you are wrong.;)

There sure would be a lot of red faces around here if you turn out to be the Hubbert of uranuim!

Dispersive discovery works well in the context of searching for resources that remain rather sparse within a larger volume. Varying technological search rates within the volume will give a peak if the average search rate accelerates over time.

This concept breaks down if we are searching for an ore like uranium that can exist in a uniform suspension at minute concentrations. In other words, we really don't have to look hard because it is found everywhere. So we essentially know that we can develop uranium at the low ore concentrations if the high concentrations never get found.

That said, dispersive discovery is likely valid if we apply it to the very high grades that occur very sparsely and a concerted effort is required to find it. This should show a classic peak according to dispersive discovery.

http://www.wise-uranium.org/ufert.html
http://www.wise-uranium.org/purec.html

The world average uranium content in phosphate rock is estimated at 50 - 200 ppm. Marine phosphorite deposits contain averages of 6 - 120 ppm, and organic phosphorite deposits up to 600 ppm.
World uranium resources in phosphate rock are not very well known; the following table shows approximate inventories.

9+ million tons of Uranium in currently known phosphate.
1.2 million tons of Uranium in phosphate

http://www.vulgarisation.net/imphos/download/jena/cisse_prb-15.pdf
Estimate of phosphate rock at reserves 3.6-8 billion, potential reserves 11-22 billion tons. (2004 est)

http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/inputs/fertilizer/0215-enough-future-pho...

THE WORLD HAS at least 15 billion metric tons of proven phosphate rock reserves that can be profitably mined today, the USGS estimates. At present consumption rates, that's enough to last about 100 years, Jasinski says.

There are another 35 billion tons of lower-grade and unexplored phosphate reserves, which are potentially economically feasible. Many of these deposits are too expensive to extract now, Jasinski says, but they could be developed in the future, as processing technologies advance and ore values rise.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2007/12/321-peak-phosphorus.html
asked Stephen M. Jasinski, the USGS phosphate rock specialist, for his opinion on this matter, and he said: "Phosphate production has likely peaked, but reserves will last about 300 years with current technology." Apparently, Mr. Jasinski sees the reserve base figure of 50 billion tons as the more credible figure in the long-term.

Various technologies exist to recover the uranium from the product stream, thus removing this unwanted constituent from the products and lowering the needs for uranium ore. Worldwide, there are approximately 400 wet-process phosphoric acid plants in operation.
Eight plants for the recovery of uranium from phosphoric acid have been built and operated in the United States since 1976 (Florida: 6, Louisiana: 2). Plants have also been built in Canada, Spain, Belgium, Israel, and Taiwan, see Facilities for Uranium Recovery from Phosphate.
Historical operating costs for the uranium recovery from phosphoric acid range from 22 to 54 US$/lb U3O8. These operating costs are by far higher than past uranium market prices, and most uranium recovery plants have been closed.

======
Depleted uranium inventories
http://www.wise-uranium.org/eddat.html

1,188,273 tons

========
Uranium in coal ash and has been recovered from coal ash
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2007/10/uranium-produced-from-coal-as...

the ash pile being evaluated contains about 5.3 million tons of ash with a uranium concentration of 160-180 parts per million. The total quantity of uranium in the pile is thus about 2085 tons. According to the UIC ISL article the normal recovery percent from an ISL deposit ranges between 60-80% so the amount of uranium that might be recovered is about 1250-1700 tons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

In the past, fly ash was generally released into the atmosphere, but pollution control equipment mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to release. In the US, fly ash is generally stored at coal power plants or placed in landfills. About 43 percent is recycled, often used to supplement Portland cement in concrete production.

Worldwide, more than 65% of fly ash produced from coal power stations is disposed of in landfills. In India alone, fly ash landfill covers an area of 40,000 acres (160 km2). As of 2005, U.S. coal-fired power plants reported producing 71.1 million tons of fly ash.

http://www.coal-ash.co.il/sadna/Abstract_Feuerborn.pdf
Updated estimates by W. vom Berg in 2001 figures 480 million tonnes in total, listing China with an estimated production of 100 million tonnes, North America with 83 million tonnes, India with 80 million tonnes, Europe with about 90 million tonnes, Russia with 50 million tonnes, South Africa with 30 million tonnes, Japan with 8 million tonnes and about 39 million tonnes for other countries.

so every year about 80-100 times the One 5.3 million tons coal ash dump in China. Using lower estimates about 1000 tons of Uranium in each 5 million tons of coal ash. 80,000 tons per year of uranium in coal ash. Go to the landfills which have decades of coal ash with the 100-200 ppm of uranium.

============
Transmutation is easier than nuclear fusion for energy production
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/12/non-electric-uses-for-nuclear-fusion.html

=====
PUREX and other processes for using unburned nuclear fuel in nuclear waste
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

MOX fuel
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf29.html

A great example of humanity 'picking the low hanging most profitable fruit'.

-Rather than spend the extra we are prepared to pump the stuff into our atmosphere, polluting our childrens lungs and wasting a valuable resource... Way to go Mankind!

Nick.

AN:  Your profile has no e-mail.  Would you mind dropping me a line at the mail in the sidebar at my blog?  Thanks in advance.

There are a couple of curious omissions from this analysis. Firstly the uranium outlook in Australia has changed just in 2009. A new State government in Western Australia has given the green light to several new mines and South Australia's Olympic Dam copper-gold-uranium deposit aspires to be the world's largest metal mine ie bigger than any iron ore mine. All three metals are enjoying high prices which improves the joint economics. It is hoped OD will produce up to 19,000 tonnes a year of U3O8 for decades.

The other omission is the likely improvement in fuel burn rates for next generation nuclear. I don't know enough about the relative merits of different designs but some believe that after initial 'firing up' no new uranium may be needed for several centuries. They will use currently discarded nuclear materials. Those new generation nukes should be online within 15-20 years we are told, well before any global uranium shortage. We will have to trust they materialise because I see little evidence that wind and solar will provide enough energy for 9 billion people.

We will have to trust they materialise because I see little evidence that wind and solar will provide enough energy for 9 billion people.

Therefore uranium reserves are able to provide enough energy for 9 billion people, right?

Trust but verify.--Ronald Reagan(actor)

What is the sensitivity of uranium mining and nuclear/electric scaling to oil availability, both in absolute terms and at various price levels? I know this is nigh an impossible question, but the Rare Earth Metal presentation here last month showing increasing energy requirements due to overburden etc. reminded me again how central oil is. I.e. if oil is equivalent of $300 per barrel in 2009 dollars (maybe $150 in 2012 terms...;-), what would that mean to uranium production and grid capacity?

Hi Nate,

good point.

In my view .. this is not known or at least documented.

like I wrote in the article
the EROEI should be used for uranium resources
instead of an "unquantified" dollar value.

Thus in short some interesting work for oil drummers
to figure this out!

Michael

Michael, once again thank you very much for all your efforts here. I will take all your articles away one weekend to concentrate on close reading them.

I'd echo Nate's point about the need to know the energy consumption during mining. And we also need a chart showing the energy content of U ore for different grades of ore. If you can give me the raw energy content of unprocessed U metal or yellow cake in J / kg I could probably produce such chart later today.

We also need to know the energy cost of mining, moving and milling a tonne of ore combined with how this varies with mine depth and distance to the milling station - someone out there must know this.

Metal mining is a complex industry. It is very rare for companies to mine just a single metal. Olympic dam is a good example. Primarily a Cu mine where U was produced as an associated metal. And so to some extent the operator gets this for free. Allocating the costs (financial and energy) is not easy.

Euan

Hi Euan,
thanks!

for your question:

>If you can give me the raw energy content of unprocessed U metal or yellow cake in J / kg I could probably >produce such chart later today.

it depends on the assumption on how the fuel is used
the number for U235 (and U233 from Thorium) and Pu239 from U238) is straight forward
roughly 200 MeV / fission with perhaps 80-max 90% of it usable.

now how much of the natural uranium u235 is used in the fission process?

depends
I ``know" from the literature in standard PWR's for example
one starts with depleting natural uranium u235 content
from 0.71% to 0.25-0.3% roughly (it is claimed that 0,15% is possible now)
how much energy this requires depends again on many issues

next the reactor fuel start with 4% u235 enrichment roughly
and burns down to about 1%
during this process another 1% of Pu239 is building up
and this contribute to roughly 30% of the total liberated fission energy
the PWR's have an average efficiency of 0.33 for producing a kwh electric.

what is the energy cost to construct and operate the PWR
and eventually destroy it and bring the green fields happily back
from the mining (almost never done) to the waste storage not yet done

thus
probably "unknown" I would say but at least much larger than what the WNA etc claim.
are these hidden costs relevant
I would say yes at least for our children and theirs but
now? like for everything else in the energy sector certainly not

finally
the biggest unknown is the
breeder question

theoretically one can increase the energy content by a large factor
some claim 100 in the best of all worlds

I have not found much experimental evidence for any number close to that
so far.

Thus, in summary I find that the yearly fuel requirements for a 1 GWe
average reactor are a good measure

thus 170 tons of natural uranium requirement = 1 year fuel for a 1 GWe
power plant with 90% running time = 24*365 hours*0.9 = (roughly) 8 TWhe.

in the "first chapter" i had a long table with different country numbers

hope this answers roughly the question for existing and currently planned reactors

michael

Thanks Michael. There are a lot of different ways to approach the problem, and as a simple minded geologist I'd start by trying to get an assumption free measure of the energy content of the ore - and then start factoring in the mining energy costs, fuel enrichment costs, reactor efficiencies (fuel burn and thermal) etc.

According to this link, 1 pound of 235U has 3.7*10^13 J of energy. At 0.72% abundance for 235U, that works out at 0.587*10^15 J / tonne U metal (I think).

http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf

Oil has 42 GJ / tonne
Coal has 28 GJ / tonne
Uranium has 587,000 GJ / tonne

But whereas oil and coal can more or less be mined pure, U metal cannot.

Very high grade ore (20%) will contain 117,400 GJ / tonne of ore
High grade ore (2%) will contain 11,740 GJ / tonne
Low grade ore (0.1%) will contain 587 GJ / tonne
Very low grade ore (0.01%) will contain 58.7 GJ / tonne

So at very low grade ores we're getting down to comparable energy content to coal - but then we need to deduct the U we don't recover and all the ore processing and fuel enrichment costs.

Hope I've done my sums right.

Rossing in Namibia is solely a uranium mine and helpfully publishes its energy use statistics each year:

http://www.rossing.com/performance.htm

It is also, at 350ppm, by anyone's reckoning, very low grade.

Excellent - thanks a lot.

384 GJ per tonne of U3O8 produced.

461 GJ energy used per tonne of U metal

at 0.035% ore grade.

If I did my sums right then the main thing to learn from this exercise is that the energy costs of U mining are trivial:

461 GJ used to extract 1 tonne of U metal from low grade ore
587,000 GJ of energy stored in the 1 tonne of U - all of which cannot be produced as useful high grade heat

This really shows that the real issue is not grade that makes the U ore but the mineralisation (which Michael mentions in his article). Uranium occurs in rocks as a major constituent in a variety of U minerals some of which are easily soluble in acid - pitchblend and uraninite. U is relatively easily extracted from these ore minerals by acid leaching. Obviously higher ore grades are better, but the energy return on mining suggested above shows that it is not the most important factor. It is the presence or absence of acid soluble minerals that is the key.

U also occurs in high concentrations in certain phosphate and silicate minerals - monazite and zircon + many others. But these are far from easily soluble. Rocks with a high abundance of these minerals may reach the 350 ppm U of Rossing, but would not be ores since the U is unobtainable. Herein lies the danger of extrapolating U resources from chemical assays when it is the mineralogy that is key.

What kind of leeching solution to use in ISL depends on chemistry. For some geology types acids are used, some need oxidizing solutions (typically for sandstone deposits), and there are other options. Mineralogy is the key-hole, the chemistry used is the key.

in my paper I mention some fineprints in the WNA document about the Rossing mine.

I would say it is not 100% clear what the chemical composition and the total extend of this
mine is. the official industry numbers are not the entire story
but difficult to get better numbers.

tried without success so far.

michael

Hi,

on a quick look this looks ok to me!
(don't have the time right now to check the numbers)

but again the way the enrichment is done and
the "breeding" question makes it a little more delicate.

at least right now and in the near future
the standard PWR reactors can be used accordingly.

e.g. 170 tons/GWe per year
thus 0.0071 U235 content reduced to lets say 0.25
thus 0.5% per ton of natural uranium
plus another 0.15 from the internal pu239
production and fission.

michael

Michael, this is all very helpful. Adding in the Pu breeding increment makes U look even more attractive. And the fact that processing can be conducted at the mine means that the concentrated energy can be transported large distances at relatively low energy cost.

But the key issue is that U mineralisation on large scale is quite rare. U, like H might be everywhere, but it is not much use unless it can be easily obtained in concentrated form from acid soluble minerals. One of the keys to the mineralisation process is the change in solubility of the U ion with redox potential.

Hi Euan,

I think you are absolutely right here.
This is what needs to be figured out now if one wants to go any deeper.

A big job I believe but the result might be rewarding
by who
(at least by some future generations who will have to pay less
for the damage we and earlier generations are doing
I hope!)

michael

Michael, Euan; thanks for this interesting exchange. It is not often that one can learn so much so fast in the TOD comments section which is, unfortunately, infested with aggressive boors. Thanks!

The breeding ratio question is one of the biggest.

I did some searching and couldn't confirm the figure I had from memory, but I did find this page claiming that current LWRs achieve a breeding ratio of about 0.55.  This means that the depletion of U-235 from 3.75% in the fresh fuel to 1.0% in the spent fuel should breed (2.75%*0.55)=1.51% plutonium.  The actual Pu concentration in spent fuel appears to be closer to 1.0%, so roughly 1/3 of it is "burned" (fissioned).  That would account for perhaps 16% of the total energy.

Advanced LWRs are expected to achieve breeding ratios of 0.7-0.8.  If they start with 5% 235U and burn down to 0.8% with a remnant Pu concentration of perhaps 1.2% (for 2% total fissionables at end of life), this would breed a total of 2.9-3.4% Pu and burn 1.7-2.2% of it.  The amount of energy produced from 238U bred to Pu could be as much as 34% of the total.  Even on a once-through cycle, stretching the total energy production by this much is more than enough to reduce raw uranium requirements by 10%.

Thanks for confirming my figures from the earlier papers.
(finally!)

thus if all 370 GWe today would be replaced
right away with the new better reactors (which will all work from the start according to design)
you are saving 10% or about 6000 tons per year.

in reality
not much
if people claim that a 1% increase per year of GWe is possible
from plant construction it will take a long long time before the reduction can be effective

before that .. well guess what some light will likely go out somewhere!

michael

thus if all 370 GWe today would be replaced right away with the new better reactors (which will all work from the start according to design) you are saving 10% or about 6000 tons per year.

No, it appears to be a matter of fuel element design and testing.  This would work in the existing reactor fleet as well as new reactors.  Here is a patent relating to the production of such fuel, and a discussion mentioning that AVERAGE burnups are now being aimed at 60 GW-d/t.  Such high average burnups could not be achieved for decades if existing reactors could not use this fuel.

before that .. well guess what some light will likely go out somewhere!

I point out once again the tendentious nature of your arguments.

The talk you posted is very interesting. Did you look at it?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/newreactors/presentations/250609/hugh-richards.pdf

now more sobering and all these ``tiny" radiation problems aside

here is what the WNA document says:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html

An issue in operating reactors and hence specifying the fuel for them is fuel burn-up. This is measured in gigawatt-days per tonne and its potential is proportional to the level of enrichment. Hitherto a limiting factor has been the physical robustness of fuel assemblies, and hence burn-up levels of about 40 GWd/t have required only around 4% enrichment. But with better equipment and fuel assemblies, 55 GWd/t is possible (with 5% enrichment), and 70 GWd/t is in sight, though this would require 6% enrichment. The benefit of this is that operation cycles can be longer - around 24 months - and the number of fuel assemblies discharged as used fuel can be reduced by one third. Associated fuel cycle cost is expected to be reduced by about 20%.

higher enrichment yes but not much change in natural uranium equivalent
what's your point?
or are you trying to..
>tendentious nature of arguments.

regards

Michael

The talk you posted is very interesting. Did you look at it?

Why wouldn't I?  I found it most interesting that the major "problem" was the heat output of the spent fuel making it impossible to seal buried canisters against water seepage using bentonite clay.  If the spent fuel is held in dry casks above ground until it is processed for its contents, this is a non-issue.

Hitherto a limiting factor has been the physical robustness of fuel assemblies, and hence burn-up levels of about 40 GWd/t have required only around 4% enrichment. But with better equipment and fuel assemblies, 55 GWd/t is possible (with 5% enrichment), and 70 GWd/t is in sight, though this would require 6% enrichment. The benefit of this is that operation cycles can be longer - around 24 months - and the number of fuel assemblies discharged as used fuel can be reduced by one third. Associated fuel cycle cost is expected to be reduced by about 20%.

Okay, let's take that as a given for the sake of argument.

higher enrichment yes but not much change in natural uranium equivalent

Now it's my turn to ask if you read your own quote.  A yield of 70 GWd/t is some 75% greater than 40 GWd/t for only a 50% greater initial enrichment.  If we calculate yield of fuel from NU assuming a 0.13% tails assay (centrifuge enrichment is cheap) and then multiply by thermal output per ton of fuel, I get this:

  Enrichment    Fuel yield 
  tons/ton NU 
  Heat yield 
  GWd/MTHM 
  Net yield 
  GWd/MTNU 
  Improvement 
4% 0.15 40 6.0 0%
5% 0.12 55 6.6 +10%
6% 0.0988 70 6.91 +15%

It appears that the advance to 5% enrichment is sufficient to offset a 10% decrease in uranium production all by itself.  The increase to 6% enrichment is sufficient to compensate for a 15% shortage.

Edit:  corrected error in 6% row and updated conclusions.

I think your 0.13% is the problem.
>NU assuming a 0.13% tails assay

currently it is more 0,25-0.3% no?

thus from 0.71%--> 0.25% not 0.13% (this is perhaps possible some time in the future
on large scale but not standard right now).

don't have the numbers at hand right now.
but it was somewhere in the Red Book

michael

The 0.13% figure is the value for Russian tailings from the Layton presentation which you have cited as a reference.  The increasing amount of centrifuge enrichment capacity, and its very low energy requirements (~50 kWh/SWU compared to ~2500 kWh for gaseous diffusion) argues that tails assays will decrease in order to derive more salable product from the same input.

Edit:  If you don't think 0.13% is a realistic tails assay, why don't you re-calculate my table for something you like better?  Your presentation could use some work, so I suggest you click on the subthread link for that comment, view the HTML source for the page, and copy out the HTML code for the table (search for the <table> tag, it'll be the second or third one on the page).  Edit in your numbers and copy the results into your comment.

Dear EP

If you think that this is relevant for the discussion of the
Red Book uranium data

you are invited to make whatever calculation you like.

in fact as I have proposed to you and others

make your hypothesis on the future of nuclear fission
TWHe per year and we can test who is more wrong.

for now we are in the discussion of chapter III
and it has not much to do with hypothetical claims of SWU's.

please comment on the point

are the Red Book data reliable
and if yes from which country
and so on!

Michael

I'm asking you about SWUs and related matters because you refused to discuss them in Chapters I and II.  They are key to your argument, so this omission (especially after all the pointed questions about those issues addressed to you in the last two chapters) looks more like an attempt to hide information which does not support your conclusion.

There are obvious reasons for the fluctuations in the Red Book values, such as changes in exchange rates to US dollars.  There are many sources of uranium not covered by the Red Book, such as Saskatchewan lignites and the associated source rocks.  Unless you do an analysis of the economic factors or go straight to the energy requirements for the process and associated equipment (which I understand is very difficult to do), you haven't come close to making your case.

Dear EP

look if you want to stick to technical terms
i have no problem with that.

I tried to avoid it as it complicates the discussion in a way not needed in my view.

but in case the claims on SWU evolution are well documented in the WNA paper
i posted. Lets see how much will be realized relative to the claims.

As I said many times "claimed capacity of mining are usually exaggerated
well documented in the WNA and Red Book.

you might argue that this is because the few big players in the uranium
mining industry try to use shortage for getting a larger fraction of the cake!

That might be a different reason. The result will be the same
a slow phase out!

there are other more fundamental problems as well.
as I said make a prediction to see how wrong you (and me) are!

as long as you are afraid of that it means that you
do not believe that to understand the fundamentals behind!

you might talk about theoretical possibilities

I talk about practical and potential limits from the available public data

you and others can blame the weather, greens martian invaders, human stupidity
who knows.

I say current trends do not allow even a 1% increase
and in Europe silently the Euratom Supply agency
publishes yearly papers saying
the use in europe will decrease by 30%.

As not many new wonder reactors will come online during the next 10 years
the possible fuel demand has to come from a slow phase out.

isn't that very simple and consistent with the aging problem?

michael

Would it trouble you to NOT add lots of line-breaks in your text?  It makes it come out very choppy and hard to read.  If you just let text wrap at the window margin everything will appear nicely when posted.

you might argue that this is because the few big players in the uranium mining industry try to use shortage for getting a larger fraction of the cake!

The evidence for this would be high uranium prices.  Where is this evidence?

That might be a different reason. The result will be the same a slow phase out!

But your argument is based on supply shortages, not hostile policy.  Nobody, not even your own sources, agree with your premise, and there are several different ways to avoid your postulated outcome even if you are correct!

I say current trends do not allow even a 1% increase

Not even with power up-rates and license extensions?

in Europe silently the Euratom Supply agency publishes yearly papers saying the use in europe will decrease by 30%.

Is this due to uranium shortages?  If not, you just admitted your whole argument is without basis.

As not many new wonder reactors will come online during the next 10 years the possible fuel demand has to come from a slow phase out.

That sentence does not make sense in english.

There are a number of plant license extensions and power up-rates in the works.  Thermal up-rates and extensions will increase both the power generated and the uranium consumed.  We'll see who is right.

for the line break (will try)

you wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Is this due to uranium shortages? If not, you just admitted your whole argument is without basis.

>As not many new wonder reactors will come online during the next 10 years the possible fuel demand has to >come from a slow phase out.

That sentence does not make sense in english.

----------------------------------------------------------------

sorry, will try again! It was related to the situation in the EU countries only.
Not many new reactors are planned in the EU area but many will be terminated (UK, Germany some in France?
etc). Thus the Nat U demand decrease comes from decreased capacity in the EU area!

is it clear now?

>There are a number of plant license extensions and power up-rates in the works. Thermal up-rates and >extensions will increase both the power generated and the uranium consumed. We'll see who is right.

do you have a list for EU reactors? I doubt!

but again how can we see who is right as you have not yet made a prediction!

So far we can only see if my prediction for a slow phase out will happen or not.
We can also see if the Euratom supply agency is indicating if I am consistent with their prediction.
the answer is yes!

michael

ps for all those monetary arguments
do you reject the peak oil hypothesis just because the oil price today is half of its peak value
today?

Not many new reactors are planned in the EU area but many will be terminated

Which was EP's point - at least here in the UK the proportion of nuclear electricity will continue to fall for some time whatever happens as most of the remaining power stations are (nearly) life expired and no new ones have been built for decades, however this has nothing what so ever to do with uranium supply constraints.

You seem to want to have two mutually contradictory things-

1. It is not worth building new reactors because there will be no fuel to use in them (which suggests FBRs would be the way forward if it were true).

2. New reactors aren't being built (really only true in western Europe) so demand for uranium will fall so there will be a less mined so 1 must be true.

This is an utterly circular argument and while it is certainly possible that a short term supply gap might develop the large stocks and long fuel residence times gives a lot of warning and time to take action.

Also even if there is a serious short term fuel problem this is hardly a reason for abandoning nuclear for the long term unless there way more evidence that uranium (especially from coal ash etc) is truly exhausted at the much higher fuel price that more expensive electricity will soon allow whatever happens.

Looks right, nice work.

EP - I'm certainly absorbing your comments about breeding along with Michael's - but I'm starting from a position of relative ignorance and am trying to get my head around some of the more basic issues first.

As I understand it all reactors breed fuel, and improved reactor design may boost this breeding to improve the energy yield by up to 10% (as suggested by Michael here). Useful, but not transformatory.

Moving to fast breeder design would be transformatory, but the technology here seems to be elusive at present.

The main thing I've learned from this very useful exchange here is that the energy profit of U mining is vast (1200:1) and this obviously leaves vast scope for new mining and extraction techniques to be developed but this can only be done if there is a mineable resource to target. I need to read Michael's papers in detail together with some other sources on global U ores to develop a view on this.

As far as I'm aware, Langer Heinrich is the only new U mine to open in recent decades (excepting Cigar Lake). As I understand things, Paladin conducted a pretty comprehensive study of global U resources and selected this as one of the best opportunities - so this should tell us something about the state of the remaining reserve base.

http://www.paladinenergy.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=18

As I understand it all reactors breed fuel, and improved reactor design may boost this breeding to improve the energy yield by up to 10% (as suggested by Michael here). Useful, but not transformatory.

The transformatory advance in thermal-neutron reactors will come with the use of thorium.  If Shippingport can achieve a breeding ratio > 1.0 in a run lasting 5 years, doubtless modern reactors can exceed 0.9 even with the higher neutron flux causing more captures by Pa-233.  The fuel burnup will be limited mostly by decay heat and the durability of the fuel cladding.  I found this mention of a pebble-bed element achieving 100 GW-d/t using thorium... in 1966!

Moving to fast breeder design would be transformatory, but the technology here seems to be elusive at present.

I think the technology has been deliberately avoided.  The main expense with FBRs such as the Superfenix appears to be reprocessing of its oxide-based fuel elements; this requires nasty wet chemistry starting with dissolution into nitric acid, and creates a radioactive chemical mess a la Hanford.  The fuel reprocessing for the Integral Fast Reactor was based on electrolysis of metallic fuel rods in molten salts, which eliminates all the organic solvents and their radiolytic byproducts.  The US Congress (with a Democratic majority at the time) killed the IFR in 1994, despite the shutdown allegedly costing more money in refunds to Japan than it would have taken to complete.

The Republican party took both houses of Congress in the elections in November 1994, but the damage was done.

Incidentally, the metal-fuel fast reactors are remarkable for their power output.  From what I've read, the EBR II produced 65 megawatts from a volume roughly the size of an American football.

EP,
you write:

>The transformatory advance in thermal-neutron reactors will come with the use of thorium. If Shippingport can >achieve a breeding ratio > 1.0 in a run lasting 5 years, doubtless modern reactors can exceed 0.9 even with the >higher neutron flux causing more captures by Pa-233.

to add some important numbers here
the core started with 501kg highly pure u233
and after 5 years of operation (with 70 MWe power) the analysis found less than 508 kg of u233

do you have any evidence for this statement for this "can exceed 0.9" statement?
or is it a computer modeling number? or a guess?

Michael

Shippingport demonstrates the once-thru thorium cycle
U-235(20% enrichment) and thorium was the initial fuel I think, not U-233.
Of course this means that the rare U-235 is turned in fission products, so the amount of fertile material decreases, the neutron flux must decrease and a build up of contaminants must at some point reduce efficiency.

In this case IMO thorium extends the fuel in the reactor but how much practically?

With a breed rato of .4 as in a LWR you extend the initial fuel 1+.4+.4^2+.4^3...= 1/(1-.4) = 1.6 times.

Without a lot of speculation I would guess that Shippingport (1977-1983) ended because the initial charge was extended as much as it could be practically done without reprocessing.
A normal fuel rod lasts 1.5 before changing.

The Shippingports rods lasted 6 years that is 4 times longer than conventional uranium fuel rods or a practical breed ratio of
1-1/6.4 = .85.

Therefore once-thru thorium might extend uranium by 4 times but would expire with the end of U-235 (plutonium is produced from U-235 fission, so U-235 becomes the limiting factor, not the availability of thorium or U-238).

http://www.ats-fns.fi/archive/esitys_wallenius.pdf

Shippingport demonstrates the once-thru thorium cycle
U-235(20% enrichment) and thorium was the initial fuel I think, not U-233.
Of course this means that the rare U-235 is turned in fission products, so the amount of fertile material decreases, ...

No, as Dittmar said, it had a breeding ratio >1; i.e. it finished with more fissile than it started with. U-233 is in some ways a better fuel than U-235.

Without a lot of speculation I would guess that Shippingport (1977-1983) ended because the initial charge was extended as much as it could be practically done without reprocessing.

Apparently not.

[The experimental core] showed no signs of approaching the end of its useful life. It was obvious from the core performance that the reactor was at least a very efficient converter with a long life core. However, in October, 1982, the reactor was shut down for the final time under budgetary pressures and a desire to conduct the detailed fuel examination needed to determine if breeding had actually occurred.

http://www.atomicinsights.com/oct95/LWBR_oct95.html

to add some important numbers here
the core started with 501kg highly pure u233 and after 5 years of operation (with 70 MWe power) the analysis found less than 508 kg of u233

The starting fissionables for the breeding test of Shippingport were 235U, not 233U.  The spent-fuel assay found that the core finished with 1% more fissionables than at the start (documented in Nuclear engineering: theory and technology of commercial nuclear power among other places).  Your figures are consistent with the quoted breeding ratio of 1.013.

do you have any evidence for this statement for this "can exceed 0.9" statement?

Shippingport's achievement of 1.013 proves that 0.9 is possible.  Incidentally, fuel elements incorporating ThO2 are amenable to much higher burnups than those with just uranium.  The higher neutron yield of U-233 allows a chain reaction to proceed to lower total levels of fissionables, and the plutonium produced in such fuel elements is of much lower quality for military purposes than that produced with uranium fuel.

Dear EP
you wrote:

>Shippingport's achievement of 1.013 proves that 0.9 is possible.

well only if you talk about the LWBR reactor type
as the experimental 60 (or 70? one finds different numbers in the literature) MWe Shippingport reactor was

you didn't specify that.

If you put Th232 in a PWR reactor the 0.9 number is not related to anything right?

for the 501 kg of U233
i found it at this report

http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/te_1319_17.pdf
page 177 bottom

and here
http://books.google.com/books?id=EpuaUEQaeoUC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=bree...

page 317/318 the book says U233 mixed with th232 as reactor seed.

perhaps the authors of these papers got it wrong.
do you have a better reference?

michael

page 317/318 the book says U233 mixed with th232 as reactor seed.

It appears that you are correct and my previous sources are in error.

well only if you talk about the LWBR reactor type as the experimental 60 (or 70? one finds different numbers in the literature) MWe Shippingport reactor was

Shippingport was a standard, though early, PWR.  The same page 177 from which you took your isotope data says it was rated at 90 MWe.

If you put Th232 in a PWR reactor the 0.9 number is not related to anything right?

It's related to other light-water pressurized reactors... like Shippingport, but allowing for more compromises in things like the neutron economy.

Mixed fuel is quite feasible.  If you are concerned about uranium supplies, this is cause to look at thorium:

Calculations using the MOCUP code system indicate that the mixed ThO2-UO2 fuel, with about 5.8% total heavy metal 235U, could be burned to 72 MWd/kg using 30 wt% UO2 and the balance ThO2.

The higher enrichment of the U fraction (19.3%) would result in more tails (about 3.03% product for the U fraction) but the burnup is high, too.  Updating my table from here (which I can no longer edit):

  Enrichment    Fuel yield 
  tons/ton NU 
  Heat yield 
  GWd/MTHM 
  Net yield 
  GWd/MTNU 
  Improvement 
4% 0.15 40 6.0 0%
5% 0.12 55 6.6 +10%
6% 0.0988 70 6.91 +15%
5.8% + 70% ThO2 0.101 72 7.27 +21%

Hi EP,

thanks for clarifying with the U233 seed.
I am trying to find some more documents about this anyway.

I remember that somewhere I saw it was super highly enriched U233
but yesterday night I couldn't find the document again.

For the power of the Shippingport reactor

there are different numbers all around
from 60 MWe to 90 MWe (even 100 MWe i saw somewhere)

the PRIS data base says: official power rating
Net capacity 60 MWe
gross capacity 68 MWe

but different running conditions in the experiments
might have resulted in different power

concerning the scaling from
"small" to ``large" reactors
not only the core conditions and the local neutron flux and poison during the operation time
change!

Thus it is not obvious that the 1.013 number translates
into anything close to 1
for todays standard PWR or BWR!

michael

" Thus it is not obvious that the 1.013 number translates
into anything close to 1
for todays standard PWR or BWR! "

I presume you mean existing reactors converted to use thorium. Converting a 1966 Ford Mustang into a hybrid would be a challenge, and it would probably not perform as well as a Prius, but if it performed much better than the original car that would be a big step forward.

Neutrons that leak out of the reactor are wasted, and the probability of leaking out of the core increases rapidly as the core shrinks. That is one reason why there are no nuclear hand grenades. The other reason being that no one can throw them far enough.

Shippingport was a small core, so achieving1.013 is a remarkable accomplishment and should be considered the baseline for larger reactors.

The impact on the uranium supply would be huge, but since uranium is abundant and dirt cheap there is little motivation to modify existing reactors.

However, starting with a blank sheet we can do much better using knowledge gained since the 1960’s.

One more nit:  thorium, with its superior breeding ratio to uranium, is claimed to exhibit much more constant reactivity and thus can be used to much higher burnups without e.g. lots of burnable poisons.  Higher burnups mean more production time between refuelings, which might be profitable enough to make thorium attractive even if uranium remains cheap.

there is more in this as well!

you know that U235 or Pu239 concentration in the core is also important.

If you start with high concentration the "poor" neutrons
have it easier to find the way to the U238/Th232 blanket

I think most text books on "neutron" physics will tell you this
if you would bother to read the original literature (not easy in many cases
and time consuming).

I am sure we will discuss more about this in the discussion about
chapter IV of my report.

michael

you know that U235 or Pu239 concentration in the core is also important.

If you start with high concentration the "poor" neutrons have it easier to find the way to the U238/Th232 blanket

Which suggests the optimum size for a breeder is smaller than for a LWR, but this is more of an advantage than a disadvantage. If a power plant needs to have more capacity, multiple reactors can be combined — e.g. have ten 300-MWe units rather than two 1400-MWe ones.

I think most text books on "neutron" physics will tell you this if you would bother to read the original literature (not easy in many cases and time consuming).

Lots of documents, with an emphasis on molten salt and thorium reactors, are available from http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ .

>Which suggests the optimum size for a breeder is smaller than for a LWR, but this is more of an advantage than a >disadvantage.

not really! perhaps you know that small reactors are phased out worldwide now!
can you guess why?

anyway I wrote this because your statement before about the neutron flux and fission/breeding
was not correct!

thats why some good nuclear engineering books about neutron physics might help
in future discussions (about breeder either (Th232 or U238).

michael

These were the first constructed, often experimental, with shorter life span than later reactors. Also many small research reactors were closed down for no good reason, besides slowdown in nuclear field due to populist, irrational, and non-sequitor lamenting, such as your here.

Many investors understand the advantages of modular design, hence the respective companies are booming now. Some of them have already build many of such reactors in the previous decades, and are looking are wider markets.

thats why some good nuclear engineering books about neutron physics might help in future discussions (about breeder either (Th232 or U238).
Indeed, you would benefit greatly had you read some of them. For instance, you would know that FBRs run happily on LEU.

as the experimental 60 (or 70? one finds different numbers in the literature) MWe Shippingport reactor was

Shippingport was the first large scale commercial plant (1957).
The last core was the LWBR one (1977).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

"Enriched uranium (3.5% U235) in light water reactor 3,456,000 MJ/kg"

So for unprocessed U, the energy content is about a fifth, or 0.7 TJ/kg.

Enrichment also requires energy - and the more energy you invest, the less U235 you leave in tailings. I'd guess that from an EROEI perspective, we leave much more U235 in tailings than we should.

0.7 TJ / kg = 700 GJ / tonne - way below what I just calculated. I'm guessing some of this may be due to the fission and thermal efficiency of the reactor - or I've made some mistakes.

No, 0.7 TJ/kg = 700 GJ/kg = 700,000 GJ/tonne. You said 587,000 GJ/tonne, which is about the same.

:-)

sorry forgot

the other energy costs of mining etc are difficult to find out

Storm van Leeuwen made an extensive estimate (the reference is at the end of this paper)
his study and numbers for the entire nuclear chain are under heavy fire (with even some kind of bad blackmail)

I like this approach but the numbers might not be accurate enough to conclude where the limit is!

I am afraid that really good numbers are difficult to find.
This is what pro and con nuclear people should request from the nuclear fission industry.

michael

drats - cos that's really the key to constraining what ore grade can be mined. There must be someone reading this that has access to this kind of data - energy cost of mining, moving and milling 1 tonne of ore.

Did you say somewhere what % of U is normally recovered from the ore. And what % of 235U gets fissioned in a normal reactor cycle?

Euan,

From working in various mines in West Oz, just the diesel consumed to get the blown rock out of a pit from a depth of 20m (80% of volume) to 70m (20% 0f volume)we used around 1ltr per tonne. This did not include energy in explosives (ANFO) any simple onsite processing of the ore (eg crushing) and transportation from the mine, also not included is the energy required to run the mine (R&M, spares, etc) and support camp (beeeeer! food), adding all these I would say at least 2ltr per tonne just to get the stuff out of the ground and on a train to wherever.

Interestingly enuf i believe the olympic dam mine is based on moving more than 4 cubic km of top soil (waste rock) this alone would take about 22 billion ltrs of diesel. (conservatively, using 2.8 for sg of rock to be moved, likely to be greater)

The Olympic Dam mine has an electric train to move ore. An anti-mine site say this: "Olympic Dam (OD) is already the single biggest user of electricity in the state (120 MW). BHPB say they will need to find an extra 650 MW - and their current plan is to source it from the (mostly fossil fuel) SA electricity grid or a (fossil fuel) gas plant on-site.

In addition, the company will use about half a litre of diesel fuel for every tonne of rock they shift. That's over 1 million litres of diesel fuel a day."

Unfortunately, Australia doesn't run nukes themselves. Btw, Olympic Dam ore grade is about 500 ppm, right? So they get half a kilo uranium for half a kilo diesel. I think this is a nice trade.

From another site: "Before ore can be mined from the expanded operation, 410 million metric tons of earth needs to be removed and this could take five years, BHP said."

This is only 1/30 of 4 cubic kilometers.

There is nothing like an EROEI of a particular uranium mine. There is an MROMI, conveniently called a profit margin - which is relevant, and indeed is used for the RAR estimation. The EROEI of a particular uranium mine makes little sense, as the energy utilization depends on energies invested and recovered in the whole cycle of energy generation, hence they depend on a type of fuel enrichment - cauldron, diffusion, centrifuge, or laser enrichment, how many SWUs, on the type of fuel used - ceramic, metallic, liquid, etc., the fuel burn-up in the particular type of reactor which uses the fuel, and other factors. Those factors mentioned have presently much larger impact on the EROEI of nuclear power than energy costs of the uranium mining.

Therefore your claim that "the EROEI should be used for uranium resources" is another example that perhaps a time better spent would be in a library reading up about how nuclear energy production actually works, before writing a series of articles.

try the mirror please
and change your tone!

michael

Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review
M. Lenzen, Energy Conversion and Management 49 (2008) 2178–2199

This review paper published last year suggested ERoEI for nuclear power (whole cycle) to be around 5:1, which was surprisingly low for most informed commentators. There is much useful detail in this paper. Amongst other things, Fig 7 shows the U recovery rate variation with ore grade - >90% with ore grades >0.1%. <50% with ore grades <0.01%.

Lenzen documents energy consumption at various stages of the nuclear cycle - and you're right, I certainly need to read this closely to get my head around where the massive energy surplus of yellow cake gets lost. There are lots of tables in this paper but no summary chart that I can see.

The 5:1 ratio seems to indicate that he uses the flawed SLS methodology. I've seen it common among Australia's antinuclear movement - they really have to be desperate for an argument with all the uranium resources, the grid solidly based on happy coal burning, and still no nuclear plants.
I recommend to cross check the claims (I'm not going to pay for that) with this summary of other works: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html

My point here is that an EROEI of uranium mining makes no sense, as EROEI relates to the whole fuel cycle, in the rest of which much more significant differences in energy balance happen (see the document referenced above). Dittmar's quoted argument hence shows a shallow understanding of the issue.

This review paper published last year suggested ERoEI for nuclear power (whole cycle) to be around 5:1, which was surprisingly low for most informed commentators.

If memory serves, that paper said there was 5 units of electricity out for 1 unit of total energy in. But since generating electricity if about 33% efficient, the ratio should be adjusted accordingly for an apples-to-apples comparison.

Dave Kimble at peakoil.org.au has made available the University of Sydney's analysis of Nuclear EROI. Their spreadsheet is included and the energy costs of uranium mining can be extracted.
http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/index.php?http://www.peakoil.org.au/news/...

Nate,
This is off topic but would you mind posting links to some of your personal favorite financial sites?

There are sooo many of them,and lacking any formal training in finance..... an amatuer such as myself might not realize he is reading a sophisticated quack.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5550284/Japan-plans...

Dr Masao Tanada, of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency, has developed a fabric made primarily of irradiated polyethylene that is able to soak up the minute amounts of uranium – around 3.3 parts per billion – in the seawater.

Dr Tanada hopes to secure funding to construct an underwater uranium farm covering nearly 400 square miles that would meet one-sixth of Japan's annual uranium requirements.

"Other countries are conducting similar research but none are as advanced as we are," he said. "We need to conduct more development research and be able to produce the adsorbent material on a large scale, but we could achieve this within five years."

Dr Tanada hopes to secure funding to construct an underwater uranium farm covering nearly 400 square miles that would meet one-sixth of Japan's annual uranium requirements.

Btw, if 400 square miles are covered by solar hot water, that'll lead to a capacity of 829 GW and if 400 square miles are covered by thinfilm PV, that'll lead to a capacity of 114 GW.

Btw, most household energy is needed for heating (incl. hot water) and cooling.

Most people just want a warm shower and a cold beer and don't necessarily care about how this energy was produced and how much they need of it to reach this goal.

The graph you give doesn't correspond well with the Wikipedia stats, which gives space heating at 32% and water heating at 13%. Regardless, this entire pie is only a fifth of total energy consumption. Industrial, transportation and commercial use consumes about 80% of energy. So what you keep repeating in each nuke thread is mostly irrelevant.

Thanks for confirming that most household energy is needed for heating and cooling purposes. And thanks for letting us know that even most building energy is needed for heating and cooling purposes:

Residential:
32% space heating
13% water heating
12% lighting
11% air conditioning
8% refrigeration
5% electronics
5% wet-clean (mostly clothes dryers)
Total: 86%
Of which at least 71% is according to your link needed for heat energy (hot and cold). Speaking of cooling: Solar hot water capacity is also being used for cooling purposes:
http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/anlage_0308_e.html

Commercial:
25% lighting
13% heating
11% cooling
6% refrigeration
6% water heating
6% ventilation
6% electronics
Total: 67%
Of which 49% is according to your link needed for heat energy (hot and cold).
And speaking of lighting: Since most people work during day time, lighting can also be partially covered with daylighting and save costs:
http://www.daylighting.org/what.php#myths

Industrial:
22% chemical production
16% petroleum refining
14% metal smelting/refining
And these processes undoubtedly require lots of heat energy too.

Transportation:
61% gasoline fuel
21% diesel fuel
12% aviation
So at least 94% of transportation is not electrically powered. Which means that approx. 99% of the transportation sector is not even nuclear powered.

Most people just want a warm shower, a cold beer and travel from A to B. They don't necessarily care whether this energy was produced in a nuclear power plant or somewhere else and how much they need of that energy to reach this goal.

Btw, my graph is from the UK and yours from the USA. Thus the discrepancies, besides that much of this data is probably not that accurate anyway.

Solar hot water capacity is also being used for cooling purposes:

BS !!

*ONE* prototype at a corporate HQ (in tropical Germany !) uses solar heat as a THIRD source of supplemental heat.

Adsorption cooling is quite inefficient and useful only if energy is free and low capital (such as waste heat from electrical generation).

A battery less solar PV driving an efficient air conditioner is a cheaper and better solution than that showpiece.

Alan

a corporate HQ (in tropical Germany !) uses solar heat as a THIRD source of supplemental heat.
So 2/3 of it is energy from solar hot water.

such as waste heat
Which there is also lots of.

A battery less solar PV driving an efficient air conditioner is a cheaper and better solution than that showpiece.
That may be true and still better than collecting sea-water uranium with 400 square miles to power 1/6th of the nuclear capacity.

Hi anyone,

Your point that solar thermal is a cost-effective way to produce hot water and heat rooms is well taken. But it's an "apples to oranges" comparison for uranium extraction and what can be done with 400 square miles.

For solar heating, you'd be talking about 400 square miles of moderately expensive collector and support structure covering surface area. For Dr. Tanada's proposed uranium extraction project, you'd be talking about .. nothing whatsoever that would be visible on the land or ocean surface. It's 400 square miles of what amounts to an artificial kelp forest. Plastic ribbons waving slowly in an ocean current well below the surface. Would probably make a good fish habitat.

For solar heating, you'd be talking about 400 square miles of moderately expensive collector and support structure covering surface area.

Actually this is mostly already existing roof area.

Keep in mind close to 120,000 km2 of the US is built:
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht...

I believe that you have brought out that graph before and it is simply not valid except for NE EU. Please discard this graph because it is meaningless unless talking about UK or Germany specifically.

I suspect that space heating is about 5% of my personal energy requirements, not 60%.

I am not typical of the rest of the USA, OECD, etc. but neither is that graph.

Best Hopes for Meaningful Data,

Alan

All what I say is:

Most household energy is needed for cooling and heating (incl. hot water, washing machine).

This is the case for the majority of households in the world.

This is the case for the majority of households in the world.

I VERY much doubt that, given the # of households in tropical areas with minimal or no heating needs and no air conditioner.

I suspect that cooking is the dominant energy need for a majority of households in the world. Not the OECD, but the world.

And it is not valid to lump heating and cooling together, since solar thermal is useful for heating only.

Alan

I VERY much doubt that, given the # of households in tropical areas with minimal or no heating needs and no air conditioner.
Yes but in this case they also have a very small energy need in comparison and definitely don't need to build large sea water uranium farms to cover their energy needs.
The majority of energy needed in worldwide households is still needed for heating (incl. hot water) and cooling purposes.

Besides that cooking also requires heat energy and is even being done with solar heat in tropical areas (and not with sea-water uranium):
http://www.adesolaire.org/en/index.html

And it is not valid to lump heating and cooling together, since solar thermal is useful for heating only.
Besides that solar cooling does exist and storing PV energy in ice (air conditioning) is affordable. It is valid to lump heating, hot water and washing machine together.

First I strongly support solar hot water heaters (at least between of 50 degrees N & S latitude), solar ovens (<35 degrees lat.) and even solar space heating (where practical). A solar oven is on my list of personal "wants".

However, lumping solar cooling in with solar thermal heating IS NOT APPROPRIATE.

Solar thermal > solar space heating is a simple and "natural" process.

A Rube Goldberg# contraption is required to convert on site solar energy into cooling as demanded (peak around 3 to 4 PM with secondary peak near 6 PM as people come home). Quite frankly, I find straining seawater for uranium more practical and economic.

#Google him if unaware

Just because something can be done, does not mean that it should be done. My feelings about solar cooling.

Alan

A Rube Goldberg# contraption is required to convert on site solar energy into cooling as demanded (peak around 3 to 4 PM with secondary peak near 6 PM as people come home).

Besides that this solar cooling system is utilized in a large office building (no people come home), the solar heat is stored in large hot water tanks, which are needed anyway for hot water and heating purposes (it is therefore irrelevant whether the peak is at 3 PM or at 6 PM).
http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/anlage_0308_e.html

Quite frankly, I find straining seawater for uranium more practical and economic.

Quite frankly, besides the fact that desiccant cooling with solar heat and waste heat exists and commercial sea water uranium extraction doesn't, I find desiccant cooling with solar heat which is being applied in the system above, quite a simple process compared to collecting sea water uranium with an area of 400 square miles. Especially since the solar heat is not only needed for cooling but also needed for hot water and heating. (3 tasks at one blow).
http://www.prlog.org/10173132-chiller-free-dehumidificationcooling-saves...
http://www.munters.com/en/au/products--services/dehumidification/Desicca...
http://www.toolbase.org/Technology-Inventory/HVAC/desiccant-cooling

Jan 27, 2009 – Sol Energy Hellas used DuCool’s chiller-free, desiccant-based dehumidification and cooling technology in the six-story Prometheus Pyrphoros building in Paleo Faliro, Athens, Greece to save 90% on energy costs. The 6,500 square foot (600 square meters) building is now cooled with only 6 kW of electricity to save $22,000 (€16,854) in energy costs per year. The energy savings amount to $3.38 per square foot (€28.09 per square meter). DuCool’s technology uses geothermal water and hot water from a solar thermal system to provide cooling and dehumidification.

Desiccant "cooling" controls humidity but not temperature. An important feature in air conditioning (and why it is called air conditioning and not "cooling").

A nice supplement but hardly the answer.

The "90% savings" claimed in Greece I take with a near lethal dose of NaCl.

I have done some novel engineering work on humidity control (New Orleans ranks only behind the Amazon basin for design parameters for humidity control). I ran the make-up air into a commercial building through efficient dehumidifiers from DEC to cool and dehumidify before putting into the building.

http://www.dehumidifiercorp.com/replacement_dec.html

Alan

Desiccant "cooling" controls humidity but not temperature. An important feature in air conditioning (and why it is called air conditioning and not "cooling").

Dehumidifying air, which you know, is almost always necessary in air conditioning and already requires lots of energy. And if a solar hot water system is already installed for hot water and heating purposes it may as well be used for dehumidifying and thus cooling purposes (as this heat energy from an already installed system is basically free - as opposed to the 400 square mile sea water uranium farm).

After the air is dehumidified, which already requires lots of energy, the air is cooled below outside air temperature by simply humidifying (little energy) that air again (cooling by heat of evaporation). An intermediate cooling step may not even be necessary and even if it was, it would definitely require much less energy and not have to deal with condensation issues.

The article doesn't prove (or attempt to prove) that there is less economically minable uranium available than the Red Book claims. There could be less or there could also be more. What the article does prove beyond any doubt is that:

  1. The accuracy levels of 0.01% and 0.001% that the Red Book assigns to its claimed reserves are not justified, not by a long shot, not by any shot.
  2. The data claimed by the Red Book are in contradiction with the economic-geological hypothesis that states that the amount of uranium that is economically minable grows rapidly with a rise in the price of uranium.

Thanks for trying to bring the discussion to the points of the article.

Just to add
1) gregvp

it seems to me that you agree with the statement

that the Red Book uranium resource data base is highly inaccurate.

If yes, it implies that the data should not be used by anyone to justify
whatever resource lifetime. Thus we are left in the dark.

concerning

Finally, nuclear weapon risk considerations may help explain why there are relatively few operating mines, even if there are many economic deposits at $40. I imagine that governments would like to have accurate, reliable, and precise accounts of uranium ore extraction and production, even if they do not want to share that information.

I think that this is not the case.
After all, bomb making
either by U235 or Pu239 is usually considered not to be limited
by raw uranium (not too much is needed)
but
by "high tech nuclear know how"

which means U235 enrichment facilities far beyond the level
required for running a normal PWR reactor.

for Pu239 bombs well what evil countries (not member of the NPT treaty) do
is usually to run a smaller reactor and use the excess neutrons to breed plutonium
in a blanket surrounding the core.
But I agree, there is an enormous amount of secrecy about the nuclear fuel cycle
and especially about breeding possibilities.

Thus bad luck for those who to form a critical independent opinion about
the true possibilities for the nuclear energy future.
One needs to dig through tons of documents and the result is what I present in my article(s).
-------------------------------------
hello
advancednano

same question do you agree with the judgement of the Red Book
and that the numbers should not be used in order to
justify that no resource problems exist?

for the numbers you quote are essentially what is summarized in the Red Book
under UPR (undiscovered probable) and USR (undiscovered speculative)

I do not want to judge them and how much of it can eventually be exploited
do you know extraction efficiencies or the geologist you quote.

But I can recommend to have a look at the Article from the
IAEA experts I reference Analysis of uranium supply to 2050
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf

they have a lot to say about all these speculative things

Many details about the potential contributions of uranium from a large number of unconventional resources are presented in that report (Section 5), and especially the remarks about sea water uranium are remarkable: "Research on extracting uranium from sea water will undoubtedly continue, but at the current costs sea water as a potential commercial source of uranium is little more than a curiosity."

finally as this is often discussed on the oil drum

do you believe in the Canadian/USA/Venezuela etc billions of giga barrel of
unconventional oil?
or in the OPEC oil resource rise during the mid/end eighties?

as far as I understand one better should not believe them!

so why should one accept the uranium figures without any evidence?

-------------------------------------------

Hello Boof,
you write:

>There are a couple of curious omissions from this analysis. Firstly the uranium outlook in Australia has >changed just in 2009.

I think you misunderstood perhaps what the article is about
the Red Book 2007 (published in 2008).

I am looking forward to the next edition and the updated numbers for australia.

However, to make it clear: New mines do not increase the RAR number
the new mines will try to exploit the previous identified RAR deposits.

for
> The other omission is the likely improvement in fuel burn rates for next generation nuclear.

as you say this is speculative and we do not know when such reactors will become relevant.

I say this clearly in my summary (and more will come in Chapter IV)

The analysis presented in this and the previous two parts of this four-part article [6] demonstrates that the current uranium extraction and the believed-to-exist uranium resources are incompatible with even a modest growth scenario of conventional nuclear fission power.

regards Michael

I think the Redbook is a decent report and has useful information.
I also look at information being reported by the mining companies and the plans of the companise and nations. I also look at recent news reports and scientific studies and information from new technology projects.

I do judge all of them and use my own analysis of how much I think can be produced based on what is happening and on what could happen.

I do not agree with your analysis. I find it weird that you will look at certain forms of nuclear fusion energy production but will not closely analyze Uranium from Phosphate which has already produced thousands of tons of Uranium.

It is also hypocritical for you to say that Bill Hanrahan's analysis of economics in nuclear power and uranium is off-topic and then you will try to bring in the debate about unconventional oil reserves or the accuracy of OPEC oil reserves.

It is disingenuous of you to claim that no evidence is being provided by those who claim that there is no uranium supply problem, when evidence is provided.

You will try to sidetrack debate on Phosphate from Uranium and other sources with a link to a 112 page report from the IAEA. Yet your core thesis is that the Redbook (also produced by the IAEA) is massively flawed.

The 112 page report through 106 pages of it is making the case for increasing production to 170,000+ tons/year of uranium production. Then you focus on a few pages that cast indicate that until prices are over $300/kg there is limited appeal to uranium from seawater or if uranium is only a byproduct of phosphate mining then there is 3600 tons per year of uranium. From there you try to conclude that because business as usual does not instantly solve the problem then when business becomes unusual (uranium shortage for the multi-hundred billion dollar nuclear energy industry) that known resources with proven recovery methods at the hundreds of tons per year scale would not be scaled up.

Your argument is not internally consistent. Your assumptions are flawed and not justified. Your boundaries on the problem analysis are not justified. Your conclusions are wrong.

????

>Your argument is not internally consistent. Your assumptions are flawed and not justified. Your boundaries on the >problem analysis are not justified. Your conclusions are wrong.

which conclusions are wrong?

and which ones are inconsistent?

the UPR and USR numbers are what they are
current technology gets only tiny fractions out of them

a few 1000 tons over many years from Phosphor stuff
or a few kg perhaps from seawater? (if true

compare this with the 65000 tons required to operate
the modest 370 GWe today

but please if you have good numbers on
planned capacity increase to dig out uranium from UPR and USR
well cite them!

for the other inconsistencies of the RAR numbers
and especially the IR numbers
do you take the large increase in the IR category
serious
and do you believe claims from Russia?

or do you have more confidence in Canada and Australia

not all of them can be correct.

michael

Hi Michael

Thanks for being willing to go through the Oil Drum grinder!

Re nuclear weapon risk as a motive for government control of mining, I wasn't very clear.

After all, bomb making
either by U235 or Pu239 is usually considered not to be limited
by raw uranium (not too much is needed)

Yes, not much is needed - that's why accounting would have to be very tight. But I was not thinking of "conventional" bombs. Consider the implications if the jets that crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York had been full of yellow-cake, and dropped most of it as they flew over New York city. The actual risk to health is immaterial - the hysteria would be immense. This is only one of many possible misuses.

It wouldn't be hard for security analysts to come up with strong motivations for tight control of uranium production and distribution. I hope and trust they have everywhere been persuasive.

Hi,

ok I understand now what you mean.

Even though I am a little less concerned with such "terrorism"
but yes evil minded people can do lots of damage
in our complicated societies.

a "dirty" bomb is just one thing among many.
What about a plane being dumped into a nuclear facility
for example

What about the asbestos scandal also related to the World Trade Center

or about a "dirty" virus bomb?

as long as media are effective in downplaying some scandals it is not
leading to panic.

take for example Chernobyl
a few hundred thousand people were evacuated
and the radiation damage risks are either downplayed effectively
or ignored or not real.

no panic we heard about.
In fact we even do not know what happened with the 600000 liquidators
(young men soldiers from all around Soviet Empire) who cleaned up.

only rumors exist and these rumors are not nice.

michael

do you believe in the Canadian/USA/Venezuela etc billions of giga barrel of
unconventional oil? or in the OPEC oil resource rise during the mid/end eighties?

as far as I understand one better should not believe them!

I find this item very telling. Does Dr Dittmar posses information which we should use to discount the 170+ billion bbl reserve booked against 1,200+ billion bbl OIP in the Canadian Oil Sands? (I find the 170 billion to be a ridiculously conservative underestimate of probable total recoverable given newly emerging extraction technologies such as THAI, in-place electric heated SAGD, other new ideas inevitably to arise in the next decades, etc.)

The ONLY way the oil sands reserves, or world uranium reserves IMHO, might not be extracted is if political forces unite against them to ban such, which is what this series of articles appears to be, to me.

lengould,

thanks for the answer.

do you care about the EROEI for the canadian oil sands?

I and most other here on the oildrum do!

michael

Actually yes, I do care, but I haven't been able to find any authoritative ones. What are the numbers you use?

I have seen various numbers below 5 and smaller
compared to 30 or more for conventional oil.

natural environmental destruction excluded of course!

In addition capacity seems to be limited and all depends on the
availability of natural gas (or nuclear power nearby reactors which do not yet exist)

but the many experts here on the oil drum know much better
and it is kind of off topic.

Just wanted to figure out if you think we have an oil problem or not
and you answered!

michael

I had actually assumed you would understand I was requesting referenced verifiable numbers. Saying "below 5 and smaller" is no more authoritative than me saying "(the same as / comparable to) either a typical heavy oil imported by energy-consuming ships from S Arabia or an energy-intensive deep-water GOM platform".

this is not about
EROEI of oil sands

Michael

The data claimed by the Red Book are in contradiction with the economic-geological hypothesis that states that the amount of uranium that is economically minable grows rapidly with a rise in the price of uranium.

Absolutely, which is why we should assume that the amount of lower-grade deposits are extremely under-estimated by the Red Book. Which is quite natural, in a way, since lower-grade deposits aren't as interesting to explore and catalogue.

Having read the article, I'm even more convinced that uranium is abundant than I was before. The author's extremely pessimistic bias isn't very convincing.

fine!

so you reject the Red Book uranium resource data and the claims from Australia and Canada
as I said stick to an unproven hypothesis!

The Red Book uranium resource data show that the economic-geological hypothesis is not backed up by the data. This conclusion is strengthened beyond any doubt, if one believes that Australia and Canada provide the most reliable resource data.

and

At the current time, however, the Red Book uranium resource data are the only existing and usable data base. These data, including large uncertainties, demonstrate that the economic-geological hy pothesis is contradicted by the data. This widely used hypothesis states that more and more uranium can be extracted if only the price is allowed to increase. This claim is in total disagreement with the overall resource data and with the data offered by many individual countries.

Thus, one is left with the choice of either rejecting the Red Book data completely and sticking with an unproven hypothesis, or giving up that unproven hypothesis.

regard Michael

Yes, as you say, the higher grade ore data is more reliable, and that's b/c lower grades aren't as explored, and thus is underestimated. So yes, I stick with the "unproven hypothesis", which I consider quite well founded.

if you prefer that fine with me!

I hope you will from now on reject the Red Book uranium resource numbers
as well and accept the "small print" with respect to the original
hypothesis.

They hasten to add, however, that this is only an approximative argument; no rigorous statistical basis exists for expecting a log-normal distribution. They continue, pointing out the enormously complex range of geochemical behavior of uranium - and its wide variety of different binds of economic deposit.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6665051

To estimate the total resource availability of uranium, the authors' approach has been to ask whether the distribution of uranium in the earth's crust can be reasonably approximated by a bell-shaped log-normal curve. In addition they have asked whether the uranium deposits actually mined appear to be a portion of the high-grade tail, or ascending slope, of the distribution. This approach preserves what they feel are the two most important guiding principles of Hubbert's work, for petroleum, namely recognizing the geological framework that contains the deposits of interest and examining the industry's historical record of discovering those deposits. Their findings, published recently in the form of a book-length report prepared for the US Department of Energy, suggest that for uranium the crustal-distribution model and the mining-history model can be brought together in a consistent picture. In brief, they conclude that both sets of data can be described by a single log-normal curve, the smoothly ascending slope of which indicates approximately a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade. This conclusion has important implications for the future availability of uranium. They hasten to add, however, that this is only an approximative argument; no rigorous statistical basis exists for expecting a log-normal distribution. They continue, pointing out the enormously complex range of geochemical behavior of uranium - and its wide variety of different binds of economic deposit. Their case study, supported by US mining records, indicates that the supply of uranium will not be a limiting factor in the development of nuclear power.

It's quite telling when people use the care with which scientists always express themselves as a justification for suggesting the opposite of what the scientists actually claim.

It is clear that uranium has larger assured reserves (in years) than most minerals. It is also clear that reserves expand tremendeously with increased price. It is furthermore clear that nuclear energy is currently not very sensitive to uranium price.

The conclusion is obvious to anyone - we need not worry about uranium availability.

There can still be shortages of fabricated fuel if the balance is too tight, regardless of what is in the rocks.

One flooded mine, a fire in an enrichment facility, an earthquake in a fuel fabrication plant, etc.

One of my takeaways is that we are "tight" in the supply chain and increased Chinese demand will make it tighter.

Worst Hopes for Mr. Murphy taking control,

Alan

Certainly true that we can have temporary shortages, as we can in every material and good. But I guess that as nuclear power scales, fuel production facilities will become more numerous and so less sensitive.

>The conclusion is obvious to anyone - we need not worry about uranium availability.

well may be all the experts from the IAEA, the WNA, the uranium mining industry
and similar pro nuclear organizations seem to have a different and less obvious view.

The data I present in the article demonstrate that beyond doubt.
(one only needs to do a critical reading of the official documents!)

I think it is time for you to attack the people in these organizations
(why me? I just translate their documents for you and others!)
with hard numbers

if you do not have hard numbers well bad for you!

Michael

well may be all the experts from the IAEA, the WNA, the uranium mining industry
and similar pro nuclear organizations seem to have a different and less obvious view.

No, they don't.

just read some of the references I provided and used.

or simply look at the plot
at the end. Take your bet on Kazakhstan mining evolution
with respect to the claims.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html

michael

I have read them all, and I agree with them that uranium availability is not a problem.

if you can't see the gap in the WNA plot
perhaps you should take glasses before opening the document?

or you accept the slow phase out curve!
(blue..)

the two growth curves are out of question after 2016!

do you believe that Kazakhstan can provide?

michael

Why do you interpret the plot like that? If you look more closely, primary production reference is ramping quickly to full coverage of world demand by 2012, which means the secondary production may be stockpiled and used to cover any shortfalls in the decade thereafter. If primary production needs to be ramped beyond say 2016, then it will be ramped. There is abundant uranium in the ground.

If Kazakhstan can provide? Yes, of course, and Australia and Canada. All three seems set to increase from 8000-9000 tU/year to 14000-16000 tU/year in the relatively near term:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=430

Just read what was posted by John Busby in this discussion today

Canada mines are in decline and Cigar lake is in trouble
(it was also mentioned in my article by the way!)

we will see what Kazakhstan will contribute.

michael

Cigar Lake in trouble? Yes, certainly. But do you really think 2.5 million tonnes of 20% uranium ore will be abandoned? That's about a year's worth of world electricity consumption, worth a trillion dollars.

They hasten to add, however, that this is only an approximative argument; no rigorous statistical basis exists for expecting a log-normal distribution. They continue, pointing out the enormously complex range of geochemical behavior of uranium - and its wide variety of different binds of economic deposit.

I think this is a very good point that could benefit from further thought. The log-normal is by itself not that special and something like the Pareto distribution could be used in its place. One theoretical basis for how the log-normal comes about is due to Kottler who back in 1950 showed that it could occur by applying a varying growth rate in the accumulation of material. The material in this case is accumulation of density in an ore deposit. I can easily derive a Pareto-like distribution by applying a dispersive effect to growth rates as well. This in fact can be used to show how size of oil reservoirs evolve (google "dispersive aggregation").

One of the empirical characteristics of these kinds of fractal distributions is that there is almost universally an equal amount of reduced material per decade of ore concentration, or total oil in terms of sizing. In other words, for every 10x reduction of grade in ore (or 10x in reservoir sizing), you will find an equivalent amount of total usable material. This has some rather simple yet profound implications for how we decide to go forward.

For example, do we decide to go after a grade that is 10x less dense knowing the energy it will take to refine, knowing that we can also try to find the more pure ore which will result in the same refinable output? That is a question also worth discussing in this massive commentary, but I fear that it is lost in the noise caused by criticisms of the technology.

Hi,

I would hope that the discussion could follow you great suggestion.
This could result in something highly rewarding
if one manages to not have it drowned in the "noise".

In my view one should also try to get as much information as possible
about the other big uranium mines.
McArthur mine data are already starting to tell a story
but I am sure one could find much much more from an
analysis of the former big mines in the USA for example
like the one in east germany.

lets try!

Michael

I am sure that this topic will get revisited. By the number of comments, you have hit a nerve and TOD will likely have some sort of followup.

I would also start with a closer inspection of Deffeyes claim of 300 times. Deffeyes is clever but tends to informality in his math. I got that from reading his books.

The article doesn't prove (or attempt to prove) that there is less economically minable uranium available than the Red Book claims.

It clearly does attempt to.

There could be less or there could also be more. What the article does prove beyond any doubt is that:

2. The data claimed by the Red Book are in contradiction with the economic-geological hypothesis that states that the amount of uranium that is economically minable grows rapidly with a rise in the price of uranium.

Not at all. The ore bodies covered in the book are nothing like a random sample of those in the Earth. In an era when the price of uranium ran about US$20/kg, once you'd established that an ore body couldn't be developed for less than several times that — due to e.g. remoteness, depth, or grade — what point would there be in spending more time and money to prove it up to the level of Reasonably Assured Resource?

Hi Bill Woods,

I gave lots of numbers for RAR
and especially the numbers from Canada and Australia,
the most reliable countries(?)
show indeed that they are in total contradiction with
the "economic-geological hypothesis"

that the other categories are more and more unreliable
is written in the Red Book

so in fact lets only take the RAR for future planning!

Furthermore,
the evolution of RAR categories with different cost tag
over the different Red Books shows again
that they are very inconsistent.

what more info do you need?

ah,yes evolution of the McArthur mine (and others) in Canada.

doesn't look like that 130000 tons remain to be mined

but shareholders should not be informed
so my article perhaps will help to
open the "Cameco data base"

michael

Michael, reactor fuel assemblies cost about one half cent per kWh in 2007,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html

of which natural uranium cost is about one third.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

The average U.S. U3O8 price actually paid in 2007 was $24.45.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/summarytable1.html

Fuel cost for coal was, 2.4 cents per kWh, and for natural gas, 5.67 cents.

To make reactor fuel as expensive per kWh as coal the uranium cost / kWh would have to increase to 2.07 cents / kWh, which is about $300 per pound U3O8, $660 / kg.

To make reactor fuel as expensive per kWh as natural gas the uranium cost / kWh would have to increase to 5.3cents / kWh, which is about $700 per pound, $1,500 / kg.

Questions.

1. How expensive would uranium have to be to convince utilities to shutdown nuclear plants and burn more coal and gas, thus driving coal and gas prices much higher.

2. What would coal and gas prices be now without nuclear power?

Seawater contains 4.5 billion tons of uranium, half of which would meet all the worlds’ needs for several hundred years. It can be extracted for less than $200 / pound.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html

Seawater uranium is important because it limits the maximum sustainable uranium price to $200 / pound. Seawater does not have to provide all our uranium to limit the price to that level. It only has to replace that portion of the conventional supply that costs more than $200 / pound, which is zero % for the foreseeable future.

A dirt simple MSR running a once through cycle would need about 1/3 as much uranium as a conventional reactor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnucleargree...

That should be the dominant Gen IV reactor because it can be designed, tested and put into mass production faster than more complex designs. We can than, at our leisure, design a breeder / burner reactor that can split the large mass of heavy metal atoms left over from the Gen I thru IV reactor systems, converting them to fission products that become less radiotoxic than ore in 270 years.

Very interesting comments
but perhaps a little off topic no?

michael

I think the topic is whether there is a nearterm uranium supply problem or if there will be a uranium supply problem and if so how will it occur and what are the mitigating technologies.

The post is therefore on topic. Especially as this and the proven availability of uranium from phosphate (thousands of tons of uranium from phosphate per year were produced and some countries like Brazil are doing it again).

Whenever someone has a fairly clear case that your concerns and conclusions are bogus you either claim to not understand it or try to bound the analysis to exclude it.

Japan is seriously making moves to advance large scale uranium from seawater plans. The Mitsubishi Research Initiative study of using bioengineered seaweed for the dual purpose of biofuel and for extracting uranium from seawater. Plus the previously mentioned new proposals to scale up the adsorption method.

Uranium from coal ash projects are at the tens to hundred tons per year projects. Those are beyond laboratory curiousities.

Development of known sources for mines are occuring. Exploration for conventional sources is ramping up.

All aspects of the case that you are trying to make is weak.

If you are trying to narrowly attack certain aspects of the RedBook without being willing to defend your overall thesis of Uranium supply, then your article is pointless. It is not like we are adherents to the Redbook the way certain religions are adherents to the Bible or the Koran.

advancednano -

The prospect of recovering uranium from sea water is intriguing, but it is difficult for me to picture such a process as being economically feasible.

As I understand it, the average uranium concentration in sea water is about 3.3 parts per billion. Thus, to obtain a single pound of uranium one must move 300 million pound of sea water through some sort of sorbent material. Accordingly, if one wants to produce 1,000 lbs per day (a relatively modest amount), one needs to move 300 billion pounds of water per day. That is one hell of a lot of liquid to have to move, whether you're actually pumping it or doing it passively by situating the sorbent in an ocean current!

I would imagine that the seaweed scheme is to have seaweed with a high affinity for uranium uptake to be grown in special beds and to then harvest the seaweed and extract the uranium. I would also imagine this would be done by dissolving the seaweed in nitric acid and then using some sort of selective ion exchange to separate the uranium. Then when the uranium is eluted from the ion exchange column a number of further processing steps would be required to finally get to metallic uranium. I can't picture this being cheap to do either. (Maybe there's some sort of a 'dry' process where you directly smelt the uranium out of the seaweed?)

As far as extracting uranium from coal ash, while the uranium concentration is much higher than in sea water, one is still faced with dissolving a lot of material in acid, several further processing steps, and then left with a large volume of acidic solution containing all sorts of dissolved heavy metals. This would probably have to neutralized and turned back into a solid via precipitation. Environmentally, a mess no matter how you slice it.

Maybe there are easier ways that I'm not familiar with.

The plan is to place the uranium collection system in the path of ocean currents. Kuroshio current moves 520,000 tons of uranium every year.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uranium-from-seawater-on-large-scale.html

At a regular meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on June 2, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI) reported on technology for collecting uranium from seawater. According to the two organizations, the total amount of uranium contained in seawater – as one of the 77 elements dissolved therein – measures some 4.5 billion tons, about one thousand times more than is known to exist in uranium mines. Even if Japan could collect just 0.2% of the 520,000 tons of uranium transported every year by the Japan (Kuroshio) Current that flows in the Pacific Ocean, it could easily meet its annual need of 8,000 tons.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/japans-large-scal-uranium-from-seawater...

If they go with seaweed, then any processing costs are offset by getting biofuel from the seaweed.

The Mitsubishi Research Institute (MRI) has recently recommended Japan mass-culture seaweed to collect natural resources such as bio-ethanol and uranium. In the “Apollo and Poseidon Initiative 2025,” MRI suggests that Japan cultures gulfweed, which can grow more than 2 metres high a year in the sea. The plants could also absorb carbon dioxide and purify the seawater, and can be used as non-food alternative energy sources for bio-ethanol. In April, MRI plans to inaugurate a consortium comprising public research institutes and manufacturers to move the plan forward. Using advanced molecular and gene-engineering technologies, MRI estimates that Japan would be capable of producing 65 million metric tons of gulfweed a year, and recovering a resource of 195 million tons of uranium. The annual rate of recovery is 40% of Japan’s total consumption. (19 February 2008, Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun)

Currently about eight million or so tonnes of seaweed are produced each year, with a market of nearly $6 billion, primarily China, Japan and Korea. The seaweed is grown for food.

===============

http://www.spartonres.ca/uraniumsecondary.htm

A uranium extraction facility would help clean up potential or existing environmental hazards, create a new supply of domestic uranium, and create value as cement and concrete filler material. Sparton would benefit from management fees and possible royalties plus an equity ownership in the company operating the facility.

Sparton's team is continuing to acquire samples from other high uranium ash stations in other areas of China and new results will be available on an ongoing basis. Since signing the agreement in China, Sparton has signed agreements to do similar programs in 6 countries in Central Europe and the Republic of South Africa.

Here is a pdf with info on the sparton uranium from coal project
http://www.spartonres.ca/download/EIQ-Spring2009-SpartonResources.pdf

advancednano -

Thanks for the links, which I have briefly perused.

First, on the subject of uranium from sea water -

Evidently, the Japanese test results went something like this: After soaking in moving sea water for 240 days, 350 kg of the uranium-sorbing fabric was able to remove 1 kg of uranium. I don't recall any mention being made as to how the uranium is subsequently removed from the fabric or whether the fabric can be reused or is consumed during the uranium removal step. (The answer to this question is quite critical to the scheme's technical/economic feasibility.)

At the above rate, one would need 84,000 kg of this special fabric to remove 1kg per day of uranium. Or if scaled up to our modest production rate of 1,000kg per day, 84 million kg of fabric would be required. That is a LOT of fabric! I don't know how much this stuff costs, but I strong suspect it is substantially greater than $1 per pound. Thus, the investment in fabric alone would be an absolute minimum of $84 million. In reality, the total installed cost would no doubt be several times this amount. Furthermore, much of the economics will depend not only on the cost of the fabric but also on the manner in which the uranium is removed from the fabric and whether the fabric can be reused.

Regarding using seaweed to remove uranium, it would be great if byproduct uses of the sea weed could be utilized to offset the overall cost of extraction. Whether that comes to pass will largely depend on how the uranium is removed from the seaweed. And from what I've read so far, that is not clear. If the harvested seaweed has to be dissolved in acid in order for the uranium to be extracted, then I am a bit doubtful on how useful the subsequent acidic wet organic slop is going to be for byproduct uses.

Now on to uranium from fly ash -

The link regarding the Sparton process reveals that (as I had suspected) it is merely a form of hydro-metallurgy using an acid extraction. As such it will entail large tailing ponds containing acidic, heavy-metal laden residuals. Considerable further processing of this waste material would be needed to turn it into an even marginally useful building material. I seriously doubt such would ever be done. Of course, it is far more easy to get away with this sort of thing in China than in the (presumably) more environmentally enlightened US. I will stick by my original comment that environmentally it will be a real mess.

As I see it, both the sea water route and the fly ash route inherently involve the handling and processing of huge amounts of material to get a very tiny amount of useful product out. Whenever you do this, it gets very expensive regardless of how clever you are.

Maybe the Japanese and this Sparton company can eventually pull it off, but it's hard for me to be bullish on either.

you realize that the massive land fills of coal ash are toxic waste and are leaking acid and metals into the ground and water already ?

Also, there is new work making tailing cleanup and extraction of uranium more economical.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/09/uk-devellops-cheaper-recovery-of.html

the Japanese and russians have calculated scaling up the uranium from seawater process.

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/03/cost-of-recovering-uranium-from...

"At the Takazaki Radiation Chemistry Research Establishment of the Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI Takazaki Research Establishment), research and development have continued for the production of adsorbent by irradiation processing of polymer fiber. Adsorbents have been synthesized that have a functional group (amidoxime group) that selectively adsorbs heavy metals, and the performance of such adsorbents has been improved. Uranium adsorption capacity of this polymer fiber adsorbent is high in comparison to the conventional titanium oxide adsorbent. We have reached the point of being able to verify the attainment of 10-fold higher adsorption capacity on a dry adsorbent basis. This adsorbent can make practical use of wave motion or tidal power for efficient contact with seawater. This adsorbent has been used since 1996 in the actual marine environment by utilizing moored small-scale test equipment for recovery of trace metals, including uranium, from within seawater. As a result, it has become apparent that use of this adsorbent makes possible recovery of seawater uranium with higher efficiency than the earlier method."

------

A recovery system based upon this adsorbent uses ocean current to produce efficient contact between the adsorbent and a large volume of seawater. According to the basic conditions of Table 1, the required quantity of adsorbent (quantity at the time of mooring) becomes 40,000 tons, and the quantity exchanged due to adsorbent performance decline becomes 10,000 tons per year.

Adsorbent is used in the form of 15 cm wide strips of nonwoven sandwiching a spacer and coiled into a short cylindrical shape. This roll is loaded into a cage (adsorption bed = short cylindrical shape of 4 m diameter). A single adsorption bed is loaded with 125 kg of adsorbent. The quantity of adsorbed uranium per bed during 60 days is 750 g. These adsorption beds are strung and tied together by rope at roughly 0.5 m intervals to form 1 basic unit.

125 kg of adsorbent is loaded into a single adsorption bed. Specifically, the adsorption bed is a metal mesh container (cage), formed from stainless steel, that has specific a gravity of 7.8 and a mass of 685 kg. A 15 cm wide sheet of adsorbent (150 g/m2) is coiled so as to load 125 kg of adsorbent. A plastic mesh sheet is inserted between adsorbent windings as a spacer. The specific gravity thereof is 1.15 so total mass is 104 kg. Total bed mass becomes 914 kg. The weight in seawater becomes 611 kg, so the weight when pulled up becomes 1,161 kg.

-------

Although 40,000 tons of adsorbent must be produced beforehand prior to the start of uranium recovery, production then becomes 10,000 tons per year for replenishment during the time period of regular uranium recovery. We made a trial calculation of the cost of manufacture of 10,000 tons per year of adsorbent. Details of this calculation are shown in Table 2. Precursor material cost occupies a large proportion in comparison to production equipment cost. Even if we were to assume an increase in production equipment for annual production of 40,000 tons per year, the equipment cost increase would be held down to slightly more than 2-fold. From such estimates, production unit cost of adsorbent was estimated to be 493,000 yen per ton (493 yen/kg). The quantity of recovered uranium becomes 120 kg per 1 ton of adsorbent for the case of 20 reuses. Therefore the adsorbent production cost required for recovery of 1 kg of seawater uranium is estimated to be 4,100 yen/kg-U.

The most interesting aspect of this report is the cost of this radical recovery method. The report states. "The recovery cost was estimated to be 5-10 times of that from mining uranium. More than 80% of the total cost was occupied by the cost for marine equipment for mooring the adsorbents in seawater, which is owning to a weight of metal cage for adsorbents. Thus, the cost can be reduced to half by the reduction of the equipment weight to 1/4. Improvement of adsorbent ability is also a problem for future research since the cost directly depends on the adsorbent performance."

http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/4_5.html

Uranium mining ship speculation
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-s...

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/deep-burn-and-seriously-scaling-nuclear...

The recovery cost was estimated to be 5-10 times of that from mining uranium. More than 80% of the total cost was occupied by the cost for marine equipment for mooring the adsorbents in seawater, which is owing to the weight of metal cage for adsorbents. Thus, the cost can be reduced to half by the reduction of the equipment weight to 1/4.

So to produce 60,000 tons/year of uranium would take 60 million tons of absorbents using current inefficient lab scale methods. 15 million tons with currently foreseen improvements.

Divert 1% of the polyethylene for 10 years when you decide to scale up the seawater extraction. Then you can make a little over 1 of the 10,000/ton year processes each year. In ten years you have 100,000/ton year.

The world capacity of polyethylene production increased up to 70 million tons per year, the polyethylene output in 2005 amounted to 65 million per year

The cost quote was 600,000 yen/ton unwoven + 87,700 yen per ton for polymerization

advancednano -

Thanks for the further clarification.

Regarding the work the Japanese are doing re the sea water route, I was curious as to exactly how the uranium is removed from the treated polyethylene once it has been filled to capacity. As I don't see any practical way of doing this in situ, I would assume that the canisters have to be removed from the sea and then sent to a process plant on shore where the uranium is eluted in soluble form. Correct? Can those canisters then be regenerated like a typical ion exchange column and then redeployed in the ocean once more? Is it known how many times they can be thus regenerated?

As far as leaching uranium from fly ash, I am well aware that all sorts of heavy metals routinely leach from fly ash piles and that they can cause considerable environmental problems. However, as I am quite sure that you are aware, the solubility of most heavy metals in an aqueous solution increases by several orders of magnitude as the pH drops. Thus, unless the residuals from the acidic leaching operation are subsequently neutralized, the amount of heavy metals migrating into the soil and groundwater could be several orders of magnitude greater than for a fly ash pile whose liquid fraction is at near neutral pH. Having said that, I doubt the Chinese or the Russians are terrible concerned about such potential environmental problems at this point.

It would strike me that reasonably good cost estimates can be made for operations involving the leaching of uranium from fly ash piles, as the technology involved is for the most part quite mature. On the other hand, I think there is far more uncertainty with respect to the uranium-from sea water route, as there really isn't any full-scale experience to go by. I would venture that if it eventually proves unsuccessful it will be because the material handling difficulties turned out to be far greater and far more costly than anticipated.

Of course, time will tell. I've become interested in this and plan to keep an eye on further developments.

This is just from memory -- I read an early article about the Japanese work several years ago -- but yes, the mats have to be retrieved and transported for processing. There is (or was, at that time) some degradation with each cycle. IIRC, the mats were good for some 5 cycles.

99+ % of the mass of the mats, BTW, is just polyethylene. The irradiation process that the researchers used was just a way to disrupt the surface molecular structure and create sites where amidoxime groups could bind. It's the amidoxime groups that have a high affinity for uranium (and vanadium) ions.

I'd guess that the cycling damage to the mats is loss of a portion surface amidoxime groups. It's possible that they could be reprocessed to restore the concentration of amidoxime groups. But that's speculation on my part; I don't think the article I read said anything about it.

I think we have to deal with several issues.

the short term supply problems (discussed in detail in part I and II)

this is a question of existing and planned capacity and what
the real efficiency is. not the claimed!

the actual price/kg is an indication perhaps but not more in my view.

If physics and technology tells that it takes 5-10 years for large project
and that they are almost never ready in time

I trust the statement from the official experts
that "a supply crunch" is building up.

you do not (on what basis?)
so you must have better data than the IAEA, WNA etc

please provide the sources.

For the long term prospects

this chapter III

What is really known about uranium resources?

we have official numbers
which are totally inconsistent.
when you analyze country by country and from year to year

so what do you object

that perhaps eventually the UPR and USR numbers can be exploited?

please make your hypothesis on how this
can evolve over the next years and decades.

for now we have the Red Book numbers
and they appear to be inconsistent and politically manipulated.

and in disagreement with common statements about uranium exploiting
costs ..

michael

" Very interesting comments
but perhaps a little off topic no? "

Michael. The title you choose for this piece is

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction Part III: How (un)reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data?

So the topic has two parts.

1. The future of nuclear energy.

2. The reliability of red book data.

Number one is very important to the future of the human race. Number two is really not important; the future will be what it will be whether the red book data is right or wrong.

My overall impression of what you have written is; ‘The red book data is limited and unreliable, therefore the nuclear industry is guaranteed to fail due to a lack of uranium.’

Even if the first part is true, it does not support your final conclusion. If we all agree that the red book data is limited and unreliable we can put that aside and study other data to determine what the future uranium supply will be and therefore ‘The future of nuclear energy’ with respect to uranium supply. This is why the issues and questions raised in my previous comment, by EP, Advanced and many other reviewers, are more relevant to your #1 topic than your concerns about the red book accuracy.

Imagine that we invent a time machine and go back to 1910. Imagine that there is an Oil Institute that publishes a Black Book estimating the known and speculative reserves of oil at $10 / barrel are 500,000,000 barrels.

Someone like yourself might write a report concluding that the world will run out of $10 oil in 1925, and therefore the oil industry will collapse and we will have to go back to the horse and buggy days. The first part of that conclusion might be correct, but the oil industry zoomed right past the $10 mark because the intrinsic value of oil is far higher than that.

The red book looks at $130 / kg because it is many times the average price since WWII.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_7.pdf

But the $130 figure does not reflect the maximum intrinsic value of uranium.

Also note that in the U.S. reserves are equivalent to about two years of average consumption. What other commodities do we keep in a two year reserve, food, oil, iron, copper, coal, medicine? If all foreign and domestic sources of uranium were suddenly cut off, the U.S. could continue normal refueling for two years after which the recently refueled plants would continue to operate for 12-18 months at full power and then at gradually reduce power over some additional time span.

Uranium is a finite resource on earth, but we have hundreds of year’s worth using our primitive steroidal submarine reactors, and with advanced reactors earths uranium fuel supply duration exceeds the suns hydrogen fuel supply.

So my questions are on your most important topic #1.

1. How expensive would uranium have to be to convince utilities to shutdown nuclear plants and burn more coal and gas, thus driving coal and gas prices much higher.

2. What would coal and gas prices be now without nuclear power?

3. What other commodities do we stockpile in a two year reserve, food, oil, iron, copper, coal, medicine?

It looks like that you agree with my numbers on uranium stocks
(the secondary resources in Chapter II).

My analysis is not only for the USA but for the entire world
right?

so if we agree stock in the USA allow to continue for some years
and much longer if the military reserves are opened

this will not fuel the european reactors nor the japanese, chinese indian etc reactors.

All I am saying is that 5-10% of uranium supply seems to be missing without
opening the military stocks to a "world" market.

the consequence of uranium fuel shortages are like what one observes
in India. (this was very well predictable.. I remember for example that
my colleagues from India were telling me at around 2004
that the Russians told the Indian government that they will not send uranium supply
by 2010. What happened in India is a good example of what will happen in Europe
as well. "Old" power plants will be retired for whatever official reasons
(it will always be good to blame the greens and similar people)
and the number of nuclear produced kwhe will go down.

no matter what the uranium price is!

concerning the different RAR cost categories

sure the classes are arbitrary.

what they show however is that the "economical-geological" hypothesis is wrong!

michael

" It looks like that you agree with my numbers on uranium stocks
(the secondary resources in Chapter II). "

Not true.

" My analysis is not only for the USA but for the entire world
right? so if we agree stock in the USA allow to continue for some years
and much longer if the military reserves are opened this will not fuel the european reactors nor the japanese, chinese indian etc reactors. "

I report the U.S. data because it is readily available in a few seconds through Google, yet you never mentioned the U.S. reserves in your analysis. Surely you must have come across these reserves during your research, why didn’t you mention them? Could it be because these facts did not fit into your agenda?

You are claiming by default that the rest of the world has no reserves; can you prove this claim?

" All I am saying is that 5-10% of uranium supply seems to be missing without
opening the military stocks to a "world" market. "

And this is a huge unsubstantiated claim since the only thing you talk about is production, not capacity.

" I remember for example that
my colleagues from India were telling me at around 2004
that the Russians told the Indian government that they will not send uranium supply
by 2010. What happened in India is a good example of what will happen in Europe
as well. "

India was being punished for violating the NPT. Applying that to Europe without informing the reader of the real issue is totally unethical. Europe can buy uranium on the world market. If they keep a substantial reserve and the Russians cut off their supply they will have years to establish other sources without power interruption. This is a huge advantage of fission over fossil fuel that you have not revealed.

" no matter what the uranium price is! concerning the different RAR cost categories sure the classes are arbitrary. what they show however is that the "economical-geological" hypothesis is wrong!
"

This is an illogical and unsubstantiated claim. Sustained higher prices will result in increased production.

It is interesting that you chastise others for not incorporating information that has been presented previously, but you are the biggest offender, have you no mirrors?

Examples:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#comment-531624

In 2009 only one of 5 uranium mills in the U.S is in normal production. A lot of capacity is not in production.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/dupr/qupd_tbl3.html

3… What do you think would happen at those mills in standby if the price of uranium went up by, say, 500%, due to the construction of new reactors, and that a rigorous analysis predicted the average price would stay in that range for the foreseeable future, not just a momentary spike in the spot price as we have seen in the past?

Question never answered.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#comment-533195

Michael,
Forget about production and write a piece on CAPACITY.

Give us a link to the spreadsheet that lists the status of every mine and mill on the planet. How many are in standby waiting for higher prices? How many are operating at reduced rate waiting for higher prices? Show us how much U3O8 each utility has stockpiled and how many fresh fuel assemblies each utility has stockpiled or in manufacture.
Explain why all the experts at all the utilities have not independently identified this CAPACITY problem.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#comment-531685

Answers to these key questions have not been provided.

In your #2 essay you asked;

" the question is will the nuclear renaissance be stopped because of outages like in India following uranium supply problems "

My response;
" Obviously the India shortage is not due to the high cost of uranium. My recollection is that India refused to comply with the nonproliferation treaty and was subject to political sanctions.
Using this transparent ruse to support your worldwide uranium shortfall prediction does your credibility great damage. "

Yet you try this same argument again in this post, it is insulting that you think we would be fooled.

Time after time you refuse to answer the key questions that zero in on the flaws of your analysis.

So the questions are;

1. How expensive would uranium have to be to convince utilities to shutdown nuclear plants and burn more coal and gas, thus driving coal and gas prices much higher.

2. What would coal and gas prices be now without nuclear power?

3. What other commodities do we stockpile in a two year reserve, food, oil, iron, copper, coal, medicine?

4. Surly you must have come across these reserves during your research, why didn’t you mention them?

5. You are claiming that the rest of the world has no reserves; can you prove this claim?

While I sometimes share EP’s frustration with your selective presentation of the facts and your biased interpretation of the facts you present, I am glad you published this report because it gives us an opportunity to point out the flaws in the arguments against nuclear power, which is good for open minded people looking for all the facts. I suspect this is why Farmermac and some others have thanked you, if I am reading correctly between the lines.

Lots of questions in an aggressive tone!
is this needed if you have good arguments?
may be your arguments are not so great!

concerning

"write about capacity instead of real production"

I did in chapter I
why don't you take the time to read first
before you scream.

anyway

The Red Book essentially says this:

capacity is always larger than really achieved.

and data are plenty about that.

It reminds me of people
who claim more than what they known!

I am sure you know plenty of examples like that
from the nuclear industry

How many nuclear GWe should be operational
today in the USA?

concerning stocks and secondary resources

again you have not really read my chapter II

I explain in detail what is written in the Red Book
(which is also based on the USA information
it is confirmed by the UxC, the WNA and others.

What else can one add.

finally
yes you can read my papers (please do in detail)
and figure out where it is in disagreement with
the highest possible official data from the Red Book

if you find hard facts that the Red Book is wrong
perfect I am happy to correct and in fact it
will improve my statement that
the Red Book data is a "political amalgam" mixed with
founded data from past hard facts and wishful thinking
according to the different nuclear energy power players!

Thus please write your own reports on the resources
back them up with your sources

so we can compare!
and add your hypothesis on the future produced TWe
from nuclear worldwide.

so we can compare the different predictions

michael

" "write about capacity instead of real production"
I did in chapter I
why don't you take the time to read first
before you scream.
"

Please direct me to the list in chapter I of all the mills and mines in the world that are in standby waiting for higher prices.

You have not answered any of my questions, a non-response response.

read the chapters or the Red Book!

next we discuss about what I wrote.

so we can stay close to the paper instead of going from Pontius to Pilatus

this paper is about the claimed Red Book resource data and
how the claimed and widely hold statement about
ever growing Resources is not based on facts but on wishful thinking!

lets discuss these numbers here.

michael

All ore estimates, like oil estimates, are educated guesses since we can't actually measure them directly with great accuracy. So its no surprise one can find inconsistancies in them.

Projections of the number of years left of uranium supplies based on the 'once through' typically used today fall far short of the actual supply though. Since buildup of neutron absorbing isotopes during operation currently limit economic use of fuel rods to about a 5% burnup of the fuel, there are about 19 more uses of of the uranium in fuel rods left if they were being reprocessed. This is also true of newly mined supplies. Useing the 'other' 95% of the fuel would increase the number of years of uranium as fuel by 19 times. This would raise a say 100 year estimate to 1900 years.

Wouldn't that provide enough time for alternatives to be developed and brought into use?

Useing the 'other' 95% of the fuel would increase the number of years of uranium as fuel by 19 times. This would raise a say 100 year estimate to 1900 years.

If we increase fuel utilization 19 times, we can ALSO mine 19 times more dilute ores at the same per energy unit price, thus expanding reserves of uranium perhaps a thousand times or more. So a 100 year estimate would not be raised to 1900 years, but to 1.9 million years.

Hi,

you might call the observations about the red book
"inconsistencies" but perhaps sometimes they are deliberate lies it seems.

furthermore, existing infrastructure tries to be economic and efficiency has improved
certainly. Still take the example of the McArthur mine and the other big ``elephants"
I give in the article.

after all it always ends up with the assumptions

and what hypothesis is logical and what experimental pro and con
evidence exists for it.

When you take a plan

how much safety fuel do you require for landing safely at your destiny?

michael

sorry mailed to quickly

When you take a plane ..
(obviously)

but to add

yes we know the technology to fill up planes in flight exists
at least for military aircraft

would you want to rely on that hope?

michael

The only 'fuel' in the world's commercial reactors is the 4.5% of uranium that is U-235 plus 1% of plutonium that is bred inside the reactor.
The other 95.5% of the initial fuel charge is INERT U-238 which is NOT a fuel.

You can bred U-238 into plutonium in a fast breeder reactor but of the dozen or so commerical fast breeder reactors built since 1965 only ONE is currently operating on planet Earth( in Russia)
the rest have been closed (weird eh?).

You might well think that this record would discourage the belief that
breeding U-238 into Pu-239 is a practical, fully developed technology.

But you'd be wrong.

It is an article of faith that all the uranium(and thorium) in the world is available for future generations of mankind until the end of time....

>The only 'fuel' in the world's commercial reactors is the 4.5% of uranium >that is U-235 plus 1% of plutonium that is bred inside the reactor.
>The other 95.5% of the initial fuel charge is INERT U-238 which is NOT a >fuel.

This is absolutely true. But the 5% burnup level I refered to is when 5% of the U235 has been consumed. At that point the byproduct isotopes produced in operation begin to absorb too many of the neutrons to make continued use of the fuel rod economic. Spent fuel rods still contain 95% of the original U235 content. They also contain the 95.5% of the U238 they started with minus the U238 that was converted to other isotopes as well.

No, spent LWR fuel starts with 3-4% 235U and ends with about 1%; most of the 235U is burned.  It also ends with about 1% Pu and ends having burned perhaps half that much, if my inferences are correct (I have trouble finding good references for this).  The bulk of the energy comes from 235U, but a substantial fraction does come from 238U bred to Pu.

" The bulk of the energy comes from 235U, but a substantial fraction does come from 238U bred to Pu. "

EP, this slide show has some interesting pages showing fuel content and the buildup of pu.

http://wwwtest.iri.tudelft.nl/~klooster/reports/hts2050_slides_20090303.pdf

At 50 MW days per ton about 5% of heavy metal is fissioned. About 3% is U235 leaving about 2% from Uranium238 > Pu. So 40% of total energy comes from Pu at high burnup, smaller percentage at lower burnup.

Indeed, very interesting.  The conversion of U-235 (3%) compared to EOL fission-product inventory (5%) suggests that some 40% of total energy is produced from U-238; the total energy output would be about 25% greater than the energy content of the original U-235 (including the amount left over).  Unfortunately, it has no references for the data.

You can bred U-238 into plutonium in a fast breeder reactor but of the dozen or so commerical fast breeder reactors built since 1965 only ONE is currently operating on planet Earth( in Russia) the rest have been closed (weird eh?).

If anything, this is a testament to the abundance of uranium.

Actually there are three FBRs still in operation (read about it), Russians are building a new one, Indians are building several new, there are several proposals for modular FBRs in the US (GE PRISM, traveling wave reactor, and the new proposal by Sandia), etc.

Also the 1965 date is a nonsense proving you know nothing about the subject. The FBR prototypes were killed in the US in 1994 (IFR) and in Europe in 1996 (Superfenix) for political reasons, as they were "not needed" for uranium being plentiful. Pick one, but you cannot have it both way.

Loizie,
Actually the first commercial fast breeder at the Enrico Fermi power station started operating in 1957, so the nuclear industry has had 52 years to figure out how to make breeder reactors work.

"The world's first commercial LMFBR, and the only one yet built in the USA, was the 94MWe Unit 1 at Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

You boys have had 52 years to figure out how to get the FBR technology to work but still have only 1 FBR online making
commercial electricity(BN-600).

TOTAL TECHNOLOGICAL FAILURE!

BTW, Monju in Japan is still out.
http://www.jaea.go.jp/jnc/zmonju/mjweb/

Wrong, "we" figured how to make a breeder work in 1951 already. It is just a more complicated (hence expensive) but well proved (>200 reactor years of operational experience) technology, which just happens to be so far more expensive than a LWR, because uranium is so damn cheap. However this may change for specific applications such as a small nuclear battery in a remote location or other markets tolerating higher prices which are enabled by the above mentioned modular designs.

Again - you cannot have it both ways - either expensive (but certainly demonstrated as working) breeders are a not needed xor there is a lack of fissile fuel. That is if you care to be consistent. It seems to me you'd rather be shouting than consistent.

Also wrong about the number of breeders selling electricity (Fenix).

I don't know about the "404 Not Found " Monju reference, but it also appears to be wrong.

3 strikes in one post, that needs a talent.

Loozie,

Construction of Phénix began in November 1968, first grid connection was December 1973, and expected shutdown is July 2014, although it has ceased producing power as of March 2009 and may be shutdown by the end of 2009....As of 2004 its main use was investigation of transmutation of nuclear waste, although it does also continue to generate electric power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%C3%A9nix

Tiny 250 MW Phenix has ceased to produce power ahead of schedule. It is mainly used for the French fuel reprocessing effort, which must be a failure as well if they are closing their precious transmutator.

So is this FBR technological success?

Monju is closed. Their web page doesn't work, genius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Again you pretend that breeders are a sucessful technology!
Why do you continue to lie? What are you trying to prove?
Does it make you happy? Is it worth it?

Very weird.

You're even dumber than our resident Space Cadet E-P!

Good point about Phenix, I didnt know they already stopped running it. A test reactor which successfully ran for 36 years and produced 22 742 GWh of electricity is clearly a technological success, though it may be a commercial failure. This is a critical distinction, as its commercial failure is only possible when uranium is plentiful. Why are you lying I dont know, perhaps you miss this distinction in your fervor.

The reactor was not used for "fuel reprocessing", this is something done by a reprocessing plant - a different factory in a different building.

Fast breeders in France were stopped due to political reasons, namely Greens said they will only join Socialist in the government if it closes down Superfenix, and that was it for France and thus Europe. Similarly in the US. Superfenix worked, after FOAK bugs were fixed. IFR was based on EBR-II which run for 30 years. Many other countries had successful breeder programs, and some of them (Russia and India (FBTR)) are running breeders now, and building more of them, right now. USA, Japan and South Korea are developing or/and building new FBRs as well.

To claim that fast breeders were a technological failure is a lie in face of facts - over 200 reactor years of operation is not a failure. Yes commercially they were (so far) unsuccessful, in particular because of cheap and plentiful uranium. However, the political decisions prevented breeders from even competing in Europe and in the US.

Concerning Monju - I still do not get what is your "404 Not Found" reference supposed to mean. The Monju was closed for 10 years because of legal battles, then there was reorganization of JAEA oversight of the project, and now is Monju scheduled to restart next February. "A functional test program covering the entire reactor system is now complete and Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) have moved to the next phase of preparation. A chart from JAEA tentatively shows operation starting from February 2010 and entering full swing about two months later." http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Monju_now_set_for_February_2010_ret...

Ah, and this link actually says that "Only Russia currently has fast reactors that provide power to the grid, the 560 MWe Beloyarsk 3 and a 12 MWe unit at Dimitrovgrad.", hence there indeed are now not one but two grid connected FBRs after all.

Wow, you found a 1969 vintage 12 MW BOR-60 demonstration breeder reactor that somebody hooked up to the grid?

BTW, I absolutely love your Dimitrovgrad FBR!

Sadley, I can't allow it to be classified as a viable commercial nuclear power plant, it's just too small.

Got a helluva safety record though.

Accident in 1996.

http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/446...

Accident in 2002

Radioactive waste to be dumped near Dimitrovgrad's water wells
Part of: Radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel
Nuclear Reactors Institute in Dimitrovgrad.www.niiar.ru Related articles
Activist forces the release of long hidden documents on radiation accident Related news
Human right activist revealed radiation accident Dimitrovgrad city court found nothing illegal in the planned underground dumping of radioactive waste only two kilometres away from the city's water wells.
Rashid Alimov, 06/11-2002

Dimitrovgrad is a city in Ulyanovsk county, its population amounts to 50,000. Nuclear Reactors Institute (NRI), situated there, is one of the biggest Russia's nuclear centres, operating seven reactors, radiochemical laboratories and plants, producing assemblies of plutonium mixed fuel for fast breeder reactors.

Defending the right for favourable environment, Mikhail Piskunov, the head of Dimitrovgrad Centre for Assistance on Citizens’ Initiatives, filed a claim against local nuclear industry. On October 28 the court rejected the claim.

The Centre for Assistance reports, radioactive waste was brought to the Nuclear Reactors Institute from the Institute of Plant Biological Protection, situated in Krasnodar. They researched effect of high radiation doses on trees, shrubs, and herbs in case of a nuclear war.

When the research was halted, the ionisation sources were transformed into radioactive waste, and it was planned to dump the waste at a polygon of the Radon combine in Rostov county. But when the Institute of Plant Biological Protection got money to dump the waste, nuclear specialists from Dimitrovgrad came forward to offer their service.

The waste was transported to Ulyanovsk county for dumping on the territory of Dimitrovgrad. Dimitrovgrad's Science Centre of Russian Academy of Technical Sciences acted as a mediator in transportation of the waste.

"Some of the managers of the Nuclear Reactors Institute's work in this Science Center", - say the Dimitorvgrad environmentalists. The Centre for Assistance accused the managers of an illegal deal, and named the sum, about one million roubles (ca. $35,000), received by the mediator. Institute of Biological Shielding, Science Center and NRI were arraigned as defendants.

Mikhail Piskunov, the head of Dimitrovgrad Centre for Assistance on Citizens’ Initiatives.
Victor Tereshkin/ERC Bellona
Solid or liquid?
First, 147 vials of liquid waste were planned to be dumped in a polygon of the Rostov's Radon Combine in a solidified form. But Nuclear Reactors Institute proposed another way to handle the waste, rather dangerous one – pump it underground. The Institute's director Alexey Grachev said it would be an experiment, in which scientists would study, how radioactive substances, including cesium-137 and strontium-90, dissociate in water-bearing horizons. The license granted to the NRI, which the Dimitrovgrad environmentalists tried to appeal earlier, permits dumping only of the low and medium active waste generated by the Institute. The radioactive waste sent from Krasnodar is high-active.

NRI is going to pump radioactive substances underground only two or three kilometers away from the city's water wells. The Ulyanovsk inter-regional ecological prosecutor supported claim, filed by Mikhail Piskunov, who demanded a ban on radioactive waste dumping. Mikhail Piskunov and the deputy ecological prosecutor Oleg Petrov mentioned a number of facts, demonstrating that nuclear companies violated the terms of the licences, granted to them by the State Nuclear Regulatory.

"We're sure, radioactive waste was brought to Ulyanovsk county with the only goal: to dump it underground to get money," – the plaintiffs say.

Before the trial, Ulyanovsk county administration's Committee on Natural Resource checked NRI's activities and banned pumping of the Krasnodar waste underground. Its official letter stipulated such operation requires environmental impact study, Ulyanovsk health service's approval, and a special one-time license. But the court turned out to be thinking differently. In its opinion to pump the waste underground, NRI needs no additional documents.

Michail Piskunov is very upset of the court's decision:

- And now, if the court's decision is carried into effect, it will clear the way to radioactive waste transportations to Ulyanovsk county. And here will be dumped the waste, including ionization sources out of use from different Russia's regions. So big amounts of this filth are accumulated in our country, that it's simply unknown, what to do with it. By the way, the world's trend is to dump radioactive waste only in solid form. But we here have quite the contrary practice. Are we going to drink contaminated water?

Mikhail Piskunov and Ulyanovsk inter-regional ecological prosecutor are going to appeal the court's decision.

http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/waste-mn...

Yeah, we need more of these babies.

Thousands more!

What a fabulous technology!

Yeah, 1969 Soviet prototype reactor had leaks, there is a surprise. Funny it still hums around. What a miserable technological failure, a soviet style prototype still running strong since 1969, right?

Also, 12MWe is as small as 16 000 horses in power. Quite some horses.

And the Russian, Indian, Japanese, US, and Korean experts are obviously all idiots, pursuing new FBRs. Clearly.

Also, 12MWe is as small as 16 000 horses in power. Quite some horses.

Oh wow, verrrrrry impressive.

An ordinary locomotive is 1500 horsepower so that is the power of 11 locomotives. The largest GE locomotives are 4400 hp, so that would be 4 locomotives.

The new corvette produces 600 hp so the power of 30 sports cars...oooh!

All I see are nuke fans pursuing an illusion and governments closing down ancient equipment.

Epic fail.

Yep, in another words the small 40 years old 12MWe soviet FBR prototype could still power, day and night, windy or not, a small railroad system of ~10 trains, with no CO2 emissions. Hmmm :)

>> All I see are nuke fans pursuing an illusion and governments closing down ancient equipment. <<
So you have your mind made up, and you refuse to be confused with facts. Good for you I guess.

For others, here is a series of articles about the Indian indigenous FBR program designed, with first of the four 500MWe units up and running next year: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/3/727414/-The-Light-of-Day:-Indias-Fast-Breeder-Nuclear-Reactor:-Some-Technical-Comments.-(Pt.-7)
The IFR: http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
Thorium fuel cycle using molten salt reactors (LFTR): http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

The race for commercial FBRs is between Japan and India now. We had "wisely" dropped the ball. Thanks, wise guys...

Epic whining, I'd say. Breeders work if we need them. We currently don't due to the abundance of uranium, and that's that.

Superfenix worked, after FOAK bugs were fixed.

Besides the fact that it is called Superphénix and not Superfenix.

Superphénix cost $13.2 billion without decommissioning costs and produced 3,392 GWh.
That's 390 cents per kWh.

As a comparison:

Overall, Wiser and Kahn estimate wind power costs, depending on ownership and financing method, as follows:

* Private ownership, project financing: 4.95 cents/kWh including PTC, 6.56 cents/kWh without PTC.
* IOU ownership, corporate financing: 3.53 cents/kWh including PTC, 5.9 cents/kWh without.
* Public utility ownership, internal financing: 2.88 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.35 cents/kWh without.
* Public utility ownership, project financing: 3.43 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.89 cents/kWh without.

http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html

Since breeders are not the only option to provide for a warm shower and a cold beer and consumers may not be willing to pay a surcharge for breeder-electricity-heated-water other options may be chosen.

Wiser and Kahn

For wind power costs, I don't think a 1996 paper is relevant.

Since breeders are not the only option to provide for a warm shower and a cold beer and consumers may not be willing to pay a surcharge for breeder-electricity-heated-water other options may be chosen.

Yes, like ordinary light water reactors - perhaps by using their heat directly. From a fuel availability perspective, we are very far from needing breeders. We'll do it if we feel it is worth the extra cost, or if we find that it can be done cheaper, i.e. with LFTR tech.

For wind power costs, I don't think a 1996 paper is relevant.
Ok:

Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the US for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/ieo06/pdf/elec_boxtbl.pdf
5.58 cents per kWh is still significantly lower than 390 cents per kWh.

Yes, like ordinary light water reactors - perhaps by using their heat directly.

Considering an electrical output of 1600 MW of a new nuclear power plant, distributing heat of 3200 MW efficiently and cost effectively is not an option (besides the fact that the temperature after the steam cycle is relatively low and increasing it would lower the electrical output). That's also why CHP plants are usually in the single digit MW range and not in the GW range.

Apropos CHP plants: Switzerland is relatively efficient, can import excess nuclear power from France but is still wasting 84 TWh of oil and gas in fossil heaters, which can be more efficiently be used in CHP plants (the total Swiss electricity consumption is 58 TWh):
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00631/index.html?lang=d...
Many countries are in a similar or worse situation and will probably use their waste gases and fossil fuels more efficiently and effectively in CHP plants, which can be built in short time with low capital costs before building expensive breeder reactors which are not even commercially available.

This also explains why the number of flexible engines sold and typically used in CHP plants reached almost 100 GW last year.
http://www.dieselgasturbine.com/pdf/power_2008.pdf

The volume of piston engines above 1.0 MW (14 778) surpassed last year’s record level (13 772). The order volume for the smaller engines, 500 to 1000 kW, rose to
21 376 engines this year over last year’s 19 339 units. Gas turbine engine orders
(1054) showed another impressive increase over last year’s reported figures (916)
and the aggregated output total increased to nearly 70 GW.

This whole discussion on breeder existence is way off. The main reason FBR's aren't operating is that they would provide another item of proof that the nuclear power industry is a viable option, and there's a large and noisy group of anti-nuclear-power activists who couldn't accept such an outcome.

The main reason FBR's aren't operating is that they would provide another item of proof that the nuclear power industry is a viable option

So it's not the costs which prevented a large scale deployment of FBRs, it is all just a big conspiracy lead by a bunch of long haired vegans?

Don't you think the public positions of e.g. RMI and Greenpeace are proof of that?

Don't you think the public positions of e.g. RMI and Greenpeace are proof of that?

So RMI (whatever powerful organization that may be) and Greenpeace are responsible that China has currently only a 2% nuclear power share and doesn't run large FBR-reactors, even-though China has been operating nuclear powered submarines since the 1970's?

I wasn't aware that Greenpeace was so big and powerful in non-democratic China which gets less than 2% of its electricity from nuclear (not even mentioning FBR-reactors), but all so tiny and irrelevant in democratic France which gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear.

No, Greenpeace, RMI and the others had enough influence over Hazel O'Leary that she made the closure of the IFR a major initiative of her tenure as Secretary of Energy.  China appears to have an FBR program, which the USA currently does not.

So in that case you confirm, that it's not Greenpeace's fault that China has only a 2% nuclear (mostly non-FBR nuclear) and democratic France has a whooping 78% nuclear power share?

A proof of what?

Greenpeace and similar are the real power behind the scene?

they already have a hard time to accept the peak oil problem.

michael

People like Dick Cheney were the real power behind the scenes (back in Ford administration). Greens ran with it, in part because of their lack of reason, in part due to other people's money. Some made quite a comfy living this way: Amory Lovins, Gerhard Schroeder, Joschka Fischer, to name a few clear and obvious cases. Fossil companies are usually generous in funding their "useful idiots", as the old Lenin called them. Your ridiculing this fact is mostly misplaced.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/spring%202006/Specia...

dear loiz,

a very interesting hypothesis!

do you really believe that? (just from scrolling over the link, sorry i do not have time to read such
bizarre stories!)
I don't!

may be the other hard believers in
``nuclear energy will be the solution"
could comment on that.

it is above or beyond my understanding of american and world power politics!

michael

Michael you really should read the short piece referred above. This whole antinuclear nonsense, you obviously fail a victim of, started after EIA 1972 prediction of the 1200 reactors in US in the year 2000.

Each day a single nuclear unit is in stand-by, the replacement power costs 1-2 millions dollars. Any delay managed by lawyers bullshitting means a great deal of business opportunity. The sad fact that the anti-nuclear-weapons-test movement was by large unable to grasp the difference between a power plant and a bomb, together with well payed cheer leaders among them who seduced them on this route, are the root cause of all this mess. Again, you really should read the piece above, and then perhaps contemplate for few minutes.

Superfenix was killed by politics, not by its costs - it was a prototype to debug, not a commercial plant to make money. Jospin's government needed Greens, Greens wanted to shut it down, and that was it.

"The bunch of long haired vegans" got RPGs from Communist Combatant Cells and fired them on the Superfenix, actually even admitted to it later and got away with it. Yeah just some friendly dudes, riight?

Against a background of ongoing protest and low-level sabotage, on the night of January 18, 1982 a rocket attack was launched against the unfinished plant by an "eco-terrorist group". Five rocket-propelled grenades were launched at the incomplete containment building – two hit and caused damage, which narrowly missing the reactor's empty core.

On May 8, 2003, Chaïm Nissim, who in 1985 was elected to the Geneva cantonal government for the Swiss Green Party, admitted carrying out the attack. He claimed that the weapons were obtained from Carlos the Jackal via the Belgian terrorist organisation Cellules Communistes Combattantes (Communist Combatant Cells).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

I think you are trying to invent a very complicated conspiracy here.

probably you want to argue that the IAEA, the WNA
Areva and company are all payed by the greenpeace people and the communists

but why actually do the ex communists in Russia not show how great the FBR's are
functioning? Their remaining FBR is soon closing 2010

and for Japan ..

are you now saying that the Monju reactor will not be turned on next spring?
(very likely by the way as a new government is there!)

michael

Well, mr Anyone, do you think 390 cents/kWh would be representative of FBRs if scaled?

Well go ahead, develop a cheap FBR-reactor, scale it and produce cheap electricity.

There has been and still is plenty of taxpayer-funding:

Nuclear power has dominated government spending on energy research and development, accounting for over US$159 billion between 1974 and 1998. Although its share has fallen, it still accounts for 51% of the OECD energy R&D budget.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/fig-htm/frasf6-h.htm

And Euratom and IAEA are still here and paid by the international tax-payer to support nuclear energy.

Please answer my question.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but cost trends in the nuclear industry suggest the costs would be much higher now.

I thought the cost trend was downwards in nuclear?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

The plant was connected to EDF grid in December 1994 and produced 4 300 GWh of electricity, worth about a billion 1995 Franc, during the next 10 months of operation. In 1996 it produced 3 400 GWh worth about 850 million Francs.[2]

I highly recommend this account of people who actually worked at Superphenix - http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/sfp/superphenix.html

In 11 years the power station there were the following situations:
* 53 months of normal operation, but, most of the time on low level of power.
* 25 months of indisponibility due to the work required by the technical hitches described above
* 66 months on standby due to political or administrative decisions.

Since buildup of neutron absorbing isotopes during operation currently limit economic use of fuel rods to about a 5% burnup of the fuel, there are about 19 more uses of of the uranium in fuel rods left if they were being reprocessed.

Yes and no.  The reuse of fuel in LWRs is also limited by the buildup of actinides which do not fission with thermal neutrons.  These present a bigger disposal problem than most fission products, IIUC.

There are ways around the actinide buildup problem:

  • Fast-neutron reactors.
  • Accelerator-driven transmutation systems to make fast neutrons which burn the actinides (no chain reaction).
  • Use of thorium-uranium cycles.

These are not just ways "around" the problem, but the ways to incinerate these trans-uranic elements into fission products, which are rare materials with unique properties, and with vast amount of already existing applications in industry, medicine, and sanitation.

If it wasn't for antinuclear nonsense we would already have the benefits of these materials, no coal, and no worry about AGW. Read 1972 EIA projections - 1200 nuclear plants in year 2000 and virtually no oil, gas, or coal burned. I suspect this is when the fossil fuel interests woken up and started this smear campaign, fruits of which still display in these discussions. Breeders - too complicated! Uranium - too scarce! Lets power civilization by Fairy Dust power, and until we find the Fairies, we still have some coal, gas, and oil left, don't we?

If it wasn't for antinuclear nonsense we would already have the benefits of these materials, no coal, and no worry about AGW.

Belgium (55.1 % nuclear power):
and 13.66 t of CO2/capita
and $47,617 GDP/capita

Denmark (0% nuclear power and 20% wind power):
and 10.94 t of CO2/capita
and $67,387 GDP/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/BE-npsh.html

Industrial electricity prices before tax (2007):
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
http://tinyurl.com/mfnvku

Austria has 995 MW of free fuel wind power but no kWh producing nuclear power plant and yet its taxpayers pay 40 Million Euros every year on Euratom while only paying 24 Million Euros on its TWh producing free fuel wind farms.
http://www.igwindkraft.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1009697

Read 1972 EIA projections - 1200 nuclear plants in year 2000 and virtually no oil, gas, or coal burned.
So all commercial aircrafts, commercial trucks, cars, commercial ships, heating systems and peak load power plants were supposed to be nuclear powered by 2000?

Don't you ever tire of cherry-picking data to paint disingeneous pictures? You parrot this Belgium/Denmark hogwash all the time.

Don't you ever tire of cherry-picking data to paint disingeneous pictures

Belgium and Denmark are comparable European countries and both have little hydro power. Actually Belgium has more hydro power than Denmark.
Also, Denmark has a somewhat cooler climate than Belgium and yet still produces less CO2 per capita than Belgium.

I wonder why, if wind generation is so successful for Denmark, their electricity imports have risen from 33 TWH in 2000 to 40 TWH in 2004? Perhaps it is more sensible to ship wind generators to stupid people?

I also note that Belgium has a per-capita energy consumpton of 76134.68 kWh/capita whereas Denmark has only 48484.10 kWh/capita which would imply (to me) that Belgium is probably doing all the heavy industrial work for Denmark, making CO2 per capita comparisons meaningless.

I wonder why, if wind generation is so successful for Denmark, their electricity imports have risen from 33 TWH in 2000 to 40 TWH in 2004.

That's a lie.
Denmark net-exported over 20% of its electricity:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=82&c=da&l=en
Besides Denmarks entire electricity consumption in 2008 was only 34 TWh (it can hardly import more than it consumes):
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=81&c=da&l=en

More importantly: Denmark exports electricity primarily during winter-time when Norway has a much larger electricity demand and Norway's rivers flow less water.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/08/10/elektrisitet_en/fig-2009-08-...
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsAndFigures/Energy_statistics_and_indic...

Perhaps it is more sensible to ship wind generators to stupid people?

Insults do not kill facts and never will.

I also note that Belgium has a per-capita energy consumpton of 76134.68 kWh/capita whereas Denmark has only 48484.10 kWh/capita which would imply (to me) that Belgium is probably doing all the heavy industrial work for Denmark, making CO2 per capita comparisons meaningless.

Besides that Denmark net-exports electricity (as opposed to Belgium which net-imports electricity), has a higher GDP per capita than Belgium and exports well over 90% of its wind-turbines, Denmark deployed many CHP's and is using its energy much more efficiently.

Also, according to your logic the US does all the heavy industrial work for China as the Chinese energy consumption per capita is way lower than the US energy consumption per capita.

All I'm saying is that your analysis is far too simplistic for use in drawing the conclusions you propose. eg. in this data set, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_production_by_country Belgium produces 10.7 million tons / yr raw steel, 18th in world, whereas Denmark produces none, or at least too little to rank in the world's top 40 countries.

I just presented facts and didn't conclude.

Your implied conclusion with your comparison of Denmark and Belgium is undeniable, I don't care how much you attempt it.

Actually it was previously concluded, that if the world had built 1200 nuclear power reactors it wouldn't deal with AGW, since the CO2 per capita would have to be negligible.

If it wasn't for antinuclear nonsense we would already have the benefits of these materials, no coal, and no worry about AGW. Read 1972 EIA projections - 1200 nuclear plants in year 2000 and virtually no oil, gas, or coal burned

Nah, the projection of 1200 nuclear reactors in year 2000 only applies to the US. (US-EIA 1972)
Such 1200 GW(e) capacity would produce a bit more (in heat) than consumption of 11 kW(th) for 300e6 people.
(This is just a rough estimate, without complications of end-use efficiencies.)

Denmark net-exported over 20% of its electricity:

Indeed, Denmark exports more wind power than its neighbors know what to do with. ...

As of 1 October 2009, Nord Pool Spot will implement a negative minimum price. Consequently, Nord Pool Spot will accept Elspot bids at negative prices.
A negative price floor has been in demand for some time - especially from participants trading Elspot in the Danish bidding areas. In situations with high wind feed in Denmark there have been incidents where sales bids have been curtailed at price EUR 0.
http://www.nordpoolspot.com/Market_Information/Exchange-information/No16...

It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Also, according to your logic the US does all the heavy industrial work for China as the Chinese energy consumption per capita is way lower than the US energy consumption per capita.

Please tell me you're not suggesting that the US should aim to have the GDP per capita of China.

Well the lowest gCO2/kWh have countries who rely on use of available renewables and fission for the rest. They have order of magnitude lower emissions than your favorite Denmark or Germany. In particular:

France 87 g/kWh
Iceland 1 g/kWh
Norway 7 g/kWh
Sweden 51 g/kWh
Switzerland 24 g/kWh

Furthermore, the data show these levels of emissions to have been consistent since 1990.

Therefore, in terms of electricity and combined heat, these countries should top any objective climate change scorecard, having kept carbon emissions from their electricity industry low over many years. Indeed logically, theirs should be the example the rest of the world follows, having achieved decades ago the targets that many countries have for decades into the future. So how do they generate their electricity?

France: Nuclear 74%, Hydro 11%, Fossil Fuel 10%
Iceland: Hydro 73%, Geothermal 26%
Norway: Hydro 98%
Sweden: Nuclear 47%, Hydro 43%, Biomass 5%, Fossil Fuel 3%
Switzerland: Hydro 51%, Nuclear 43%, Waste 3%

The conclusion is obvious: max out your reliable renewables and then build nuclear for most of the rest. This is a scalable solution that any developed country can achieve with conventional, proven technology. By contrast, renewables (wind & solar) poster boys Germany and Denmark are far off in the distance with 453 and 308 g/kWh respectively.

By contrast, renewables (wind & solar) poster boys Germany and Denmark are far off in the distance with 453 and 308 g/kWh respectively.

Actually that's complete bogus. Besides the fact that Germany actually has still a large nuclear power share, it's t/capita and year and not g/kWh: People are generally not used to produce electricity.

Again two comparable countries:
Belgium (55.1 % nuclear power):
and 13.66 t of CO2/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/BE-npsh.html
Denmark (0% nuclear power and 20% wind power):
and 10.94 t of CO2/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DK.html

Also Norway has almost 99% hydro power and yet still relatively high CO2-emissions:
9.93 t of CO2/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/NO-enemc.html

The conclusion is obvious: max out your reliable renewables and then build nuclear for most of the rest.

Actually the conclusion is to become much more efficient as the countries with the lowest CO2 emissions per capita are generally also those which use the least amount of energy. Besides efficiency is introduced much faster than new nuclear power plants are built.

There's no reason for a country with a trade deficit to produce almost 20 t of CO2/capita such as the US does.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.html

Besides there is also lots of Methane production per capita which is less related to energy consumption.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ENVIRONMENT/envpdf/CH4PerCapita.pdf

Actually that's complete bogus. Besides the fact that Germany actually has still a large nuclear power share, it's t/capita and year and not g/kWh: People are generally not used to produce electricity.

Actually it is the CO2/electricity produced, which are relevant to our discussion. The per capita energy use depends on many other factors such as the level of industrial development (approximated by GDP/capita). The point is shown in my previous post is that wind and solar are intermittent sources with low capacity factor, and have to be backed up by something else, which can match their variations. Small Denmark depends on the hydro-based large grid in Scandinavia to balance the cube power dependency of wind power on the wind speed. Germany has to use (single cycle) natgas fired turbine, as most other countries with insufficient hydro. Data show that basing your energy strategy on nuclear and efficienty available renewables, instead of fossil fuels backed wind and solar, is order of magnitude more successful in mitigating CO2 emissions.

People are not used to produce, but to consume electricity, obviously. Electricity can displace other uses of carbon fuels (electric cooking and heating, PHEVs etc).

Actually the conclusion is to become much more efficient as the countries with the lowest CO2 emissions per capita are generally also those which use the least amount of energy.

You mean the 3rd world countries with energy consumption < 1kW/person, who cook by burning animal dunk?

Besides efficiency is introduced much faster than new nuclear power plants are built.

Really, how come? AP-1000 reactors can be completed within 4-5 years, once the FOAK bugs are fixed, as recently demonstrated. Any examples of gigawatt capacities just saved in 4-5 years, or even within 10 years, by efficiency?
Do you know that improved efficiency of using a resource increases the amount of the resource consumed (Jevons paradox)?

Or do you mean the famous California example to force heavy manufacturing (and the jobs) over seas, then import the energy in the goods from places with much dirtier grid weak regulation or control of emissions, and then claim energy savings?

Actually it is the CO2/electricity produced, which are relevant to our discussion.

Even if the US would get 100% of its electricity from completely CO2-emission-free sources (which doesn't even exist), it would still produce 12 t of CO2/per capita which is still higher than Denmark which has a higher GDP per capita than the US does:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html

Do you know that improved efficiency of using a resource increases the amount of the resource consumed (Jevons paradox)?

I guess in that case, in order for Jevons to be right and in order for the US to use less energy, you have to get every American to drive a Hummer and you need to develop nuclear power plants with a reduced efficiency.

Or do you mean the famous California example to force heavy manufacturing (and the jobs) over seas, then import the energy in the goods from places with much dirtier grid weak regulation or control of emissions, and then claim energy savings?

So it's California which imports goods from China and not the entire US. So why does the entire US have a trade deficit?
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009

1. yes you need to displace other uses of carbon fuels with (nuclear) electricity, which could be done by large with 1200 nuclear reactors.

2. This is a gross miss-understanding. Yes efficiency improvements in car manufacturing, engines performance etc. together with cheap oil enabled the SUV craze. Hummers are very efficient compared to similar size and performance vehicles decades ago (light tanks...)

3. It is a similar story in the whole US and in most countries of Europe, however California was the most vigilant.

Efficiency is a good thing, as it enables to do more with the same amount of energy. Efficiency alone is not however sufficient due to the Jevons paradox.

yes you need to displace other uses of carbon fuels with (nuclear) electricity, which could be done by large with 1200 nuclear reactors.

It could be done for less and in less time if efficiency was improved (heating (insulation, windows), cooling, refrigeration, lighting incl. daylighting, transportation, reduction of standby consumption) and fossil fuel heaters were to be replaced by flexible CHP plants, geothermal heat and heat pumps. It could be done for less and in less time if wind power was increased, if organic waste was used to power CHP plants etc.

It is cheaper to heat water on the roof than to build nuclear power reactors to power resistance heaters in the basement. That's why China installed 14 GW of solar hot capacity last year (even though it has no incentives for solar hot water as opposed to nuclear power):
www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf

Capital is limited and nuclear power is not the only option to provide for a warm shower and a cold beer with reduced CO2 emissions. That's why 70 GW of new renewable capacity was installed last year and 0 GW of new nuclear capacity, despite having several taxpayer paid institutions such as IAEA and Euratom to promote nuclear energy.
www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf

Hummers are very efficient compared to similar size and performance vehicles decades ago (light tanks...)

And despite its efficiency, countries with a higher GDP per capita and with lower nuclear share and with a lower hydro share than the US produce almost 50% less CO2 per capita than the US does.

It could be done for less and in less time if efficiency was improved...

Well this was said since ~1974, and a part of the reasoning of president Ford (and others since) back then, and a prayer of greens ever after. We dropped the nuclear option envisaged in 1972 (by a law banning SNF recycling). Back then in the US we burned 400 billions tons of coal a year, now we burn 1,200 billions tons of coal a year. The French at about the same time decided to go with nuclear plants, and in 2004 closed the last coal mine. I think the experience shows rather clearly which way is feasible and fruitful, and which one is not.

In my opinion the savings from efficiency gains etc. are wildly optimistic guesstimates. I do not argue that passive solar heating is a good idea in many places. It will however not drive railroads nor factories or server farms. We still need to get the energy somewhere.

Despite no new nuclear power stations build in the US recently, the growth in nuclear generation via uprates and such (your "0") results in about the same increase of energy generation: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/07/deceptive-use-of-statistics-t...

Even though wind grew at a 35% rate for the first four months of the year when comparing 2008 to 2009, the difference in output between the two years was just 6128 thousand megawatt-hours. The "essentially stagnant" nuclear power plant output increased by 5840 thousand megawatt-hours. In other words, "essentially stagnant" nuclear power plant output increased by more than 95% of what Ken Bossong called a "dramatic" increase in wind generated electricity.

And actually this is the first time in the US recent history that there was a larger increase in renewables than in nuclear generation, despite no new reactors on line.

The other issue is that new renewables, that is wind and solar, will only keep your beer cooled as long as you provide 70-80% energy from a gas fired "backup". Mind you there is less energy left in natural gas than in oil reserves, which should strike a bell at this site.

In my opinion the savings from efficiency gains etc. are wildly optimistic guesstimates.

No they are based on facts and not on opinions, such as the fact, that some countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US use almost 50% less energy per capita.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.html
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DK-enemc.html

Back then in the US we burned 400 billions tons of coal a year, now we burn 1,200 billions tons of coal a year.

There's no justification to burn all this coal just to waste electricity.
Eventhough the US has a trade deficit and Germany has a trade surplus (still an export nation) and Germany has a more developed electrified public transportation system, Germany uses 50% less electricity per capita than the US does.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DE-elcc.html
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-elcc.html

I do not argue that passive solar heating is a good idea in many places. It will however not drive railroads nor factories or server farms.

Actually, the French use a large part of their nuclear electricity to power resistance heaters (their railroads require less than 3% and server farms require even less than 1%):

In 2006, the 59 French reactors produced 78.1% of the electricity (up from 77.7% in 2003), although only about 55% of its installed electricity generating capacity is nuclear. In other words, France has a huge overcapacity that led to dumping electricity on neighbouring countries and stimulated the development of highly inefficient thermal applications.

The electricity seasonal peak-load exploded since the middle of the 1980s, mainly due to the widespread introduction of electric space and water heating. Roughly a quarter of French households heat with electricity.

The difference between the lowest load day in summer and the highest load day in winter is now about 55,000 MW. That is a very inefficient load curve, since significant capacities have to be made available for very short periods of time in winter.
This type of consumption is not covered by nuclear power but either by fossil fuel plants or by expensive peak-load power imports. In 2005, France imported 10 TWh net peak power from Germany for an unknown but probably high price. As a consequence, the national utility EDF (Electricité de France) decided to reactivate over the coming years 2,600 MW of very old oil fired power plants – the oldest one had originally
been started up in 1968! – in order to cope with the peak load phenomenon.

The other issue is that new renewables, that is wind and solar, will only keep your beer cooled as long as you provide 70-80% energy from a gas fired "backup"

Wrong, besides that heat energy (hot and cold) can be stored cheaply and hydro (in fact French excess nuclear power powers pumped storage every night and week-end) and organic waste and biomass from flexible CHP is back up power:

In the USA it is estimated that to upgrade the transmission system to take in planned or potential renewables would cost at least $60 billion[32]. Total annual US power consumption in 2006 was 4 thousand billion kWh. [33] Over an asset life of 40 years and low cost utility investment grade funding, the cost of $60 billion investment would be about 5% p.a. (i.e. $3 billion p.a.) Dividing by total power used gives an increased unit cost of around $3,000,000,000 × 100 / 4,000 × 1 exp9 = 0.075 cent/kWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Also there is more wind during winter time, when hydro is reduced.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL1...

Spain's biggest utility, Iberdrola (IBE.MC), derived 9.7 percent of all the power it produced in Spain in the first quarter from hydroelectric stations, down 20.8 percent for 2007 as a whole.
Wind power has done much to fill the gap recently and has set new generation records by providing as much as 24 percent of total demand in a given day.

Needless to say that solar PV reduces the load on the grid in the summer, when air conditioning runs at full load.

Besides this 165 Liter refrigerator has an average power consumption of less than 0.01 kW:
http://www.stecasolar.com/index.php?Gefriertruhe_en

Keeping the beer cool with very little power is easy.

Just some data.

France uses 2.3% of it's electricity for transportation; Urban Rail, TGVs (energy hogs at their high speeds) and regular electrified railroads. The USA 0.19%.

France has over 4 GW of pumped storage and they get 10% of their MWh from hydro. Luxembourg (effectively part of French storage) 1.1 GW and Switzerland is going towards 12 GW of pumped storage (Swiss data second hand).

France is quickly adding more wind.

Alan

Flexible hydro power capacity in Europe is already at 179 GW:

http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/article-display/2821411926/s-art...

And its capacity is currently being increased. Especially with pumped storage (no need for more dams/lakes - just larger pumps and turbines) and small hydro.

No they are based on facts and not on opinions, such as the fact, that some countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US use almost 50% less energy per capita.

Yes, countries with vastly larger population density, and a climate which needs less cooling and heating than some parts of the US. Population density and climate are the driving forces in comparably developed countries, look at Canada. (Boston does not change that.) Yes there are improvements possible in energy utilization efficiency, however without the change of energy resource for one with similar qualities (availability, price, generation capacity scalability), the effect of such improvements will be marginal or even negative - consumption will increase (Jevons paradox) and/or the production (and the related jobs) will be moved to places with such energy available. This in most cases means more pollution, as these places are China and India, with much dirtier energy mix.

Ultimately due to globalization we can have either cheap energy or cheap labor.

Wrong, besides that heat energy (hot and cold) can be stored cheaply and hydro (in fact French excess nuclear power powers pumped storage every night and week-end) and organic waste and biomass from flexible CHP is back up power

I already wrote that you either need hydro or gas fired plants to balance the wind. One needs some hydro to balance the grid, and most places do not have enough hydro to afford more than few percent of wind, so they have to burn natgas 70-90% of the time when there is no wind. Or diesel or other fuel in CHP. The capacity of waste/biomass burning is also small and not scalable, besides the pollution.

Yes in few places PV solar can reduce A/C load in summers, if you can afford the price. Maybe with thin films, which is around the corner (of a large circular pillar, unfortunatelly). I like the cooler though. In my case the largest watt consumption are 4 computers, so that is not a solution though. (The computers are maxed out with climateprediction.net)

Resistance heaters are simple, reliable, 100% efficient, can be easily integrated into a day worth of heat storage, and with nuclear power provide clean and affordable heat.

I already wrote that you either need hydro or gas fired plants to balance the wind.

I already showed you that interconnected windfarms provide baseload and that the costs of interconnecting the entire US are less than 0.1 cents per kWh.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/40674.pdf
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf

And this is besides the fact that nuclear power plants need to be balanced and do not load follow:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47909

Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages.

Hydro has already a capacity of 1140 GW.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
The world average electricity consumption is approx. 1930 GW. So hydro can already provide a significant portion of the electricity demand for a short time.

Since wind fluctuates on a hourly and daily basis, and increased hydro capacity can bridge these hourly and daily fluctuations (and so can compressed air storage and liquid electrolyte batteries.)
http://wetter.fh-worms.de/wxgraph.php?filt=4&dur=2
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=193830
http://www.deeyaenergy.com/

More importantly, most household energy is needed for heating (incl. hot water and washing machine) and cooling purposes. Heat energy can be stored cheaply, so heat pumps can bridge hourly and even daily fluctuations. In fact this house stores the heat energy collected on the roof for several months:

In addition, there is more wind in winter time than in summer time when heating demand is higher, which is particularly an advantage if fossil fuel heaters are replaced (and should be replaced) by more efficient and electrically powered heat pumps:
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsAndFigures/Energy_statistics_and_indic...
More heat pumps = more energy storage and more load control capability. (Same with EVs. More EVs = more load control capability).

In addition flexible CHP plants (which have relatively low capacity costs) can be dispatched in a short time and be powered by some of the fossil fuel which is currently wasted in fossil heaters (and save the rest for better purposes) or can be powered by organic waste and even hydrogen. http://www.hythane.com/
Keep in mind: The number of on-site reciprocating engines and gas turbines delivered last year was close to 100 GW:
http://www.dieselgasturbine.com/pdf/power_2008.pdf
(Fossil fuels will be used more efficiently before they will be avoided completely.)

Besides other options such as CSP, geothermal, tidal and wave have not even been considered.

the effect of such improvements will be marginal or even negative - consumption will increase (Jevons paradox)

The hard facts clearly contradict Jevons.
There are several countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US and use almost 50% less energy per capita, which according to you cannot exist. Well the simple matter of fact is that these countries do exist.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-enemc.html
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/DK-enemc.html
In addition, Sweden has a lower population density than the US and much higher heating demand and less sun irradiation and still uses significantly less energy than the US does (and so does New Zealand, Finland etc.).
Apropos sun irradiation and solar heat:
Solar hot water capacity added worldwide (2008):
China: 80.2 %
USA: 0.5 %
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf

the production (and the related jobs) will be moved to places with such energy available.

Actually, the US moved the entire production to China and yet China still consumes almost 10 times LESS energy per capita than the US does.
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/CN-encc.html
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/US-encc.html

Ultimately due to globalization we can have either cheap energy or cheap labor.

Except in China, India and the entire developing world. They have both cheap labor and low energy costs due to low consumption per capita (despite their massive production rates for the US and the world-market).

Yes in few places PV solar can reduce A/C load in summers, if you can afford the price.

First Solar has already reached $870 per kW for their PV modules:
http://www.firstsolar.com/company_overview.php
QS Solar aims at $750 per kW:
http://www.solarplaza.com/article/solar-module-sales-price-of-1-per-watt...
Oerlikon Solar even aims at $700 per kW by 2010.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/first-solar-quest-for-the...

As a comparison:
Florida Power and Light estimates its two new nuclear plants (2.2 GW to 3 GW) will cost as much as $24 billion:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Florida_Power_And_Light_Welcomes_Initi...
Even at 3GW that's $8000/kW.
The decommissioning of this nuclear plant has reached $1,400 per kW (after completing the decommission):
http://www.secinfo.com/d11141.253.htm
The ultimate repository at Yucca mountain has already reached costs close to $1000 per kW and nuclear power plant:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/aug/27/nuclear_surge_needs_waste...
Besides the fact that operating and fuel costs are also higher.

Concerning intercontinetal HVDC connects, I am all for it. Its just expensive. T Boone Pickens just drop his wind project because connecting them to the grid is too damn expensive. I'd like them to be affordable, but that does not seem be the case, even for a rich country.
When a "small" country like Germany depends on a single wind corridor with >10 0000 MWe of windmill capacity, it is challenging to balance the grid. Remember wind power is proportional to wind velocity to the 3rd power. Europe is wired on AC, so you cannot transfer such power too far, even carrying it to the customers in the southern Germany disturbs backbones in neighboring countries (Czechs were especially vocal about it).

Other the problem is that each HVDC hub presents a point source of power, which the grid needs to be able to compensate for, if this line goes down. A point source sized over 10% of the total grid installed capacity is a major issue.

And this is besides the fact that nuclear power plants need to be balanced and do not load follow:
Even most Gen II nuclear plants can follow load, typically between 75-100% of rated power. All PWR and BWR follow load to same degree. Some reactors were designed specifically to load follow with a very fast ramp-up any time in an "island" configuration. They work like charm.

Your reference says actually nothing about load following, but speaks at length about the clunkiness of German nukes. This is not surprising, since the Greens (Fischer) and Socialist (Schroeder) managed to pass an energy plants where nukes will be closed by law, 26 new coal plants will be build, and the rest will come from renewables. Both these guys are now holding a highly payed jobs in natural gas industry, the former helps with the southern pipe, the latter one with the northern pipe. What a lovely coincidence.

With a law that mandates closing nukes, and high paying nuclear jobs everywhere around the world, all the German experts are pretty much gone. Now how is this a failure of nuclear energy?

Sweden has a lower population density than the US and much higher heating demand and less sun irradiation and still uses significantly less energy than the US does (and so does New Zealand, Finland etc.).>/i>
Indeed. But they all live in densely packed cities with public transport. Americans live in the sticks, with a yard, a dog, and a truck. Even the cities are mostly suburbs, not centers. How is that related to nuclear energy?

Perhaps with 1,200 nuclear plants, resistive heatings (or perhaps in the case of sparsely populated US the heat pumps may actually work well) instead of oil or gas heating, and PHEVs, would be readily achievable, producing even less emission/capita than France (due to PHEVs), which is nearly half the German one now, before the nuke to coal switch.

Concerning CHP, yes they are a success, if you are fine with burning the most precious fossil fuels (gas and oil) for electricity. I think it is insane. With micro scale CHP you perhaps get faster penetration, as the fuel dealers support the local customers, as you get a subsidized wireless phone with a cell plan now. Obviously the emissions are non-containable, and any pollution mitigation equipment unfeasible to mandate, as the price of million pollution mitigation units is prohibitive, and policing such a mandate unrealistic. Millions of such CHP units are a challenge to keep in optimal efficiency operation, rather than few experts servicing several large units.

>> >>Ultimately due to globalization we can have either cheap energy or cheap labor.

>>Except in China, India and the entire developing world. They have both cheap labor and low energy costs due to low consumption per capita (despite their massive production rates for the US and the world-market).

Ultimately == in the long term. Yes for now you have cheap labor and cheap energy over seas - and the wealthy "first world" nationals borrowing money (from those over-seas nations) to buy the cheaply manufactured goods. A useful strategy to bring the over-seas nations up to speed and wealth of modernity, but clearly not a sustainable long term option.

The per capita energy consumption in these countries is growing rapidly, and will eventually reach the average of about 5-10 kW/capita, as the society transforms such as Japan or Taiwan did. This is the major challenge in mid-future, as this energy will come either from coal or nuclear...

I'm happy for cheap solar, we'll see how it will drop the solar price from the contemporary 20c/kWh (since the last 8 years or so). You have to consider that for solar you are only getting 20% of capacity for what, 10 years? While with a nuclear plant you get >90% capacity for 60 years or more. Most importantly they work 24/7, hence can displace coal.

Pickens gave up because the price of US natural gas fell. Transmission is basically a solved problem. Texas is investing $4.9 billion over the next 5 years to expand the grid to accept 10 GW of new wind.

As far as HV DC lines, the two Northern Lights projects (Alberta to Portland OR and Montana/Wyoming to Hoover Dam/Las Vegas) are $1.6 and $2 billion. Less than the average cost overrun on a new nuke (which also require massive investments in new transmission !)

Even most Gen II nuclear plants can follow load

As I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier, with hour by hour data on consumption and generation in France, French nukes do *NOT* load follow in any meaningful sense of the word.

They do load follow by turning off during the spring & fall and on in winter and summer.

Your impractical and undesirable dream of 1,200 nukes will not suddenly create 100+ million PHEVs#. The lack of PHEVs today is NOT due to the lack electricity to start them up. Your dream will require what wind requires, more transmission and pumped storage.

# I very much doubt that you will live long enough to ever see 100 million PHEVs in the USA (unless electric assist bi & tricycles are considered PHEVs).

District CHPs are about the highest and best use of natural gas (many also burn garbage, wood and other biomass).

Alan

As I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier, with hour by hour data on consumption and generation in France, French nukes do *NOT* load follow in any meaningful sense of the word.

No you have not demonstrated anything about load following, but your lack of knowledge about the subject. As a matter of fact, most nuclear plants are designed and certified for primary, secondary and tertiary regulation (load-following). That it is not always used is another matter, which has to do with zero marginal variable costs. Fission is very responsive indeed.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

So to minimise these impacts for the last 25 years EdF has used in each reactor some less absorptive "grey" control rods which weigh less from a neutronic point of view than ordinary control rods and they allow sustained variation in power output. This means that RTE can depend on flexible load following from the nuclear fleet to contribute to regulation in these three respects:
1. Primary power regulation for system stability (when frequency varies, power must be automatically adjusted by the turbine),
2. Secondary power regulation related to trading contracts,
3. Adjusting power in response to demand (decrease from 100% during the day, down to 50% or less during the night, etc.)

1200 nuclear reactors in year 2000 is not my dream, but US-EIA BAU prediction from 1972.

District CHPs are about the highest and best use of natural gas (many also burn garbage, wood and other biomass).
True if you 1. disregard utility of non-combustion uses of natgas such as the principal feedstock for chemical industry, fertilizers, plastics, drugs and all that, 2. do not care about the pollution from natgas combustion and its mitigation, and 3. the fact that we have less natural gas ultimate reserves than we have oil left (energy wise).

It is kind of off topic now.

But do you know how large the difference between peak load and base load
is in France? if not you can figure out for winter and summer
from the EDF website. It is very interesting and you will convince yourself easily
that the nuclear power plants in France do not follow the load curve!
let me know if you need to find the website.

the even sell their nightly excess electric energy so cheaply to Switzerland's
Hydropower system that its a great deal for Switzerland.

michael

Yes they do not follow the grid load curve! What a surprise! This proves nothing, as they are other and cheaper ways to regulate grid, particularly hydro. This is a very complex issue, and the Mickey mouse "it should be proportional to load follow" attitude is just plain wrong.

Again, French nukes, as most other LWRs, are designed and certified for primary, secondary, and tertiary regulation. Your ignorance about how the regulation of the grid works does not change this fact.

I have detailed knowledge of economic dispatch, heat rate curves, transmission, voltage support, capacity reserves, load shedding, spinning reserve, HV DC imports & exports for the electrical island of ERCOT (while studying economics of pumped storage in Central Texas).

France and the EU are not so different and not that much larger (ERCOT max 62 GW, Texas is bigger than Europeans realize).

I can think of NO economic reason that EdF would WANT to let nuke generation drop over a 5 hour period while demand increases by almost 10 GW.

France does not have enough hydro (just 10% of total MWh) or pumped storage (4 GW) (EdF could use the profits the Swiss & Luxembourgers make if they did) and even if they did, load following is the best strategy (perhaps right direction, but smaller amplitude).

See the hypothetical load following I constructed.

"None are so blind as those that refuse to see".

Alan

This statement is based on EDF-data:

France remains still the only country in the world that shuts down nuclear reactors on certain weekends because it cannot sell their power – not even for dumping prices.

The difference between the lowest load day in summer and the highest load day in winter is now about 55,000 MW. That is a very inefficient load curve, since significant capacities have to be made available for very short periods of time in winter.
This type of consumption is not covered by nuclear power but either by fossil fuel plants or by expensive peak-load power imports. In 2005, France imported 10 TWh net peak power from Germany for an unknown but probably high price. As a consequence, the national utility EDF (Electricité de France) decided to reactivate over the coming years 2,600 MW of very old oil fired power plants – the oldest one had originally been started up in 1968! – in order to cope with the peak load phenomenon.

http://alturl.com/nvk2

French Nukes do *NOT* Load Follow

Delta from previous hour
        8/22/2009

        French
   Consumption   Nukes

1:30     -2899    -81
2:30	 -1318	  338
3:30	 -2583	  181
4:30      -961	   33
5:30	    30   -957
6:30	   933	  898
7:30	  -160	  221
8:30	  2517   -484
9:30	  3048    493
10:30	  1464    403
11:30	  1131   -543
12:30	  1507   -230
13:30	  -597    -31
14:30	  -543    -65
15:30	 -1171   -343
16:30	 -1192     -9
17:30     -212   -246
18:30	   940	  -74
19:30	   175   -289
20:30	 -1319    -60
21:30	  1583	   39
22:30	   532	  194	
23:30       82   -196

Full discussion at thread that includes

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5677#comment-532404

Alan

That proves french nukes didn't load follow 2009-08-22.

I have observed the graphs multiple times for multiple dates.

I picked the latest data for my numeric analysis, no cherry picking. The French had not even posted the last two hours data when I started a fatiguing analysis (massive cut & paste, etc.)

I have not seen one example where French nukes could load follow, as the term is commonly used.

Alan

"Observing the graphs" For real?

I would recommend reading design documents of nuclear powerplants, instead of staring at graphs. Then you would realized, what I have documented above, that nuclear plants are designed (and certified) for grid regulation.

But, in the real world, they cannot do it.

from the upper right corner of TOD main page

“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons

Alan

Nah, in a real world they can do it, that is they are designed & certified to do so. Mostly they do not load follow, as it is not wanted from other independent good reasons, but the capability is there. Please ask at your local nuclear plant.

If you want a clear example: Navy does not care about profit margins, so they run their reactors up and down all the time. Navy reactors do not experience the Xe trap, hence they can cycle from full power to shutdown and back as desired, rather quickly. There is nothing inherently slow about fission, quite the opposite indeed.

Both St. Bernards and chihuahuas are dogs but they vary dramatically in their characteristics. As much as naval reactors and 1 GW civilian nukes do.

Any operating analogy between naval nukes & civilian is strongly suspect. I simply do not accept it as valid.

It is my limited understanding that as fuel is burned up, the responsiveness of the reactor declines (hence the use of HEU in naval reactors, less effect from neutron poisons). Nothing but time can slow down the heat from radioactive decay.

BWRs have one intermediate stage from uranium to turbine, PWRs have two, which inherently adds delay and thermal mass.

When reactors restart after a refueling outage, it is over a day till they are at 100% power (this I know for a fact, I think shut down also takes >1 day). Hardly responsive.

In addition, steam turbines for load following FF fired plants have thinner blades than those for base load FF plants. One can load follow with a base load plant, but at a cost. It could well be that the majority of French nukes were built with base load type steam turbines (some, perhaps all, US nukes were).

Reality is French nukes do NOT load follow. Perhaps they are certified to do so, but the real world operating decision is not too, even when there are good market reasons to do so.

Alan

I agree there are significant differences in naval and commercial nuclear plants, and I like the dog analogy. My point was that fission can vary very fast in power.

which inherently adds delay and thermal mass.

Similarly coal plants have "intermediate stages" - boilers - and load follow.

It is my limited understanding that as fuel is burned up, the responsiveness of the reactor declines (hence the use of HEU in naval reactors, less effect from neutron poisons)

No, the overall reactivity is kept constant in any running reactor, by decreasing concentrations of introduced poisons (burnable absorbers in fuel rods, boric acid in primary water) to compensate as the fission products accumulate. Reactivity insertions by control rods are enough to fully regulate the reactor over the whole fuel campaign (obviously...).

There are major difference in naval and commercial nukes. The naval reactor are HEU fueled (with a large concentration of burnable absorbers) for long core lifetime of 30+ years. They also have enough excess reactivity to over-ride xenon trap, so they can swing up and down as the captain wishes. Commercial plants can not go too low in power, otherwise they are trapped by Xe135, and have to shut down, wait until Xe135 decays, and only then ramp up. This limits the range of load following for contemporary commercial nuclear power plants.

When reactors restart after a refueling outage, it is over a day till they are at 100% power (this I know for a fact, I think shut down also takes >1 day). Hardly responsive.

It does take some time, as they need to pressurize primary to >200 atmospheres, heat the stuff up to >300 C, and ramp up moving 3 GW of heat around. Startup procedure has nothing to do with load following, which happens once the plant is up and running. Also the shutdown is almost immediate, esp. SCRAM. There is immediately remaining ~ 7% of decay heat from fission products, which drops rapidly. Both your points are unrelated to responsiveness, load following or grid regulation.

Reality is French nukes do NOT load follow

Whole European grid is interconnected, with enough coal and natural gas capacity for load following, even for a huge chunk of base load demand (unfortunately). French regulation is quite particular due to EdF's heavy export to neighboring countries, the presence of 50% hydro in neighboring Switzerland, and about 4GWe flowing to (but sometimes nearly as much from) the UK. I would be careful about judging "market reasons" with limited information about such system.

have a look at the fuel enrichment of these navy reactors
and yes figure out how efficient they are using U235 fission
relative to a big nuclear PWR (they are after all efficient in fuel use!)

michael

Yes naval PWRs are expensive, fuel inefficient, and details are secret so we can only guess. Design criteria for naval plants are clearly different from reactors to make money on an electricity market. Spent naval cores are however great sources of spark charges for breeders.

Dear Loiz,

Did you ever try to judge the behavior of the Vatican
by reading the bible about Jesus?

I guess you know that this is not the way things go in the real world
but if you prefer to stay with fiction instead of science

keep on going with the "Back to the future III"
fuel.

michael
ps the article posted by jeppen tells it all
read it first before you show your ignorance!

Michael,

Change your tone!

thanks for the advice!

I do after you and others start excusing!

michael

dear Jeppen,

you obviously have never checked such data base before.
Just do it for Sweden if you want as well.

but in case
do you understand that "well" running nuclear power plants
have an average power production of 90% or so over the years?

If you do know that and I think you do
how can you even claim that they follow load curves?

michael

Alan and Michael, we swedes obviously won't ever let our nukes load follow, since we have about 50% hydro and 50% nuclear. The French can't be expected to load follow their nukes very often and probably less now than before since the EU grids have become more integrated. When hydro can be used to load follow, and when a national excess can be exported, then that will be done instead. I think that if you want to observe French nuclear load following, you need to sift through more data and not just look at a few low-load summer days.

Please read:
Can Nuclear Power Be Flexible?:

"However, modern designs, such as the Westinghouse AP1000 mainly use control rod motion for load-follow manoeuvres. In France, where nuclear load-following is required to ensure supply-demand balance in a more than 80% nuclear electricity system, some additional control rods have also been added to the usual design."

"For many years, load-following requirements have been specified in standard terms of reference. For example, most PWR plants are capable to follow loads in a power range of 30- 100% at rates from 1 to 3% per minute. Exceptional rates of 5% per minute or even 10% per minute are possible over limited ranges (Germany has particularly interesting load following requirements).

I have read that article before. Theory.

I had doubts when I read it, so I researched reality. France, where nukes load follow in spring and fall by being shut down, and restarted in summer and winter.

I have looked at several seasons and all I found was that on the coldest winter days, French nukes go almost all out all day.

There is always a morning increase in demand, yet French nukes went down -484 MW, 7:30 > 8:30, recovered that loss by 9:30, and increased slightly by 403 MW by 10:30, yet lost that increase, and much more, by 12:30. Meanwhile demand rises steadily (and VERY predictably) by almost 10 GW from 7:30 to 12:30 while nuke generation DROPPED by 361 MW !

All neighboring nations get up and go to work at the same time, so export demands hardly explain this.

Likewise, all nations have a secondary peak around 18:00 & 19:00 when they come home and put on dinner, and sunlight becomes dim. So does France. BUT nuke generation dropped when demand went up.

I have seen this erratic nuke generation pattern in France on other days, in other seasons. My conclusion is simple:

French Nukes do NOT load follow.

Alan

I have read that article before. Theory.

I think the quotes I presented are statements about the real world, such as french nukes' extra load-following equipment. You may call it lies if you like, but to call it "theory" is quite lame.

There is always a morning increase in demand, yet French nukes went down -484 MW, 7:30 > 8:30,

... and so on, for a single day. I maintain that you should sift through more data to have an argument. For instance, prove that French nukes, on average during a full year, produce the same amount of power during peak hours as during off-peak hours. Then I'll yield. Until then, I prefer to believe the sources that claim French nukes load follow.

The French do not provide data in an easy to compare format (why ?) and it took me almost 2 hours of cut & paste to do one day (my hand hurt !)

Before doing this, I had eyeballed quite a few days, in different seasons. My eyeballs told me "French nukes do not load follow" and I made that assertion. When called upon to numerically confirm this, I picked the most recent data (last 2 hours not even posted yet).

Your standard of "prove that French nukes, on average during a full year, produce the same amount of power during peak hours as during off-peak hours. Then I'll yield" is too biased. Even a weak positive correlation between demand and nuke generation is NOT load following as the term is commonly understood.

Anything less than 80% correlation (SWAG) between the direction (+ or -) for each hour between load and generation is NOT load following.

Below would be load following, although of limited real world usefulness.

Delta from previous hour
 Hypothectical that EdF would like

        French
   Consumption   Nukes

1:30     -2899   -611
2:30	 -1318	 -638
3:30	 -2583	 -381
4:30      -961	   33
5:30	    30    201
6:30	   933	  598
7:30	  -160	  221
8:30	  2517    484
9:30	  3048    493
10:30	  1464    403
11:30	  1131    243
12:30	  1507    230
13:30	  -597    -31
14:30	  -543    -65
15:30	 -1171   -343
16:30	 -1192     -9
17:30     -212    246
18:30	   940	  474
19:30	   175    289
20:30	 -1319     60
21:30	  1583	  139
22:30	   532	  194	
23:30       82   -196

Above is kind of what I expected. The sign is in the right direction (or close), but the amplitude of nuke load following is too small. Nukes go against load some hours (4:30, 7:30, 16:30, 17:30, 20:30, 23:30) in anticipation of a coming load increase or decrease and their massive thermal inertia requires a running start (kind of like how I drive my 1982 M-B 240D :-)

EdF cannot pull off even this very limited load following. One can see how much less grid stress (and less coal & NG would be needed) with such load following.

"There are none so blind as those that refuse to see"

Alan

I claim that my old Mercedes diesel accelerates. My friends insist that it "gathers momentum".

Quotes from Alan

" As I conclusively demonstrated in an earlier, with hour by hour data on consumption and generation in France, French nukes do *NOT* load follow in any meaningful sense of the word.
They do load follow by turning off during the spring & fall and on in winter and summer… "

" I have not seen one example where French nukes could load follow, as the term is commonly used… But, in the real world, they cannot do it… "

" BWRs have one intermediate stage from uranium to turbine, PWRs have two, which inherently adds delay and thermal mass…
In addition, steam turbines for load following FF fired plants have thinner blades than those for base load FF plants… "

" Reality is French nukes do NOT load follow. Perhaps they are certified to do so, but the real world operating decision is not too, even when there are good market reasons to do so…. "

" Before doing this, I had eyeballed quite a few days, in different seasons. My eyeballs told me "French nukes do not load follow"… "

" "There are none so blind as those that refuse to see"
Alan"

"

Alan, thanks for an excellent reference. Browsing through the data I see many periods where nuclear output follows load. Jan 1, 2009, April 13, 09, thru the 15 at 7am, sept 5,09,

July19, 2009 and in the early morning hours between 3 am and 10 am you can clearly see that the nuclear output is following load.

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_pro...

Of course we all agree that nuclear plants do not load follow all the time, as you have demonstrated. It would be foolish to do that when more expensive fuel can be saved.

So which of the following statements is true.

1. Nuclear plants CANNOT load follow.

2. Nuclear plants RARELY load follow because fuel cost is extremely low and there is almost always a more expensive fuel cost plant that can be throttled back, or a market that will buy the power for more than the marginal cost saved by throttling back.

The canard that nuclear plants cannot follow load is finally put to rest.

Of course the wind and solar buffs think that nuclear plants should load follow aggressively to provide free voltage and frequency regulation and free backup power to the wind and solar installations.

But it makes no sense to save ½ cent in fuel cost to subsidize unreliable power that costs 7 to 40 cents per kWh.

In statistics, a "random walk" will sometimes follow a straight line, or any given line.

I cannot see how you can compare load to generation since RTE only supplies the French load curve back to August 1, 2009 on-line (Is there another place on their website with older demand data ?).

http://www.rte-france.com/htm/an/accueil/courbe.jsp

With enough knowledge, one can suppose a load curve for most days, but New Years Day, 2009 is not one of those days (just HOW do the French celebrate this secular holiday ? The President of France gives the counterpart of a State of the Union speech, other than that ??).

Just eyeballing, without specific load info, on April 15th nukes totally missed the secondary peak around 18:30-19:00, on April 16th nukes went down as this nearly universal secondary peak# almost surely climbed (no hard data available) and on the 17th a very modest +200 MW from 17:00-18:00 to 18:00-19:00 (likely random walk).

Of course we all agree that nuclear plants do not load follow all the time,

I do NOT agree in the sense that you mean. *IF* French nukes could (safely & economically) load follow, they SHOULD load follow almost all the time in France.

There are STRONG economic reasons to load follow ALL THE TIME (except cold winter days when nukes are run flat out and oil is burned for peaking, save as much hydro & pumped storage for peak as possible).

I have read Swiss Utility financial reports where they boast of selling peak hydro back to the French for 5 times what they paid for the power the night before. *IF* French nukes could load follow, would EdF be so generous to the Swiss ?

If French nukes can load follow, why does EdF turn off nukes in the spring & fall and burn coal and natural gas instead ?

I will agree that French nukes almost always generate less power at 3 AM than they do at 3 PM, but that is NOT load following as the term is normally used. Some new term may be required ("diurnal random walk cycling" is the best that I can come up with).

French Nukes do NOT Load Follow as the term is commonly used.

Alan

# Almost without exception, in every culture & nation, there is either a primary or secondary peak after 15:00 as people come home from work, prepare dinner and sunlight dims.

In some few nations, there is no such peak on weekends.

I have read Swiss Utility financial reports where they boast of selling peak hydro back to the French for 5 times what they paid for the power the night before. *IF* French nukes could load follow, would EdF be so generous to the Swiss ?

Presumably, because France doesn't have enough nuclear capacity to cover peak demand. It's cheaper to buy Swiss hydro power than to buy more reactors and have them idling ~18 hours/day.

If French nukes can load follow, why does EdF turn off nukes in the spring & fall and burn coal and natural gas instead ?

They have to refuel reactors sometime. Aren't spring and fall the periods of least demand?

They have to refuel reactors sometime. Aren't spring and fall the periods of least demand?

On a day that EdF burned oil, Jan. 13, 2009, nukes varied from 59.170 GW to 60.660 GW for the day. Basically flat out all day and I assume operational glitches explained the small variation.

On Nov. 1, 2008, nukes varied from 45.324 to 48.656 GW

On August 1, 2009 nukes varied from 40.556 GW (peak nuke generation from midnight to 1 AM !) to 35.332 (second lowest hour of day was 7 to 8 PM at 35.602)

On Sept. 13, 2009, nukes varied from 36.298 GW to 40.473 GW.

This implies that 1/3rd of French nuke capacity is off-line now (assuming zero last winter). Refueling times vary, but 6 weeks is an upper end AFAIK (without complications), with 20 days being something to brag about.

Even assuming an inefficient 12 month refueling cycle (since they are down anyway, why not ?), more nukes are down for longer than need be for refueling. This is reflected in the quite poor power factor of French nukes.

It is clear that EdF shuts down nukes longer than needed for just refueling.

Presumably, because France doesn't have enough nuclear capacity to cover peak demand.

Wrong presumption. Not supported by the data.

*IF* French nukes could load follow, the highest generation hour of the day would be the peak hour of the day (or at least the second highest peak hour if nukes are unresponsive and can just BARELY load follow). Not so on most days (blind pigs find occasional acorns, peak French nuke generation is on peak demand hour a couple of times/month).

EdF turns off nukes that could be operational on mild May days and burns coal and natural gas. Fact.

Alan

Hi,

In fact, the maximum nuclear power in France is 63 GWe. They run more or less
flat if they can or they switch off if not needed, repair or refill during low demand periods.

the daily curves are rather interesting, on the EDF website one can compare
same week days for several years now. The different production methods are also
readable. Nicely done website. "actual" production mode or so it says at the left side.

for more details look at
http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/accueil.jsp
and actual generation. From what I heard some power plants have some problems right now

In any case, winter times are much more interesting because of the large
variations.

There is more about this bad load management in France.
The EDF has encouraged people for electric heaters during the past 20-30 years of huge
excess capacity. With a growth of 2%/year and without building new capacity one is now
in an interesting situation during the cold winter days.

People who have electric heaters in France come home around 18:00. They start heating
cooking etc etc and as a result the French system is in danger. Much more than the
other european countries. It hardly survived the cold days early January 2009.

michael

It hardly survived the cold days early January 2009

THIS explains EdF's sudden interest in wind !

Winter peaking, very quick to build, diffuse generation (mainly in the north where more demand for heating) so not much stress on grid (all new French nukes must be on coast, this probably creates transmission problems).

When nukes are running flat out on a cold windy day, 25 GW (nameplate) of wind could fill French, Luxembourg and Swiss pumped storage off-peak (all pumped storage is away from the coast and close to heating demand except that tidal plant).

Wind and pumped storage plus nukes could then meet winter peak demand, no oil, no NG and much less coal required :-)

Alan

all new French nukes must be on coast

This is just not the case. The next two EPRs are built on the coast.
The new plants, EPRs, are happy inland as well.

The old plants on rivers could be also fine, if upgraded with larger or more cooling towers, would it be economical.

It was announced after the summer heat wave that killed tens of thousands of French while several inland nukes were shut down, that all future French nukes would be on the coast.

Perhaps that policy has changed, perhaps not.

On a major river, such as the Rhine#, with no fear of overheating, this rule makes no sense. On rivers that are already taxed to their limits by existing nukes, it makes great sense.

Offhand I cannot think of a major French river without nukes already.

Putting in new cooling towers for a nuke that opened in, say, 1983 makes little sense.

# German Greens crossing the river may make the Rhine a less than ideal location for a new nuke though.

If the Rhine is out, and all other rivers are near their heat sink capacity (don't know), then "coast only" should be the rule till some of the 900 MW French nukes are retired.

Alan

I have pointed this out before, but here we go again.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,477899,00.html

she is under no illusions about why she lived when over 10,000 others are thought to have died. It was not merely politics or fate that made the difference, she says. It was also simple human intervention: De Noinville was not left alone. "We in this home are just lucky we had excellent people caring for us," she says. Thirty doctors, nurses and aides at Sainte-Agnès public retirement home in suburban Paris tended to the 80 residents with ice packs, wet towels and fluids to help them survive the suffocating heat in the home, which, like most French retirement homes, is not air-conditioned

No air conditioning.
What was electricity supposed to powering if there was no air conditioner ?

The country has been forced to admit that many of its 4.6 million people aged 75 and over do not receive anything like the care of the Sainte-Agnès residents. Often, in fact, they are ignored or forgotten, left to fend for themselves or die alone.

Infirmed old people left alone. Depending upon their (mental) condition they may not be able to manage thermostat settings or properly set indoor temperature.

You cannot blame the 2003 deaths on nuclear power or any electrical power situation if there were no air conditioners to fight off the heat.

People could have been moved to the supermarkets or any other buildings which had air conditioning. If they had people managing the situation, but in most of the deaths they did not.

The majority of this summer's victims were found dead in homes they occupied alone — or were brought to emergency rooms too dehydrated and weak to be saved. The August vacation period had lowered the staffing levels of rescue squads and hospitals. And well before that, many elderly people had already become cut off from regular human contact

Electric heating and cooking is a reliable, efficient, scalable, and affordable way of displacing carbon fuels in distributed heat applications, where the distributed toxic pollution from combustion is un-controllable and un-manageable (besides the "chimney" technology).

Blaming problems of electricity generation and distribution capacity on this clean and affordable replacement of fossil fuels is a false, to put it mildly. France is a net electricity exporter, indeed the largest one in Europe. Hence the French are obviously the least to blame for the lack the electricity generation in Europe.

The fairy dust energy sources pushers are to blame, together with sellouts such as Gerhard Schroeder, who "honestly" believe that closing down >20GWe of nuclear capacity is a sound policy, and already managed to shut down several gigawatts in safely operating reactors, which in turn already caused price spikes and lob losses:

After shutdown of the Stade nuclear power plant, the operation of the nearby saline has been shut down also[4]. Only a few years after (2006) the nearby aluminium factory was closed because of too expensive electrical energy[5]. Also, lots of small supplying companies got into trouble.

Meanwhile it is planned to construct a black coal power plant with almost the same power as the KKS[6]. This requires extension of the harbour of Stade-Bützfleth with a coal terminal for 1.7 million t black coal.[7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stade_Nuclear_Power_Plant

I am in favor of EdF building 3.2 GW of new nukes and 25 GW of wind by 2020.

I pointed out some of the perceived advantages of adding significant wind to the EdF mix. Winter peaking is one, less impact on transmission is another. Electricity to refill pumped storage (when nukes are running all out just to meet off-peak demand).

In 2020, 66 GW of nukes, 77% capacity factor & 25 GW wind, 30% capacity factor will give wind 1/8th the MWh of nukes, slightly more than conventional hydro. That the Swiss are massively increasing pumped storage and NorthEast France is their best wind province (AFAIK) will make a good match.

The extra wind should EdF to burn less coal, NG and oil.

Being "pro-wind" does not make one anti-nuke.

Alan

Basically flat out all day and I assume operational glitches explained the small variation.

No, any "glitch" requiring changing the power of the reactor means immediate shutdown, then at least half a day of waiting for Xe to decay, only then startup. There are no suddenly missing GWs in the plots. Changes in the nuclear generation clearly show load following. Typically they operate at nearly full power and use the rest to regulate the grid. The Sept 13 2009 plot you mention clearly shows this fact:

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_pro...

Besides the respective sources claim that rather clearly, as was demonstrated already.

EdF turns off nukes that could be operational on mild May days and burns coal and natural gas. Fact.

Nukes have to be refueled at some time. Surprise.

When EdF is burning oil, it makes no sense to VOLUNTARILY reduce nuke generation to "load follow", by even 100 MW. Yet that is what EdF did on Jan. 13, 2009 and other winter days.

Not all glitches result in scrams.

And I have shown that EdF has a quite bad capacity factor, 77.3% and this is *NOT* due to running at part load (perhaps 2% to 4% could be explained by that), but by shutting down 1/3rd of their nukes for almost half a year every year. *FAR* in excess of refueling requirements anywhere else in the world.

Either EdF is one of the worst nuke operators in the world OR their nukes cannot load follow so they burn coal and NG while fueled nukes sit idle.

Ontario Hydro used to do the same thing with their nukes until enough nukes were takes out of service permanently.

Because nukes cannot load follow in any meaningful way, EdF burns at least 2 GW of coal & NG every day of the year that I have looked at.

Alan

" Because nukes cannot load follow in any meaningful way, EdF burns at least 2 GW of coal & NG every day of the year that I have looked at. "

1… If the nuclear plants were not load following on the days that I mentioned, what plants were responsible for maintaining frequency and voltage regulation?

2… What is your evidence that it was these plants that load followed and not the nuclear plants that produced the lion’s share of the power and the largest power change over the course of a day?

3… I mentioned several possible reasons for maintaining a small fossil component, how did you rule out each of those?

4… Why are the nuclear generation curves nearly parallel to the full output curve while the others are not for my examples?

5… How much fossil power would be needed to load follow if the nuclear output was flat on my example days?

" I have read Swiss Utility financial reports where they boast of selling peak hydro back to the French for 5 times what they paid for the power the night before. *IF* French nukes could load follow, would EdF be so generous to the Swiss ? "

Yes, of course they would. With tiny fuel cost it makes sense to sell low cost power to the Swiss, Germans or Italians rather than throttle back. If they can buy some of it back at a cost that is less than that of burning gas or oil it is a sensible thing to do and results in fewer emissions and cleaner air.

Show us a link where you have made the same complaint when Denmark sells half their windpower to their neighbor at fire sale prices and then buys it back at high market prices.

If you were running the system would you sell some excess capacity to Italy and let them throttle back their fossil power plants, reducing world pollution and giving the people a break on energy cost, or would you throttle your nuclear plants back and force the Italians to burn more fossil fuel? That is a very selfish position to take.

" If French nukes can load follow, why does EdF turn off nukes in the spring & fall and burn coal and natural gas instead ? "

They schedule maintenance and refueling outages for those times when demand is lowest. This is in sharp contrast to wind which often schedules maintenance for the summer months when wind conditions are poorest.

" I will agree that French nukes almost always generate less power at 3 AM than they do at 3 PM, but that is NOT load following as the term is normally used. Some new term may be required ("diurnal random walk cycling" is the best that I can come up with).
French Nukes do NOT Load Follow as the term is commonly used.
Alan "

I provided several examples where nuclear output follows demand far closer than any other sources on line. If you cannot see that, my regrets, I suspect most readers can.

If they can buy some of it back at a cost that is less than that of burning gas or oil it is a sensible thing to do and results in fewer emissions and cleaner air.

If they would load follow their nuclear plants, they would not take them off the grid for several months during summer months and buy back electricity at a cost and they would not run any coal, gas and oil power plants.

Show us a link where you have made the same complaint when Denmark sells half their windpower to their neighbor at fire sale prices and then buys it back at high market prices.

Actually, Denmark mostly exports electricity during winter months when Norway's electricity demand is significantly higher and Norway's rivers flow the least water.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/08/10/elektrisitet_en/fig-2009-09-...
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsAndFigures/Energy_statistics_and_indic...

They schedule maintenance and refueling outages for those times when demand is lowest. This is in sharp contrast to wind which often schedules maintenance for the summer months when wind conditions are poorest.

Besides the fact that wind-turbines require less maintenance and don't need fuel and don't need to be refueled, electricity demand is lower in summer months. So having less wind power during summer months is advantageous. It also increases the value of their electricity, as their capacity factor is higher in the winter when electricity prices are also higher.

" If they would load follow their nuclear plants, they would not take them off the grid for several months during summer months and buy back electricity at a cost and they would not run any coal, gas and oil power plants. "

Why do they run coal and gas plants at a low level at non peak times of the year? I do not know. Possibly political, legal or union contract issues. Perhaps to keep the plants in good condition or to maintain the fuel supply systems. It is not evidence that nuclear plants cannot follow load.

" Show us a link where you have made the same complaint when Denmark sells half their windpower to their neighbor at fire sale prices and then buys it back at high market prices.
Actually, Denmark mostly exports electricity during winter months when Norway's electricity demand is significantly higher and Norway's rivers flow the least water.
"

Which in no way contradicts my point.

Actually, Denmark mostly exports electricity during winter months when Norway's electricity demand is significantly higher and Norway's rivers flow the least water.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/08/10/elektrisitet_en/fig-2009-09-...

I don't see such an annual trend in your figure. I see export peaks in the middles of 2000 and 2002, all through 2005, and the middles of 2007 and 2008.

Actually the figure clearly shows, that Norway's electricity consumption is always significantly higher in the winter time when Denmark exports electricity and Norway either imports electricity (despite its massive hydro resources) or exports little electricity in the winter time even though the electricity demand in the winter time is higher in all countries connected to Norway.

Which is not surprising as water levels of hydro power lakes always go down in the winter time due to reduced precipitation:
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/08/vannmag_en/tab-01-en.shtml

This is not only the case in Norway but also in France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain etc. because there is not enough wind power to offset the reduced hydro power production in the winter time.

That damm solid water problem !

Alan

I provided several examples where nuclear output follows demand far closer than any other sources on line.

BS !!!

TOTAL BS !!

Show me the link for French demand on Jan. 1, 2009, and April 15, 16 and 17th !

Where did you get that data ?? Show it to me ! I specifically asked if there was another source.

AFAIK, their demand data goes off-line for dates before Aug. 1, 2009.

Hydro beats nuke for load following by a three country miles !

And where was the nuke response to the 6-7 PM secondary peak ?

As I explained, a random walk will, occasionally hit ANY curve. The daily peak in nuke generation is the same hour as peak demand a couple of times/month.

Let me see, 24 hours/day, 28 to 31 days/ month, what are the odds that the peaks in both will coincide ? Especially if they are trying ?

EdF "throttles back" their nukes at peak most days. What is the logic in that ? If they have a surplus, they can sell it at top euro. If they have a shortfall, more nuke is less to buy or burn FF.

France has a nuke capacity factor of 77.3%, down there with there with the Ukrainians and Brazilians. Yet they burn coal and natural gas EVERY day (not seen one day when they did not get to 2 GW) DESPITE owning 4 GW of pumped storage and peak hydro of 12 GW.

If France could load follow with nukes, they could at least turn on two or three more nukes in spring and fall (unless EdF is one of the worst nuke operators in the world) and burn no coal & NG in April, October, etc.

As posted elsewhere, the number and length of nukes off-line exceed any refueling requirement (by US, Japanese, etc. standards).

Perhaps, since their nukes do NOT load follow, EdF pays no overtime during refueling outages (and everybody takes August off, just leave 1/3rd of the reactors off-line and burn coal) and they take twice as long as any other nation to refuel.

Alan

I provided several examples where nuclear output follows demand far closer than any other sources on line.
BS !!!
TOTAL BS !!
Show me the link for French demand on Jan. 1, 2009, and April 15, 16 and 17th !
Where did you get that data ?? Show it to me ! I specifically asked if there was another source.
AFAIK, their demand data goes off-line for dates before Aug. 1, 2009.

Alan, you might want to double up on the blood pressure meds before you read on. I got it from your excellent link.

First read the description.

" The data given below show power consumption in France. The figures include losses on all networks, but do not take into account capacity withdrawn by hydro-electric installations for pumping purposes. "

Grids do not store electricity so generation is about equal to consumption plus losses.

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/vie_stats_conso_inst...

By the way, it was April 13 – 15 that I looked at.

" Hydro beats nuke for load following by a three country miles ! "

That is absolutely true when you do not have enough water to run the hydro wide open, but if water is pouring over the spillway they will max hydro and cut back on oil, gas, coal and nuclear in that order.

" And where was the nuke response to the 6-7 PM secondary peak ? "

See above.

" EdF "throttles back" their nukes at peak most days. "

Give some examples, what months do they throttle back on peak most days?

If I was sensitive I would say change your tone, but really, it makes me smile.

Hey all those who follow blindly what some
pro nuclear websites are shouting.

first make you own analysis about load following of nuclear or not
just to show that you have some little critical spirit remaining.

in case,

just answer the simple question

why do most nuclear power plants have a 90% uptime?
multiply 24 h * 365 days to get the number of maximum TWh/GWe
(actually I had this table in Chapter I have a look it does not blind you!)

they are running on 100% capacity if not shut down for annual refilling
(planned outages as the PRIS data base calls it).

otherwise operators are proud to have unplanned outages of 2% or so!

just answer this question and the discussion about load following or not can stop.
operators have learned the lesson. This is how the increase of the number of TWhe
happened after few new plants were terminated 10-15 years ago.

Finally, if all over sudden you want that the operators start load following again
the number of produced nuclear TWhe will also go down
as I predict!

michael

" just answer the simple question, why do most nuclear power plants have a 90% uptime?... they are running on 100% capacity if not shut down for annual refilling… "

True for countries with a low percentage of nuclear power.

" just answer this question and the discussion about load following or not can stop…
Finally, if all over sudden you want that the operators start load following again
the number of produced nuclear TWhe will also go down
as I predict! " Michael "

Michael, do you know the difference between capacity factor and availability factor?
Have you bothered to look at the data we have been discussing in the above posts?

In France the availability is high but the capacity factor is less than 90% because the reactors load follow on days when demand is low. This is obvious in the graphs we have been discussing.

It is ironic that the argument that you make against load following actually supports the claim of load following in France if you understand these concepts. If you do not understand these things you should not be posing as an expert on these issues.

look,
yes I understand the difference between capacity factor and availability factor
but when you look at the PRIS data base
you find the average numbers a few % loss here and there

so lets just look at but energy availability factor for the last three years
france was 81.6% in 2006 and 77.6% in 2008.

world 82.9% and 80% in comparison
just roughly the same.

but in case: compare the nuclear power production and its variations
and the load curve variations.

It would be nice if EDF would do the ratio for us.

concerning winter peak demand it is far above the 63 GWe
records are in the 92 GWe.

Base load in France is much higher than inmost other countries in europe.
thanks to nuclear power and the related waste during low load times.

For those not convinced that normal electric heating is a waste
it follows from first principles that high valuable electric energy
should not be used for low energy heat applications (basic textbooks)
(besides its practical if there is enough!)

michael

It would be nice if EDF would do the ratio for us

EdF appears to give us what it wants "us" to know and hides the rest.

With generation, give exports/imports and + or - French pumped storage. And give consumption either on the same table (best) or in the same format.

Alan

actually the entire discussion about load following capability of existing PWR's
in France and elsewhere might be concluded with the statement from the
WNA document: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

I hope in vain that the pro nuclear hobby lobbyist will stop arguing now
and admit that their basic knowledge could be improved somehow!

in any case under the title:

Load-following with nuclear plants
it says it all!

>but it is apparent that in a coordinated system the nuclear fleet is capable of a degree of load following, even >though the capability of individual units to follow load may be limited.

for those who are interested in more details, the longer version its also interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------
All France's nuclear capacity is from PWR units. There are two ways of varying the power output from a PWR: control rods, and boron addition to the primary cooling water. Using normal control rods to reduce power means that there is a portion of the core where neutrons are being absorbed rather than creating fission, and if this is maintained it creates an imbalance in the fuel, with the lower part of the fuel assemblies being more reactive that the upper parts. Adding boron to the water diminishes the reactivity uniformly, but to reverse the effect the water has to be treated to remove the boron, which is slow and costly, and it creates a radioactive waste.

So to minimise these impacts for the last 25 years EdF has used in each reactor some less absorptive "grey" control rods which weigh less from a neutronic point of view than ordinary control rods and they allow sustained variation in power output. This means that RTE can depend on flexible load following from the nuclear fleet to contribute to regulation in these three respects:
1. Primary power regulation for system stability (when frequency varies, power must be automatically adjusted by the turbine),
2. Secondary power regulation related to trading contracts,
3. Adjusting power in response to demand (decrease from 100% during the day, down to 50% or less during the night, etc.)

PWR plants are very flexible at the beginning of their cycle, with fresh fuel and high reserve reactivity. But when the fuel cycle is around 65% through these reactors are less flexible, and they take a rapidly diminishing part in the third, load-following, aspect above. When they are 90% through the fuel cycle, they only take part in the first aspect above and essentially no power variation is allowed (unless necessary for safety). So at the very end of the cycle, they are run at steady power output and do not regulate or load-follow until the next refueling outage. RTE has continuous oversight of all French plants and determines which plants adjust output in relation to the three considerations above, and by how much.

RTE's real-time picture of the whole French system operating in response to load and against predicted demand shows the total of all inputs. This includes the hydro contribution at peak times, but it is apparent that in a coordinated system the nuclear fleet is capable of a degree of load following, even though the capability of individual units to follow load may be limited.

Plants being built today, eg according to European Utilities' Requirements (EUR), have load-following capacity fully built in.
---------------------------------------------------------

the last statement is of course so far unproven but might help to sell a new power plant!

the wind and solar buffs think that nuclear plants should load follow aggressively to provide free voltage and frequency regulation and free backup power to the wind and solar installations

France is building out new wind faster than they are new nukes. Plans are for 25 GW of wind by 2020.

It would be easier to integrate this new wind if French nukes could load follow, but 12 GW of new pumped storage in Switzerland will help dramatically.

Alan

" It would be easier to integrate this new wind if French nukes could load follow "

It would be easier to integrate wind if each wind farm included a massive battery so that it could provide its own voltage and frequency regulation and so the grid operators could have reliable programmable dependable wind power to schedule, but the subsidies would have to double or triple for that.

No, just use some of the 4 GW of pumped storage that the French built specifically for nuke (all built after mid-1970s) and use some of the Swiss pumped storage and "problem" solved.

You want to impose some arbitrary and expensive and unneeded expense on wind (unlike Edf) for what reason ?

EdF is going to build 3.2 GW of new nukes to go with their new wind. Shouldn't that satisfy you ?

I thought EdF was the rabid pro-nukes hero !

You are just the flip side of those that chain themselves to the fences. Emotions, and not rational analysis, drive your positions.

If it is good enough for EdF, shouldn't it be good enough for you ?

Alan

Here you can check the filling degree of the hydro storage lakes in Switzerland:
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=e...

If you for example pick the canton of Wallis/Valais. It's hydro storage lakes had a filling degree of 51.4% on January 5th 2009 and a filling degree of only 7.4% on May 5th 2009.

If there was more wind power in Europe, these hydro storage lakes would not need to be emptied that quickly as there is always more wind power during winter time when there's less precipitation.

Besides Europe has a gas power capacity of 160 GW (in addition to a hydro capacity of 180 GW). So, if wind power capacity were increased, gas consumption will also go down.

(Also, most hydro storage lakes in Switzerland do not even have pumps. They just don't run the turbines when there's low demand).

" No, just use some of the 4 GW of pumped storage that the French built specifically for nuke (all built after mid-1970s) and use some of the Swiss pumped storage and "problem" solved. "

Using pumped storage with nuclear makes far better sense than with wind and solar because you can use its capacity every night, whereas with wind and solar there may be several days in a row when the capacity stays empty. That makes the cost of storage per kWh lower with nuclear.

The sun tends to rise every day. Wind tends to have more than one peak/day (those wind farms that rely on sea breezes have a reliable two/day).

In West Texas, one does have the tendency for strong blows that last for a day or so, as massive amounts of air move between the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico. I am less familiar with French wind patterns, but I suspect that they are close to German, i.e. multiple peaks/day.

In an ideal set-up, wind will require more pumped storage than nukes. My SWAG is that a 77% nuke, 12% wind, 10% hydro, 1% FF grid (EdF 2020 ?) will require 1.5 to twice the pumped storage of EdF today, but significantly less FF will be burned.

Alan

No, just use some of the 4 GW of pumped storage that the French built specifically for nuke (all built after mid-1970s) and use some of the Swiss pumped storage and "problem" solved.

They would need more pumped storage for more capacity to re-schedule. Pumped hydro is not scalable, as it depends on convenient geological locations, water sources, and also these projects are on radar of various organized anti-any-progress self proclaimed environmentalists.

For this reason, and due to heavily subsidized plaguing of the distribution grid by chaotically fluctuating wind farms, grid regulation is getting pricey. Hence the new GenIII+ nuclear plants allow for larger power swings.

Bill,

On the four dates YOU picked

Jan 1. 2009

Peak nuke generation 1:00 to 2:00

Peak demand 19:30

April 14, 2009

Peak nuke generation 16:00 to 17:00

Peak demand 10:00

April 15, 2009

Peak nuke generation 21:00 to 22:00 (0:00 to 1:00 was close)

Peak demand 12:00

April 16, 2009

Peak nuke generation 15:00 to 16:00

Peak demand 12:00

French Nukes do not load follow as the term is commonly used. If they did, peak nuke generation would coincide with peak demand on a large majority of days.

Alan

" French Nukes do not load follow as the term is commonly used. If they did, peak nuke generation would coincide with peak demand on a large majority of days.
Alan
"

France has flexibility in how they balance the system. The vast majority of load following is accomplished by their nuclear plants, with the fine tuning mostly from hydro. If France had only nuclear plants they would fine tune with nuclear plants.

The control systems of nuclear steam turbines are not as sluggish as you think. For example, if a main transformer or power line fails, the throttles must respond to the loss of load rapidly to avoid over speed.

The fact that France balances its load with the most logical common sense mix of assets does not prove or even imply that we could not have an all nuclear grid.

Gen II plants were designed with baseload in mind because customers intended to run them that way. When the world moves past 80% nuclear, modern plants like the MSR will be able to load follow, it is a non issue.

By the way, when I claimed that nuclear plants follow load you accused me of writing BS because I had no load data. I showed you the load data from your reference. Where is your retraction of the BS comment?

Obviously you did not see the load data before I pointed it out to you, so how is it you were so confident in your statements that nuclear plants do not follow load?

You did not answer my questions.

1… If the nuclear plants were not load following on the days that I mentioned, what plants were responsible for maintaining frequency and voltage regulation?

2… What is your evidence that it was these plants that load followed and not the nuclear plants that produced the lion’s share of the power and the largest power change over the course of a day?

3… I mentioned several possible reasons for maintaining a small fossil component, how did you rule out each of those?

4… Why are the nuclear generation curves nearly parallel to the full output curve while the others are not for my examples?

5… How much fossil power would be needed to load follow if the nuclear output was flat on my example days?

You are one of the "radiation is good for you" people who are beyond the each of logic and facts. The flip side of those that chain themselves to fences. I debate you only for the benefit of others, I know that no facts (see the data from the 4 dates YOU picked) will change your belief system.
.......
You wrote "I provided several examples where nuclear output follows demand far closer than any other sources on line."

That is, in fact, BS.

Hydro follows load, and is RTEs primary load following control (plus sinking power into pumped storage at night, exports and imports).

French nukes do not follow load, as the term is commonly used.

The WNA overstated the case and used delightful bureaucratic wording in doing so.

it is apparent that in a coordinated system the nuclear fleet is capable of a degree of load following

That "degree" is so erratic that it does not meet the criteria for using the phrase "load following" as commonly used in the utility industry.

modern plants like the MSR will be able to load follow, it is a non issue

A "non-issue" ??

I do not expect to see an MSR get NCR approval in my lifetime. I do not expect to see MSRs in series production in the OECD in my lifetime. Some hypothetical, drawing board solution is a non-solution.

Hint: We are *NOT* going to spend $100 billion/yr on new nuke R&D.

The vast majority of load following is accomplished by their nuclear plants ...

Are you blind !?! Just *LOOK* at the RTE graphs, that is what clued me into the fact that French nukes do NOT load follow.

Total generation (on RTE graph) does not follow load (not on same RTE graph), true. EdF sells late night power to the Swiss for 1 euro and buys it make a few hours later for 5 euros, and matchs load to generation + & - exports/imports.

But even total generation shows that hydro is doing the bulk of the load following (either French or Swiss hydro).

Demand peak is noon or 10 AM, nuke peak is near midnight. That is "load following" ?

Too long to "properly answer" your questions, and you can keep changing the issues with little effort and it takes me time (see data for the 4 days) to respond. 1 minute to type a question, an hour or two to respond (your tactic).

You are proven TOTALLY wrong on those 4 days yet you ignore your mistaken claim.

Very quickly

1) Frequency & Voltage regulation has almost nothing to do with load following, it is a fraction of a second to a few seconds/minutes response. Load following is every few to 15 minutes or so. Hydro is always the preferred means of voltage regulation (massive inertia, multi-pole generators, etc.), where available. Nukes are a bit better than FF for voltage regulation.

2) Economic logic. Because nukes are so difficult to load follow EdF burns FF, has 4 GW of pumped storage and still sells power at give away prices to the Swiss. If nukes could load follow, peak nuke generation would be at peak demand (with an occasional OOPs when peak was 10 AM and EdF forecast noon). Peak demand = Peak economic value/prices for electricity.

3) You were grasping at straws with your "union requirements that EdF burn coal every day" and the rest. You were just making uninformed speculation, not worth my time to research a rebuttal (what read the union contract with EdF ?)

BTW, running a plant once every 90 days is considered adequate to prove that it is reliable, running EVERY day not required. In Texas, they run peaking NG plants for a couple of hours at the start of summer, often the only time they run all year.

4) Because you do not properly understand numerical analysis. Yes, nukes provide the bulk of the power in France (duh) but what is important, is the change in generation (often called "load following"). See hydro.

EdF does manage to reduce nukes almost every night around 3 & 4 AM. Perhaps that "caught your eye". The one valid example of something like load following.

5) My Swag, 0 to 1 GW more FF would be needed if EdF generation was absolutely flat. Complex calculation becasue of hydro, pumped storage, exports & imports.

If French nukes could load follow, and with hydro and pumped storage, then EdF would burn zero FF in April.

Alan

Dear Jeppen,

thanks for the link to this interesting paper!
I will read it more carefully.
it says
>EPRG Draft Working Paper – prepublication text – please do not cite or
>circulate without the approval of the authors.
do you know what this means?

the education of the authors are not really those one would expect to know all the details
about operating nuclear power plants.
However, from reading the text quickly it seems that they know much more than one would
expect for ``Business School"!

In any case
the text contains some interesting statements:

>We confirm that modern Generation III and III+ are technically capable of flexible
>operation.

can you tell us how many reactors in Europe are Gen III and III+?

as one can presume already that so far we have close to zero!
some simple logic tells us that indeed nuclear power plants
have a problem.

another good statement is:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Figures 4 and 5 provide insights into the range of relative competitiveness of nuclear power.
Nuclear power becomes competitive above 5000 hours of operation a year, directly implying
semi-base and base-load operations. These data, however, are limited in their usefulness by
the fact that plant is assumed to be running at full capacity or not at all. Real load following
operations (with smoothly varying outputs) in real electricity markets would represent a far
more complex matter for which no data appears to be publicly available.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

what more do you need to conclude that your hopes are unfounded and that Alan is
correct!

michael

EPRG Draft Working Paper – prepublication text – please do not cite or circulate without the approval of the authors.
do you know what this means?

My bad, I didn't read that.

the education of the authors are not really those one would expect to know all the details about operating nuclear power plants.

They might know, while you have proved clueless.

We confirm that modern Generation III and III+ are technically capable of flexible operation.

And you think this statement suggests that no generation II is capable of flexible operation? Please upgrade your reading comprehension and logical units in your brain.

what more do you need to conclude that your hopes are unfounded and that Alan is correct!

What you cite doesn't help one way or the other. And frankly, I find it pathetic that you, seemingly without relevant knowledge of your own, trust Alan just b/c his is the anti-nuke stance in this argument. "Unbiased" is not your middle name, to put it mildly.

1) I am pro-nuke, in many ways the most pro-nuke here since I saw and understood the tragedy that left about 40 partially completed nukes abandoned in the USA, tens of billions in cost over runs and multi-year delays. WHY we have had no new nuke starts in over a generation. I understand where the fault lay in the past (instead of searching for scapegoats).

I see reality and am not blinded by emotion. IMHO, the "pro-nuke" group here are just the flip side of the same coin as the "anti-nukes" that chain themselves to the fences. Searching for factoids that support their emotional commitment. I fear that they will run down the same road to the same result, failing to learn from the problems and failures of the past.

Remember that I also contradicted "anyone" with his hopes for solar thermal providing air conditioning. Hardly in line with an "anti-nuke" bias ?

If one doubts the emotional, as opposed to rational, attachment to nuclear power, just consider how any challenge to "nukes are good; nukes have no problems" gets a quite emotional response (by TOD standards).

2) The link to the 2nd discussion (this is the 3rd) gave, in what I consider proper detail, my data sources, details of my analysis (demand data was in 15 minute increments, generation in hourly) and links to French data. One need only follow the links and use their eyeballs for any past day to see my point.

Quite frankly, I was surprised by how poorly French nukes load followed. A priori, I expected that, when demand went up +10 GW in the morning, nukes might +3 or +4 GW. Right direction, but inadequate amplitude. And that they might ignore the short peak @ 18:30. Perhaps too quick to load follow even with prior knowledge. I try and see reality.

3) MichealD does present a couple of good points. I do not always assume that everything works perfectly. Some untoward accidents (long miner's strike, fire in enrichment plant, Russia playing energy politics#, etc.) could transform "tight" into shortage. And he is correct that such a shortfall would not be allocated perfectly.

# Given what Russia has done with NG, it is quite possible, even probable, that they will play economic hard ball & politics with nuke fuel if the opportunity presents itself. If they can cut off heat and power to a "sister republic" in the dead of winter, they will have no compunctions about "delays" in delivering nuke fuel if they see an advantage in it.

However, I see some reactors with delayed refueling operating at partial load as the likely result. Perhaps a new Chinese nuke sits idle for several months waiting for it's initial fuel load. Hardly the "end of the world".

Alan

However, I see some reactors with delayed refueling operating at partial load as the likely result. Perhaps a new Chinese nuke sits idle for several months waiting for it's initial fuel load. Hardly the "end of the world".

Agreed. If I interpret Michael correctly, he doesn't advocate the end of the world either. He only suggests to take nuclear fuel availability and potential shortages into account when planning for future nuclear power stations.

Gail painted, in her Humpty-Dumpty post, the two extreme scenarios that may follow PO: a rapid power-down scenario, and a slow reduction scenario. Reality will probably fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

It is quite clear to me that, in the future, we shall be consuming less energy; not only because of higher energy prices (supply shortage); not only because of a failing economy (demand shortage); but simply, because a lot of our current energy use is for driving exponential growth.

Once physical growth ends, we need less energy, because we stop expanding. In 2007, Spain used close to 30% of its overall energy for producing cement. With the end of the boom, their total use of energy has shrunk, because construction has died down.

When we build a new house, we spend as much energy putting it together as we spend during the next 50 years living in it. Thus, when construction stops, because the number of customers is no longer growing, energy use will invariably have to come down.

We shall see electricity shortages because, as fossil fuel becomes less available and more expensive, more people will replace fossil fuel by electricity, e.g. in home heating (replacing their central oil heating systems by an electric heat pump) and in transportation (EV and PHEV). It's just a question of time.

Thus, replacing some aging nukes by newer ones to bridge the gap until we can build up enough wind and solar electricity to meet the growing demand makes a lot of sense. Believing that we can replace fossil fuels entirely by nukes of the LWR type is a pipe dream. It won't happen; not by a long shot; not by any shot.

There is no inherent reason for any power-down. With breeders there is enough fuel for fission to provide energy for everyone on the plant, for many centuries to come, at "western" consumption rates around 5-15 kW/person, even with resources currently prospected and economical to mine with current technologies, even if all the primary energy came only from fission. <*> If you think that $40 a month in fuel is cheap, than indefinitely <**>
Hence we have enough time to develop cheap fusion, cheap solar, cheap large scale energy storage, or what not.

The idea of exponential growth rests on a flawed assumption that a value can be compared as money over a long time period. However the monetary base is expanded exponentially by our fractional reserves banking systems. Only if the net production of real value (which is cumbersome to measure, typically approximated by GDP growth) is faster than the monetary expansion (which is somewhat underestimated by consumer price indexes, which focus on consumer goods, excluding real estate, large machinery etc.), the real growth occurs. The observed "exponential" growth is a monetary side-effect, perhaps better described as an effect of imperfect measurement, kind of biased by rosy glasses.

In developed economies the energy consumption per capita shows tendency to stabilize after massive growths during industrialization, digitization, and prosperity, perhaps with a small growth depending on a country. Such growth is described by logistic curve, not exponential curve. Following such development, population stabilizes, or even turns to decreasing - a major issue in many EU countries. What exponential growth?

<*> Fissile heat is about 75 GJ or 2.4 kW years per gram thorium (similarly for uranium in breeders). For 80 years of 10 kW, that is ~330 g, a sphere of 1.9 cm radius of thorium http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=330g+of+thorium
A person only needs about a golf ball of thorium metal for his life time supply of energy.
More about thorium economy: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/5/153348/5912

Thorium is currently mostly a liability, a waste product of rare earth mining - interestingly by large for the permanent magnets in wind turbines. I am looking forward the part IV of the show.

<**> Actually as was already pointed out, with less than 0.5 cents a kWh in fuel, we could mine uranium from average rock, after we run out of *currently* economical fission fuels, (and then the more expensive deposits still richer than average crust,) in some distant hypothetical future. The 0.5 c per kWh of fuel is still less than $40 a month of 11 kW US lifestyle.

Indeed,

>Agreed. If I interpret Michael correctly, he doesn't advocate the end of the world either.
>He only suggests to take >nuclear fuel availability and potential shortages into account when planning for >future nuclear power stations.

power down is not the end of the world
like Autumn is not the end of the word, just a transition!

Understanding the limits of growth is some real advancement!
Helping to spread this simple fact, is in my view important.

Of course those who try to explain this will be confronted with denial in many versions.
Best outlined in the book ``On death and dying".

What I try to show in my articles so far was that
there is no nuclear renaissance right now and in fact that official documents
indicate that "without action" a slow phase out will happen during the next 10-15 years.
(-30% in EU+Switzerland -15% from Germany and -15% from other countries!)

In fact the documents show that those countries without their own uranium mines, enrichment facilities,
properly educated nuclear workforce and so on will become hostage of a few big players.

Now, do we in Switzerland or Germany or France want to become even more dependent
on energy imports of all sorts or not?
All the relevant details need to be considered in a open democratic society
but they are not so far!

Furthermore, like it or not, nuclear fission power plays only a tiny role.
Even in countries like France there is essentially no use of thermal heat from power plants.
May be only to kill the last remaining fish stocks during the summer low water levels.

I also have provided the official information about secondary resources.
I wrote that theoretically large amounts remain including the the use of the depleted uranium tails.
This can be increased in principle I wrote.
(yes I could have mentioned that
the number of SWU need to be increased by a large number. But my articles are already very long
and technical.)

I look forward for those believers in the bright future of nuclear energy
to write their scenario on how the use of the Uranium tails (and the SWU) will evolve
in order to avoid the supply shortage from uranium mines.
Wh can't those, who imagine the solution comes from the increase the SWU's by huge numbers,
admit that indeed there is a problem with uranium mines?
Isn't it obvious that nobody in his right mind will go for U235 in tails with 0.25-0.3% U235 content
if enough uranium with 0.71% U235 can be extracted?

Thus the believers in tails could simply admit already that there is a supply problem
during the next 5-10 years and especially if the nuclear power will increase by 1-2% per year.
Yes there is at least one theoretical solution. Opening military reserves, building
huge amount of SWU's or phase out slowly!

If there is a phase out from retirement by one or another reason
there is no shortage, no price explosions but less and less TWHe from nuclear power plants.
If this answers the questions about why the U price has collapsed like the oil price did.

For me it is more important how many THWe are produced this is what I address.
Make your own predictions to check how wrong you are
(if Jeppen wants to change the use of nuclear power plants according to load demand
the TWHe will go down further!)

For the long term imaginations (after the difficult next 5-10 years) about a radical U-turn
in policy (this is the subject of this paper):

The official data documented in the Red Book are totally inconsistent and not scientific as claimed.

A story well known from the oil sector. Is there any reason that private companies
dealing with uranium have other interest than profit making and survival?

I doubt it. Those who feel different need to explain this.

michael

ps
to those who blindly (not having even read what I wrote) attack me
I can only say again:

Please make you testable predictions for the number of TWHe produced
during the next few years. How uranium mining, SWU's etc will contribute.
Include in it already how many Thorium-U233 reactors
and how many FBR U238-Pu239 will be ready during the next 5, 10, 20 years.
Do it now!

don't waste your time with useless unsubstantiated attacks against me or my statements
in the papers!

No nuclear renaissance? Really? 26 reactor were under construction in the beginning of 2007. Currently, there are 50 and still rising! Why don't you mention this to balance your claims?

another proof!

you have not read my paper!

but despite the propaganda numbers

can you tell us (i did already)
in your objective way:

how many reactors have been connected to the grid last year
and how many this year.

is it more than the average during the last 10 years?

and add perhaps how many have been terminated since 2008?

michael

Please make you testable predictions for the number of TWHe produced during the next few years.[...] Do it now!

This discussion is about your paper, and the gaping holes in the presented argumentation. Fortune telling of nuclear TWhs may be exciting, but besides the topic, and depend much more on factors besides uranium availability, in particular various laws banning construction of nuclear plants, or even demanding shutdown of the running ones. Predicting minds of politicians, or even which politicians will be making the decision is following months and years, seems rather impossible.

Better look at facts at hand. Many claims were already addressed in the discussion, however this one looks new:

What I try to show in my articles so far was that there is no nuclear renaissance right now and in fact that official documents indicate that "without action" a slow phase out will happen during the next 10-15 years. (-30% in EU+Switzerland -15% from Germany and -15% from other countries!)

I looked again at your part I, and didnt find quantification for the other countries. Germany reduction in 2015 is claimed to be 9.3 GWe (20.3-11). This is 6.9% of Europe's nuclear capacity (~135 GWe), not 15%. You do not mention that Germany had terrible experience with closing a plant, that this phaseout is politically controversial (we'll see, elections are in 2 weeks), and many experts do not believe the phaseout is possible without devastating German economy, and the coal plants are not coming up fast enough to make the up for slack.

Which reactors will close down in other EU countries, the "other 15%"?

In 2007 there was 5.9 GWe under construction in Europe (Bulgaria, Finland, France, Slovakia). Surely you should have included them in your total sums, no?
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world...

Also, concerning future, let me present a quote from this recent post:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/china-can-build-safe-low-cost...

A few days ago, I mentioned my competitive concern about the progress being made in China in its program to build new nuclear power plants. Unlike the US, which has stimulated banks and consumption to try to jump start its economy, China is taking the opportunity of a lull in consumer demand to build infrastructure projects that will enable future productivity. Nuclear power plants are a growing part of that investment. Just a couple of years ago, the projection was that China would add 40 GW of nuclear electric power capacity over the next twenty years - last week the number rose to 130 GW of capacity.
[...]
If China has a lot of low cost nuclear plants and a rail system that is no longer burdened with moving massive quantities of coal from inland mines, what will its productive capacity mean to the rest of the manufacturing world?

This is at odds with yours: What I try to show in my articles so far was that there is no nuclear renaissance right now

However I agree we need the action is needed, if we are serious about the CO2 (and other) pollution. The overwhelming issue, at least in EU and the US, is not the uranium, but political will.

Dear Loiz,

can you understand what it means during the next 10-15 years?

It seems that you need some help in basic numbers

we are not at the end of 2009 right?

2015 is six years away right?

2009+10( or plus 15) years =
I guess you get the point.
Sorry to say so but you just invite it (i know bad yoke I shouldn't do
and I say sorry right away!)

``it seems you do not even get the basics in math correct,
how can you believe to do a little advanced things on nuclear."

ok lets forget about this.
Instead look again at the Euratom Supply Agency document
(or do it for the first time!). It is after all your agency!

they talk about a reduction of 6000 tons of uranium needs.
-3000 tons from Germany we can understand easily.

for the other 3000 tons reduction, I know they do not explain it!

so your guess is welcome! (try UK among others!)

will the lights go out from time to time after such a phase out?

well probably from time to time if people do not follow the power down
policy!

nuclear is only a small fraction.
missing natural gas will hurt much more as it is needed for peak load demand!

but this is another story read my article

``peak load stress" if you are interested. I doubt that you are.
For example here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008arXiv0803.4421D

for guessing what the future will bring and how energy will
be made after peak oil and peak gas will hit (EU countries are under stress here).

it is you and others who claim we have no problem
in going nuclear.

But now you are afraid of explaining how this can be done
in your view! Why?

The WNA is not so afraid they make a very interesting guess
here it is (unfortunately in GWe not in TWhe. you know reactors after a earth quake
(or without uranium) are also counted in GWe but without producing TWhe.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.html#0

lets go right away to the table:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/nuclear_century_outlook.html

select your favorite country or the entire world if you prefer
and tell me what numbers you find realistic?

My message is even a 1%/year growth is inconsistent with
fundamentals. Either because of the retirement of power plants
or because of missing uranium supply.

Politics also has a role to play and they will explain that "nuclear fission was a great idea
but the people are too stupid to understand it. Thus it is the fault of the greens
communists, capitalist or chinese perhaps (they start buying all the remaining uranium mines!)

michael

OK, I get your numbers now, thanks for (partial) explanation. We will see soon if the Phaseout happens in Germany.

Intriguing reasoning concerning the reduced uranium needs. The document is actually very interesting - http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/ar/last.pdf

They explicitly say they assume "a small number of firm plans" and disregards "several others planned" in their projections. So the "discrepancy" is solved - WNA bets on no phaseout and keeps track of early projects stages and proposed reactors, while ESA includes German phaseout and excludes proposed or early in preparation power plants. It is actually written there, page 24. No mystery, no contradiction in numbers. ESA cares in particular about short term fuel supply for the members, and will be updating their projection according to the "several other" schedules.

IF investors start to invest in mines, there is no problem. The document warns against too low prices (in expectation of HEU dumps from Uncle Sam), which could create short term issues. Hence they advise better get your fuel contract quickly, in effect to keep the price of uranium up, above MRoMI of 1. Seems like markets at work.

Aside:  I spent some time yesterday using a sledgehammer to remove the above-ground part of a buried concrete pier.  It was very tough concrete and hard to crack the portions lying below ground; while I did break off one fairly large piece, I was mostly spending my effort to turn the exposed face into dust and fine chips at a few grams per blow.  When I got the concrete level with the surrounding ground where it was no longer a hazard to lawnmowers, I called the job done.

I was just struck by the similarity between that task and arguing with Michael here.  A number of us have been using factual sledgehammers on his claims for days, with even less influence upon his stated position than I had with the concrete.  Yet we persevere, because his claims are not supported by the facts and it is important to show that.  On the contrary, some relatively simple analysis shows that his conclusions are baseless and can only be reached by avoiding any mention of facts which should be known to anyone with expertise in the subject.  I am not a nuclear engineer and only an amateur analyst, yet I can take on his claims and refute them.  What does this say about the trustworthiness of his analysis?  I'll leave that for you to decide.

who imagine the solution comes from the increase the SWU's by huge numbers, admit that indeed there is a problem with uranium mines?

You're not following the logic here, Michael.

  1. You asserted that there is a problem with uranium mines.
  2. I and others have shown that if this problem exists at the level you claim, it can be solved by using more SWU.

It is simple Aristotelian logic:  if A, then B.  Of course, if there is no problem with uranium mines (as the price of uranium seems to show), there is no need to worry about additional SWU either.

Isn't it obvious that nobody in his right mind will go for U235 in tails with 0.25-0.3% U235 content if enough uranium with 0.71% U235 can be extracted?

No, it is not.  It IS obvious that cheaper separation turns the "waste" U-235 in DU to a resource.  New technology can produce useful coal from coal mine waste dumps, and the same is true for uranium.

You are trying to direct attention away from the fact that the energy cost of separation has fallen by 1.7 orders of magnitude (a factor of 50).  Increasing SWU by 0.2 orders of magnitude (a factor of 1.6) still leaves the energy input to separation at about 1/30 of its previous level.

Natural uranium (NU) has about 0.71% U-235 in it.  If we take Michael's figure of 0.30% for some of the DU tailings, it is obvious that only about 63% of the U-235 was extracted in the LEU product; the rest was left in the DU tails.

Q:  Why leave 37% of the U-235 and call it "waste"?

A:  Because the cost of additional NU was less than the cost of SWUs at the time.

This is very easy to demonstrate.  The energy cost of separation via gaseous diffusion is about 2500 kWh per kg-SWU.  If electricity is assumed to cost 5¢/kWh, this costs $125/SWU just for the electricity.  At a tails assay of 0.3%, enriching NU to 3.75% U-235 yields 11.9% in the product and requires 0.57 SWU per kg of NU.  Decreasing the tails assay to 0.13% increases the LEU yield to 16.0% but increases the SWU requirement to 1.18 SWU per kg of NU.  At $125/SWU, saving 1 kg of natural uranium would cost about $147 [1].  The price of uranium has not come anywhere close to $147/kg except for the recent speculative spike, so we can see why tails assays were high when separation was all done by GD.

No new gaseous diffusion enrichment plants will ever be built.  All are due to be replaced by centrifuge enrichment, which has an energy cost of about 50 kWh/SWU.  If electricity costs 5¢/kWh, the energy cost falls to $2.50/kg-SWU.  The cost of the electricity to save the same 1 kg of NU (by reducing the tails assay from 0.3% to 0.13%) falls from $147 to $2.95, which is roughly 1/10 the contract price of uranium.  It is obvious why tails assays will fall and we will see more LEU from the same NU stream.

Now let me address Michael's assertion that "nobody in his right mind" would re-enrich DU tailings at 0.30% or less.  If DU tailings are assumed to be free (and probably already stored as UF6, so there are no conversion costs from UO2), here are my calculations of SWU requirements and cost per kg of 3.75% LEU, with NU as a comparison:

Input
assay,
% U-235
LEU,
% U-235
Tails,
% U-235
Yield,
% LEU
SWU/kg
input
SWU/kg
product
$/kg
product
0.30  3.75  0.13  0.0470  0.69  14.59  36.50 
0.25  3.75  0.13  0.0331  0.55  16.52  41.25 
0.71  3.75  0.13  0.1602  1.18  7.34  18.35 

As you can see, the energy input required to produce 1 kg of LEU product using centrifuge enrichment from older tailings costs less than 1 kg of NU yellowcake at current average contract prices.  Far from being insane, it looks extremely profitable; anyone with a centrifuge enrichment plant and a bunch of old DU tailings as UF6 would be a fool not to use any excess SWUs to re-enrich them.  The only condition that makes this unwise is if there is a shortage of SWU capacity.  If this is the case, the obvious thing to do is keep the old gaseous diffusion plants open a while longer and use the GD plants' tailings as feedstock for the centrifuge plants.

Now, either I am very badly wrong or Dr. Dittmar owes The Oil Drum a retraction and an apology.  I have shown all of my work, which is contained in this comment and the referenced spreadsheet.  I will not accept anything other than a specific demonstration of an error in my facts or my work (as I have demonstrated in his) as a rebuttal, and before you start whinging again, I do not think that anyone who has made multiple gross errors deserves any concessions in "tone"—and even less so if the errors are not mistakes but deliberate intent to mislead.

My sledgehammer remains ready for use.

All SWU and product/tails calculations in this comment were calculated using my free OpenOffice spreadsheet (slightly modified) which you can download, examine for errors and use for your own purposes.
[1] 1 kg of NU yields 11.9% LEU at 0.57 SWU/kg.  It would require about 0.74 kg of NU to yield the same amount of LEU at 16% yield.  The SWU difference is (0.74*1.18-0.57)=0.30 SWU or 1.18 SWU/kg of NU.  At $125/SWU, saving one kg of NU costs $147; at $2.50/SWU, it costs only $2.95/kg.

Look,

The final proof will be the facts of the next few years.

I make definite predictions which can be tested.

You use theoretical numbers (partially unproven) on many things including
the not yet existing SWU's somewhere,
do not read what I wrote, what official documents say
and on top ask for censorship.

Just write a paper on how the uranium supply demand situation will evolve during the next 5-10 years.
Explain where and why you are in contradiction with the experts from the IAEA/WNA and so on.

You have perhaps a big sledgehammer, big muscles and so on.

But when it comes to the point to make concrete numbers on how things can possible evolve
you are silent!

We can discuss all this again when you present your detailed numbers which can be tested
during the coming years.

For the rest: complain to the IAEA/NEA etc and remember their warning:

"Most secondary resources are now in decline and the gap will increasingly need to be closed by new production. Given the long lead time typically required to bring new resources into production, uranium supply shortfalls could develop if production facilities are not implemented in a timely manner."

michael

I make definite predictions which can be tested.

You've made predictions based on faulty logic and dogmatic adherence to disputed numbers.  For example, you predict that TWh will decline because of LEU shortages, when there is no shortage of either NU or enrichment capacity.  There has never been more enrichment capacity in history, and the decrease in energy requirements for it are both increasing the net output of nuclear by perhaps 5% and increasing the yield per ton of uranium.

If there was a shortage of NU, prices would be high.  Prices are not high.  What is your excuse for this failed prediction?  You do not even attempt to make one.  You expect us to bow down to your moral superiority and not concern ourselves with trifling things like facts.

ust write a paper on how the uranium supply demand situation will evolve during the next 5-10 years.

Why do I need to do this, when I have shown how YOUR OWN NUMBERS for uranium supply, combined with established trends in LEU yield* (due to reduced tails assays) and greater GW-d/t from improved fuel economy (again, YOUR NUMBERS), show that the problem probably does not exist?

But this is beside the point.  The grandparent to this comment was not just analysis.  It was a test.  I wrote it to test your honesty.  You had never addressed the viability of enrichment of DU tailings before, and you made a throwaway comment that you would have to be out of your mind to do it.  I showed that, contrary to your claim, the energy cost of processing old DU tails with centrifuge enrichment made this quite attractive.

I gave you all of my calculations and work materials.  Unlike the enormous volume of obfuscated and contradictory material you've generated, I made my analysis brief, to the point and (I hope) clear.  If there were any errors in my methods or results, you should have had no difficulty finding them and showing me where I was wrong.  I invited you to do so.  (You've had access to my little spreadsheet for weeks.)

It was a test.  You failed.  You fall back on appeals to authority (including authority which does not support you) and ask us to take your ill-supported word as gospel.  Perhaps that suffices for people whose need to believe in a nuclear phase-out, nuclear disarmament or both is more important than the facts, but you insult the intelligence of everyone else in this discussion when you refuse to engage the issues.

There's a little story Richard Dawkins tells which is apposite.  I've related it in private, but I'll reproduce it here for your edification:

I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal--unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping.

You don't even pay lip service to truth.  You may hold a teaching position, but in this matter you are no scientist.  You are just an anti-nuclear fundamentalist, and no amount of pseudo-analysis will suffice to hide that sad fact.

* You should read the annual reports of companies like Urenco.  Urenco delivered 11.4 million SWU to customers last year (page 7 of the PDF) and claims sales revenue of € 461 million.  This comes to less than € 41 per SWU.  You could have compared this against the price of NU to see if re-enrichment of DU tails was a paying proposition at current NU prices, but your analysis is conspicuous by its absence.

Just look the red book data
and what I extracted from it!

but because you are insisting with hypothetical numbers:

what counts is the difference:
how much natural uranium is required each year to operate
370 GWe + an unknown growth

minus

how much uranium is extracted out of the ground
how much comes from secondary resources

yes, as I have written in the papers the secondary resources
include the depleted uranium tails and currently the contribution is roughly 1000 tons.

What I wrote comes directly from the Red Book (and thus from the USA and other
government agencies. I have no problems believing that this can in theory be increased.
Will it be done? Lets see perhaps. I doubt it however and personally I do not like the idea
to be even more dependent on Russia. Perhaps you do like that idea fine with me.
I have also provided the link and data from the UxC people.
What is missing are your expectations. You refuse to say anything here
because you do not have any!

U235 from depleted tails

Depleted uranium tails are a by-product of the U235 enrichment process. The tails contain normally between 0.25-0.35% of U235, or about one third of the 0.71% contained in natural uranium. The inventory of depleted uranium is increasing every year by roughly 60,000 tons. It is estimated that roughly 1,800,000 tons have been accumulated in different countries by the end of 2008. In theory, a large amount of U235 is still contained in these tails, but the existing enrichment capacity is already rather limited. Nevertheless during the years 2001 to 2006, Russia delivered yearly up to about 1000 tons of re-enriched uranium to the European Union. According to the Red Book, the Russian Federation indicated that this delivery will be stopped once the existing contracts end. For the USA, a pilot project is anticipated to produce a maximum of 1900 tons of natural uranium equivalent during a period of two years. No additional information about the status of this or other world-wide projects is given in the Red Book.

but in case, if you want to strengthen my conclusions about the
Red Book fine. Please do! I am sure there are many more wrong things in the red book.

good luck!

michael

I'll tell you what I expect:  I expect most reactor construction projects in the USA to go forward. a massive build in China, and uranium prices to remain more or less stable.  The Layton presentation YOU USED AS A REFERENCE states the "strike price" for new mining projects is up to about $55/lb U3O8 (call it $145/kg metal).  If ground is broken for a reactor, I expect mining interests to make sure there is yellowcake to feed it.  I expect prices for uranium to be very reasonable relative to e.g. petroleum.

But that does not excuse you.  Your quote regarding DU from the Red Book is a non-answer, and you know it.  The 2007 Red Book says "enrichment capacity is... rather limited", but that situation has been changing very rapidly (see the Urenco annual report linked above for just one example).  You act as if you don't know what this means for tails assays and the feasibility of re-enriching DU (which the Russians have already been doing).  I don't think anybody here believes you are that ignorant; I certainly don't.  You know exactly what it means for your argument:  it knocks out your fallback if yellowcake should actually run short.  You refuse to address it because you are driven by your conclusion, not the actual logic of the argument.

When doing a design, one starts from a desired result and works backward.  That's not how chains of logic go.  Arguing that way is not honest, and it shows intent to deceive.  You have been anything but honest.

Woh,

that was difficult!

now we have something more concrete from you great!

>I expect most reactor construction projects in the USA to go forward. a massive build in China, and uranium >prices
>to remain more or less stable.
ok I understand you do not care for the rest of the world!
in fact your view might agree with mine (for the entire world!) but you are still not willing to admit!

but it is ok for now anyway I do not believe that the USA or China will manage such an increase!

thus to translate for others you mean the WNA speculation numbers right?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/nuclear_century_outlook.html

now = 99 GWe by 2030 for the USA between 120 -180 GWe (which number is your favorite?)
new domestic U mines will fill the needs or canadian plus russian uranium?
Does this small 20-80% increase in the USA compensate for the loss of oil in your view by 2030?

for China now 9 GWe and 2030 between 50-200 GWe.
the uranium is supposed to come from where?

thanks for the clarification. Hm we need to wait 20 years before you can be tested?
can we do any better?

yes, the WNA gives a country profile lets have a look

Nuclear reactors under construction and planned for china
table (at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html)
lets see if they are in time!

same list for the USA
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

doesn't lool like anything concrete is given for the next decade.
Do you have any better numbers to test for the next few years?

lets say 2009 compared to 2007? will it be more or less TWhe?
or 2010 and so on!

so far 2009 does not look to great as far as I can see but for sure it is the fault of whoever!

michael

ps almost forgot

>The 2007 Red Book says "enrichment capacity is... rather limited", but that situation has been changing very >rapidly (see the Urenco annual report linked above for just one example).

lets see the real numbers of uranium from tails in the next red book June 2010.
It is not impossible. But among us: Can you give some numbers when nuclear power
projects of this size (including the SWU's) were completed in time.
As I quoted the Red Book Authors have a clear opinion about that.

thus you prefer to hope that things will become reality and no concrete numbers
associated!

I look at past trends and make them available to you and others (what's the crime?.
You should say thank you! Perhaps the data will indeed wake up some powerful people
to take action in the direction of your favorite pro nuclear view.
It could in fact liberate the money needed for breeder research
including your favorite Thorium reactors or whatever.

My conclusion is that this seems to be very unlikely and that especially
EU, Japan etc will have a hard time in the near future.
This looks very logic to me! (and your statement that you do not care for them add enough details
that you do not disagree in reality!)

so what's the problem with looking at numbers?
you can just ignore them and not read my papers!
(as you do anyway.)

I tell you what make you angry and verbal violent.

My papers indicate that your views are after all not that solid!

that is your real problem!

all the best and I guess (see you again when my chapter IV comes out.

I was just struck by the similarity between that task and arguing with Michael here. A number of us have been using factual sledgehammers on his claims for days, with even less influence upon his stated position than I had with the concrete. Yet we persevere, because his claims are not supported by the facts and it is important to show that. On the contrary, some relatively simple analysis shows that his conclusions are baseless and can only be reached by avoiding any mention of facts which should be known to anyone with expertise in the subject. I am not a nuclear engineer and only an amateur analyst, yet I can take on his claims and refute them. What does this say about the trustworthiness of his analysis? I'll leave that for you to decide.

The discrepancies of what you write, EP, and what Michael writes can be explained quite simply. The two of you look at two different problems.

You look at capacity and future possibilities and illuminate what could theoretically be done with nuclear power, whereas Michael looks at production in the recent past and extrapolates those numbers into the future.

Michael claims correctly that, unless we change our ways, we are going to face a slow decline of nuclear power both in terms of reactors and in terms of fuel. You claim also correctly that, if we change our ways, we may still turn the ship around.

Will we change course?

I personally have my doubts that we will, especially taking into account our current economic crisis. I don't believe for a moment that the crisis is anywhere near from over, but in trying to save the world from a financial disaster, we have indebted ourselves so much that no money will be available any longer to address the energy issue once it starts really biting.

For this reason, I am inclined to believe that Michael's predictions are more likely to come true than your's.

I agree with the delta in perspectives of analysis.

E-P is a diehard techno-cornucopian. He assumes that if a technical solution exists it WILL be implemented !

I believe in the existence of Mr. Murphy, and recognize non-technical facts and will prevent ideal technical solutions from occurring.

Facts such as the Russians are extremely cold blooded (see KGB training) and will disrupt the supply of nuke fuel if:

1) they can (that now seems likely, or at least possible, after reading MichealD's work).

2) There is some advantage to them for doing so. That calculation is complex.

If I were an utility exec, I would borrow money and secure enough physical uranium till 2020, delivered to the enrichment facility of my choice, with enrichment scheduled a couple of years before need.

Alan

E-P is a diehard techno-cornucopian. He assumes that if a technical solution exists it WILL be implemented !

Oh, far from it, Alan.  I've seen bad policy run roughshod over superior solutions for the last 3 decades, and that's just since I started paying attention to current events.  On the other hand, identifying what we can do is essential for pointing out where policy isn't giving us what it ought to.

There's about 8000 tons of thorium nitrate buried in some sort of containers in Nevada.  At LeBlanc's figure of 0.8 ton/GW-yr, that is enough to generate 250 GW for the next 40 years—enough to replace all of the USA's electric generation from coal, and we wouldn't need squat in the way of fuel from any mine, foreign or domestic, for decades.  The technology required to do this was demonstrated in the late 1960's.  Will we do it?  I doubt it very much.  But if nobody bothers to note the difference between where we could have been and where we are, nothing will ever get done.

" Michael claims correctly that, unless we change our ways, we are going to face a slow decline of nuclear power both in terms of reactors and in terms of fuel. "

Actually he has not talked about reactors yet, only uranium so far. The key facts are;

1… The earths crust contains a huge amount of uranium.

2… It only takes a small mass of uranium to generate a lifetime supply of electricity.

3… The cost of uranium per kWh is a tiny fraction of the retail kWh cost. Uranium cost can go up several hundred percent without a serious impact on electricity cost.

4… A large energy reserve of uranium does not require a great deal of money or space.

Given these facts it is undeniable that as long as the principles of economics 101 are allowed to continue operating in a free uranium market, no reactors have or will be curtailed due to a physical shortage of uranium.

Michael does not claim that we will have enough uranium if we change our ways. He does not recommend any changes that will lead to that outcome. He claims that the world uranium reserves are too small and inadequate to support a large nuclear industry. He repeatedly refuses to recognize and answer the questions that illuminate the errors in his logic. His conclusions do not fit the facts, they are wrong.

" You claim also correctly that, if we change our ways, we may still turn the ship around. "

The uranium market has been changing (adapting) since WWII to meet the fluctuating needs of government and commercial nuclear endeavors. That ship does not need to be turned.

" Will we change course? I personally have my doubts that we will "

Who is this “WE” you talk about? The human race is not one tribe. Some countries will make smart choices and become prosperous and others will not. If Germany shuts down all its nuclear plants, the products from other countries will have a handicapped competitor.

China is plotting a serious course to become the world’s super power, and looks likely to succeed.

China is building infrastructure that will enable it to combine already low labor costs with very low electricity costs to become an even more formidable competitor in manufacturing the hard goods that enable us to live comfortably in a world that offers many challenges. The most recent evidence of just how serious the Chinese are in building capability that will provide returns for many decades is an announcement by Japan Steel Works (JSW) that sent its stock soaring by more than 8% yesterday, while Americans were celebrating Labor Day in a time where it is considered to be "good" news when "only" a quarter of a million people lose their jobs each month.

The announcement that had such a positive effect on JSW, the world's primary manufacturer of very large steel forgings suitable for the main components of large, central station nuclear steam supply systems, was that it had doubled its recently increased forecast for the number of nuclear power plants planned in China. According to a Bloomberg.com article titled China to Build More Nuclear Plants, Japan Steel Says (Update2) , the current forecast is for China to build 22 reactors in the 5 years ending in 2010 and 132 more in the following years. Just last year, the total forecast for Chinese nuclear power plant planned was 60 units.

http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/japan-steel-works-stock-soars...

E-P I strongly disagree with your tone.

And I give the balance of the argument to Dr. Dittmar despite good points that you make.

Just because something can be done, and even makes economic sense# to do so, does not mean that it will be done.

There may be enough SWUs to go around, but some of those SWUs are still gaseous diffusion (not shutting down Paducah in 2012 for example). The economics you illustrate do not easily justify enriching DU tails at Paducah.

And even if Paducah is still needed, I suspect that it will be shut down regardless of need in 2012 for other reasons.

Ukrainian, etc. nukes could start having 90% load factors (they have every incentive to do so) which would increase fuel demand.

I routinely make allowances for Mr. Murphy, and Russian malevolence, and I could well see some delayed refueling, etc. happening.

I think Dr. Dittmar has done a service in bringing this issue to our attention. It can be mitigated in ways he did not analyze, or foresee which is one of the values of TOD.

However, your absolute tone of outrage, etc. is beyond the norms of TOD, and it is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Alan

# The Russian calculation of "economic" and geopolitical sense is very self centered and does not focus on the common good. A risk that Dr. Dittmar understates if anything.

Well anyone can come in and declare victory and provide a biased simplification and summary.

So here is mine.

Michael Dittmar is the one who is the most off based with his tone in the discussion. Michael reacted to criticism by choosing to take offense to the criticism instead of using facts and logic to refute the counter-points that were made.

Alan, your own analysis is always to assume that all projects have a tendency to fail or under-deliver (except for rail projects or your other pet-technology).

I have already pointed out the efforts that the Ukraine has made to increase capacity utilization and they have moved up from the 60-70% level up to about 80% with the help of US companies and research. These projects continue.

No new projects are being started in the real world based on Dittmar's paper. TOD is the peanut gallery and we are only trying to get a view of what is actually happening. Whatever is going to happen in nuclear is happening irregardless of the papers and discussions here.

EP - I view the better analogy is that debating Dittmar is the Black knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

[attempts to get around the Black Knight]
Black Knight: None shall pass.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: None shall pass!
King Arthur: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight. But I must cross this bridge.
Black Knight: Then you shall die.
King Arthur: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside!
Black Knight: I move for no man.
King Arthur: So be it!
[they fight until Arthur cuts off Black Knight's left arm]
King Arthur: Now, stand aside, worthy adversary!
Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch!
King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Black Knight: No, it isn't!
King Arthur: Well, what's that then?
King Arthur: I've had worse.
King Arthur: You liar!
Black Knight: Come on, you pansy!
[they fight again. Arthur cuts off the Knight's right arm]
King Arthur: Victory is mine!
[kneels to pray]
King Arthur: We thank thee, Lord, that in thy mercy -
[cut off by the Knight kicking him]
Black Knight: Come on, then.
King Arthur: What?
Black Knight: Have at you!
King Arthur: You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine!
Black Knight: Oh, had enough, eh?
King Arthur: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left!
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.

[the Black Knight continues to threaten Arthur despite getting both his arms and one of his legs cut off]
Black Knight: Right, I'll do you for that!
King Arthur: You'll what?
Black Knight: Come here!
King Arthur: What are you gonna do, bleed on me?
Black Knight: I'm invincible!
King Arthur: ...You're a loony.

1) I am pro-nuke, in many ways the most pro-nuke here

I didn't say you were anti-nuke, I just said that the particular positions you take is anti-nuke. Of course you do it all for the benefit of the nuclear future. :-)

since I saw and understood the tragedy that left about 40 partially completed nukes abandoned in the USA, tens of billions in cost over runs and multi-year delays.

Your refusal to acknowledge the very big role of regulations points to a bias, in my mind. Perhaps not necessarily an anti-nuke bias, but perhaps an irrational carefulness bias, a pro-regulation bias or something like that.

IMHO, the "pro-nuke" group here are just the flip side of the same coin as the "anti-nukes" that chain themselves to the fences. Searching for factoids that support their emotional commitment. I fear that they will run down the same road to the same result, failing to learn from the problems and failures of the past.

Maybe or maybe not. Anyhow, I don't think the guys here are the ones who are going to build and commission new reactors. That is mostly business decisions, which probably is as close to non-emotional you can get. (Governments and their regulation overloads are based on emotion to a much higher degree.)

Quite frankly, I was surprised by how poorly French nukes load followed. A priori, I expected that, when demand went up +10 GW in the morning, nukes might +3 or +4 GW. Right direction, but inadequate amplitude.

Why would that be inadequate, if other sources such as hydro and drawn-down exports provide the rest? I'm not surprised at all about French nukes not load following most of the time. If you can run them full speed and regulate with export and hydro, you do that, obviously.

Some untoward accidents (long miner's strike, fire in enrichment plant, Russia playing energy politics#, etc.) could transform "tight" into shortage.

I don't think uranium supplies are that "just-in-time". But sure, it's not entirely unthinkable. What is unthinkable, however, is michaeld's idea that there would be too little uranium in the ground long term to support a much expanded fleet of nukes.

If French Nukes COULD load follow:

1) France would need to burn almost no oil, gas & coal (zero most days)

2) Instead of selling power at very low prices (sometimes below the cost of fuel) to the Swiss & Luxembourgers at 3 AM, they could sell hydro and their own pumped storage at peak to the Germans, Italians, Dutch. etc at 5 times the price.

3) The French would almost never have to buy peak power back from the Swiss.

4) The seasonal shut down of nukes every spring and fall could be much smaller, or none.

5) EdF could make much more money if their nukes could actually load follow.

The French website for their generation (history back to 2006) is

http://clients.rte-france.com/lang/an/visiteurs/vie/prod/realisation_pro...

Scroll your arrow over the graph and one gets hour by hour generation for the day selected.

Alan

Concerning Pickens:

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/07/09/pickens-to-scrap-wind-far...

In Texas, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens has scrapped plans to build a gigantic wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. Pickens told the Journal that there were not adequate transmission lines to move the power from rural Texas to cities where the demand for power is located, and that he was unable to secure financing for the transmission line upgrade.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pickens-scraps-giant-wind-farm-plans

Another big stumbling block facing Pickens and others is a lack of transmission lines.
At first Pickens proposed building his own lines, but didn't follow through. "It was a little more complicated than we thought," Pickens told the Dallas Morning News.
While the Texas Public Utility Commission announced plans last July to add $5 billion in transmission lines in West Texas, the plans didn't include the region outlined in Pickens' plan.

According to Pickens, the issue is the transmission.
The 5 billion dollars worth of transmission lines (which you speak about) will not fix his problem.

I have seen the ERCOT map and the new lines (outside the ERCOT area but synchronized with ERCOT#) come close.

Pickens, if telling the truth (not a great virtue of his), need only get leases closer to the new lines. Texas ranchers will definitely make a deal.

# North America has four major grids, each with independent timing of 60 Hz. East, West, ERCOT part of Texas and Quebec.

Some of the new lines go into a a part of Texas that is in the West grid (I called ERCOT to confirm BTW). These are import only lines, they serve no local demand and cross local lines without interconnections.

Pickens has bought the Texas Legislature before, bending a line a few miles to HIS wind farm would cost far less (maybe even $0) than what prior deals cost him.##

My money is on Pickens finding a face saving excuse.

Alan

## For seven years I went to the University of Texas in Austin, working nights. For three of those years I was the night auditor at the hotel closest to the Texas State Capital (then the Downtowner, 11th & San Jacinto). I am more aware than most of how laws in Texas are made.

One nit, loiz:  the USA burns about 1,200 MILLION short tons of coal per year, not 1,200 BILLION (assuming you are using the American decimal convention and not the European).

It could be done for less and in less time if efficiency was improved (heating (insulation, windows), cooling, refrigeration, lighting incl. daylighting, transportation, reduction of standby consumption) and fossil fuel heaters were to be replaced by flexible CHP plants

Isn't all of this ongoing? Energy intensity (the amount of energy needed to produce a GDP dollar) has decreased by more than a percent per year since 1970, at least. However, the world economy grows faster.

So, energy consumption grows, by 1.9% per year, but electricity consumption grows even faster, by 2.9%. So electricity is continually increasing its share of the growing energy requirements of the human civilisation.

You may dream about even quicker efficiency improvements, but the IEA reference scenario is an increase in electricity production by 77% from 2006-2030, with almost all of this growth coming from non-OECD countries. During this time, unfortunately, coal is projected to increase its share somewhat (i.e. grow more than 77%), while nuclear is projected to increase just 40% and so lose market share. Renewables are projected to increase from 21% to 23% of the mix, mostly due to wind.

Dreams won't stop these trends. Electricity consumption will increase world-wide and coal will provide the bulk of this increase. It would be better for all if it were nuclear.

No, it is not ongoing, in any meaningful way.

And conservation is a viable policy choice not a dream.

I see more impractical dreams among the pro-nuke supporters than I do among the conservationists.

Every nation is different. It is impossible that all the increase in generation will be nuclear, it is simply not practical or economic in many places. Hawaii ? Alaska ?

Major parts of France run on oil fired electricity without any nuclear power; Corsica, Reunion, Martinique, Guiana (some hydro there) etc.

And nuclear is slow and expensive in most places, conservation is not.

Alan

No, it is not ongoing, in any meaningful way.

How do you explain the continously improving energy intensity, then? Of course, you could try to fast-track it, but there is significant investments involved and lots of them doesn't make sense until the stuff the investments would replace (such as cars) are at their end-of-life.

And conservation is a viable policy choice not a dream.

It seems to be a dream for America and reality for Europe.

However, it does not really matter. The world energy budget must increase since the non-OECD countries will and should increase their consumption.

Every nation is different. It is impossible that all the increase in generation will be nuclear, it is simply not practical or economic in many places. Hawaii ? Alaska ?

Perhaps it is, in a future:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/561553#

And nuclear is slow and expensive in most places, conservation is not.

Conservation may be free (turning off the lights when you leave your home) or extremely expensive (destroying a functional house and building a new green one in its place). Nuclear is fast and cheap in many places, btw.

Nuclear is slow and expensive in non-OECD Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Philippines, Iran, Cuba and South Africa.

Other than the two China's and South Korea, I cannot think of any nuclear success stories in the developing world. (I would rank India as a mixed bag).

So I question your claim that nukes "fast and cheap in many places".

France, China (both), South Korea, Japan and where else are nukes "fast and cheap" ?

Alan

Canada, Sweden, Germany, Russia, Ukraine? About 30 countries has civilian nuclear reactors, and thus some experience, infrastructure, regulations and so on in place. Sure the rest of them needs to invest in these things before being able to scale quickly and cheaply, as long as nuclear reactors aren't factory built and shipped.

Russia, Ukraine

I do admit that not building a containment structure will make construction both faster and cheaper.

Canada

Recent bid for Ontario took them out of the cheap column.

Sweden, Germany

Decades old, almost all who worked on their last reactors are retired or dead. Perhaps Sweden can tap into Finnish experience and Germany into French experience (although I cna see some culture clashes).

For several of those 30 nations, particularly the non-OECD ones, their nuclear power plants have been an economic disaster.

The number of nations that have a uniformly good history with building new nukes is very small. The USA started and did not complete about 50 nukes. WHOOPS !

Alan

Decades old, almost all who worked on their last reactors are retired or dead.
Yeah, same in Italy. What a shame.

Russia has nine third generation VVER-1000 PWRs with full containment structures. These are quite ok designs which started commercial operation between 1985 and 2004.

As you seem to accept that some countries are or have been successfully building nukes, then you should accept that those success stories can, in theory, be duplicated. I think it's mostly a matter of streamlined government regulations and the governments' willingness to get the ball rolling. And governments seems to realize this now.

you should accept that those success stories can, in theory, be duplicated.

No, I do not accept that.

The primary cause of problematic construction is lack of human resources, not the boogeyman of regulators (who should *NOT* be told to stand down in the name of efficiency !)

This is why so many non-OECD nations have had disasters on their hands when someone sells them a nuke with associated promises.

This same lack of human resources (i.e. experience) inhibits a rapid build-up of new nukes.

The lesson to be learned is to slowly and safely expand the new nuke building program.

Alan

Yes, you do seem to accept that they can be duplicated, just not rapidly.

So the main difference between us seems to be that I think the expansion can be quite rapid with the new, simpler, standardized designs. You think most of the knowledge is very specialized, while I do not.

Regulators standing down? Well, that depends on what you mean. The US seems to have streamlined its red tape when it comes to approved designs, and I guess the regulations is or should be the same in all US states. (Unfortunately, I've heard that some communist US states forbid utilities from using their revenues to pay for investments!?)

Now, if the EU could agree on a similar common framework, modeled on some successful existing regulation - perhaps the French - then at least this 30% of the world economy would allow a quite rapid build-out.

The lesson to be learned is to slowly and safely expand the new nuke building program.

I guess you are worried then about the license applications for 26 new reactors that has been entered in the US the last two years?

you are worried then about the license applications for 26 new reactors that has been entered in the US the last two years?

Yes !

The US Dept. of Energy did a study of how quickly the US could start building new reactors. Several supplier bottlenecks, but people were the limiting factor.

Their answer, eight new nukes in ten years.

I read the report and Mr. Murphy was absent. My answer, finish Watts Bar 2 plus six more in nine to ten years.

Fortunately, most of those 26 will not be built by 2019.

Alan

The communist state of Florida, under the Beloved Great Leader Jeb Bush, allows their residents to pay for a new nuke in advance, regardless of whether they expect to ever live to see it operate or not.

Well, we'll just have to see about the build-out. For me, it's ok if you start small - just get the ball rolling!

If you think it is communist to allow private enterprise to charge customers arbitrary prices and use the revenue in any way they like, then I think you should retake politics 101. I live in Europe, in socialist Sweden, but the only price regulation I can think of here is rent-control - and everybody here knows that it too is stupid. One would think that the US should know better.

If you think it is communist ...

I have been told by Icelanders that Norwegians have no sense of humor (and that a Norwegian party is an oxymoron), but I did not realize that extended across the mountains.

>:-)

Alan

What do you think of this blog entry about the cost of nuclear?
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/09/interim-nuclear-solutions-india...

sounds to good to be true!

but if true

we all should order nuclear power plants in India and send the
corrupt and greedy european and US etc companies and their politicians into collapse and prison!

michael

I verified the cost from Indian sources. I suspect that the price is about wage rates in India. Reactors in China run from $1.60 to $1.75 per Watt.

There's no reason for a country with a trade deficit to produce almost 20 t of CO2/capita such as the US does.

The reason is population density in the US compared to Europe or Asia, and the fact that the US gets most of its electricity from carbon fuel burning (with only 104 nuclear reactors providing ~20%); instead of virtually all electricity provided by nuclear, with plenty power to spare to replace home oil heating, to charge up PHEVs, and for synfuel manufacture, as would be the case with the envisaged 1200 reactors.

The reason is population density in the US compared to Europe or Asia, and the fact that the US gets most of its electricity from carbon fuel burning

No it's primarily efficiency. Boston is an US-city with a reasonable public transportation system and probably more densely populated than pretty much any country in the world and is still at 15 t of CO2 per capita:
http://www.tbf.org/indicators/environment/indicators.asp?id=1173&fID=218...

Besides the US has a higher nuclear power share than the world average.

Yeah Boston has the worst insulated old buildings in the country, and their are heated by oil instead of (nuclear) electricity. Both are an issue. Without addressing the nature of energy source, increased efficiency will not help by much, if any (Jevons paradox)

Lack of nuclear power is *NOT* the reason that the USA generates so much carbon.

A wasteful lifestyle (promoted by too cheap energy) combined with gov't policies (subsidize sprawl foremost among them) are the reason.

BTW: There are no PHEVs today, but 200+ million ICE carbon burners. Which demonstrates the invalidity of your argument.

And since France has Switzerland, Germany, Italy, UK, Belgium and Spain to dump cheap/free late night nuke power into (and 10% hydro at home) and the USA does not, nuke cannot supply more than 55% of US demand (best case). Your 1,200 nukes is n impractical, unrealistic and even undesirable fantasy.

IMO, new US nukes are a second tier response to our problems, they will be slow and expensive compared to the better alternatives, but we will need them so lets build a handful now to restart the industry.

Best Hopes for Massive Conservation, Non-Oil Transportation, a Rush to Wind and a safe & economical build-out of new nukes,

Alan

Bicycling and walking are FAR better than PHEVs. Less resources and you live 10 years longer.

Lack of nuclear power is *NOT* the reason that the USA generates so much carbon.

I have to disagree, burning so much carbon is the reason...

A wasteful lifestyle (promoted by too cheap energy) combined with gov't policies (subsidize sprawl foremost among them) are the reason.

... of large energy per capita consumption. The energy could have been from 1200 GWe nukes, much less if any from carbon.

Your mention urban sprawl. This is the way the cities are already. With few exceptions the cities are designed for population densities where mass transport is not viable, in part due to gas taxes lower than the road costs and other funny gov't policies. This is bad, and I am all for higher fuel taxes, and carbon taxes in general. But even if US transformed sprawl into Europe-like metropolises, and miraculously reduced the energy consumption to European ~6kW, the ~ 2000 GW(th) of energy has to come from somewhere. All the time, or rather on demand. In my opinion the choice for most of our energy needs is between carbon and fission.

There are no PHEVs today, but 200+ million ICE carbon burners. Which demonstrates the invalidity of your argument.

IF these reactors had been built, and the dirt cheap electricity has been available every night since over 2 decades ago, perhaps there would be PHEVs, and perhaps in general we would have discovered some affordable large energy storage, build more pumped storage capacity etc. We didn't do, hence we do not have. The point was that the antinuclear nonsense started few years after it was asserted publicly by authoritative gov't sources that it likely will be done. We'll see. I agree with biking, also bike lanes seem cheap and fast to paint.

Your proposed use of fission products is fantasy.

First, this requires reprocessing fuel, with multiple failed attempts (the Brits just wasted many billions on one) and one success in France.

Originally predicted to make profits for BNFL of £500m, by 2003 it had made losses of over £1bn. Subsequently Thorp was closed for almost two years from 2005, after a leak had been undetected for 9 months. Production eventually restarted at the plant in early 2008; but almost immediately had to be put on hold again, for an underwater lift that takes the fuel for reprocessing to be repaired.

In November 2008 Sellafield was taken over by a new US-led consortium for decommissioning, as part of a 5-year £6.5bn contract.

Second, the fission products have to be chemically separated one from another (expensive with such radioactive material) and then the various separated elements have to be stored for many decades/centuries while the various radioisotopes die away. The length of time required depends upon the specific isotopes. Ag108 has a half life of 418 years. Recommended wait till used for silver ware ?

Some restricted uses are possible with radioactive material (after several decades of decay), but such uses carry with them a bookkeeping cost to make sure that they never enter the civilian recycling stream.

Other than platinum group metals, perhaps gold, I cannot think of any elements worth the trouble to recover from spent fuel.

Pt-193 60 year half-life, Os194 6 years, Ru106 1 year, Rh103 3 years, Iridium & Rhenium are good prospects, no long lived radioisotopes, Pd107 6.5 million years, Au195 half year.

I could see, in theory, separating out the noble metals, en masse from the spent fuel (relatively easy to do since all react to only a few chemical agents, perhaps use another acid than nitric to dissolve the fuel rods ?). Then storing the mixed element bars in Ft. Knox for a half century.

After a 50+ year wait for decay, separate the noble metal alloy into the individual metals. Put the pure platinum bars back into the vault, issue the palladium for restricted industrial use and sell the rest on the open market.

Alan

Alternatively, hold the spent fuel rods for 50+ years (soon many tons will be that old) and process as above.

Alternatively, hold the spent fuel rods for 50+ years (soon many tons will be that old) and process as above.

I have read articles proposing to mine the wastes at Hanford, much of which are considerably older than that already.

Anything worth cleaning up, is worth cleaning up at a profit.

The sums I have seen for cleaning up Hanford exceed (SWAG) the value of the world's platinum group production for several years. Remember also that any recovered platinum will still be hot and palladium will be warm.

The reason to recover platinum group metals, and gold, now is to reduce the temptation for future generations to go into the waste depositories, extract the good stuff and throw the rest in a pile or in the nearest river.

Even though any recovered silver will be useless (418 year half-life) the same logic could be used to extract that and several other metals as well.

Alan

If we work on laser isotope separation, removing 108Ag from the stable isotopes will probably become easy.  Purification of the Pt group is amenable to the same.  If my CRC is correct, 108mAg decays to either Pd or Cd.  Palladium is likely to be a temptation regardless.  Sitting on the stash of silver and processing it on a 20 year rotation or so might create a nice revenue stream.

Silver is currently at $16.46/troy ounce (basically half Ag107 & half Ag 109). Even if you assign a value of zero to radioactive Ag mix, (say 1/3rd each Ag107. Ag108 and Ag109 fission byproducts), laser isotope processing is unlikely to be economic.

How valuable is regular silver with, say, 0.3% Ag108 left over ? (99% effective separation) What is the cost /troy ounce of processing ?

And I would refine Ag108 for Pd every century or so, when there was a desperate need for Pd. Ag108 is likely to be quite radioactive (forgot to get decay) and warm to the touch.

Someone is going to have to pay to hold it (likely in it's own vault at Ft. Knox).

Alan

In the vast majority of potential applications of the fission products the weak radioactivity is a non-issue, or a desirable property.

I cannot think of an application where radioactive silver is a "desirable property" or even a non-issue (since silver is typically recycled where possible).

And 418 year half-life is NOT weak radioactivity. 6 million years is relatively weak, given the likely concentrations of Pd.

But even radioactive Pd is not a likely candidate for catalytic converters, the major market for Pd.

Your attitude reflects an unreasonable and extreme pro-nuke bias.

Alan

Radioactive substances have to be treated as radio sources, that I though was obvious. Pd107 is emits weak betas, a non issue in many (industrial) applications - yes not for catalytic converters in cars. Similarly with other elements.

I cannot think of an application where radioactive silver is a "desirable property" or even a non-issue (since silver is typically recycled where possible).

Yes this can be rectified: http://www.springerlink.com/content/162p30r435367h8w/
However I didnt have in mind silver, but stuf like Tc (the best corrosion resistant agent in alloys and coatings, weak beta is not an issue in industrial applications), Cs, Sm and many others. Every element is useful, once the fission products are partitioned.

Your attitude reflects an unreasonable and extreme pro-nuke bias.
Your attitude shows that you should get out of your "waste" mentality. A general problem created by anti-nuclear fear mongering, unfortunately.

Spent nuclear fuel is waste, a problem to deal with and dispose of.

Every element is useful, once the fission products are partitioned

The vast majority are not economic (I doubt if even Os, the most expensive, is economic to separate out).

Since isotopes cannot be fully separated, only those elements with short lived (wait them out) or very long lived isotopes can be of much use. Not economic, but worth separating from the other waste to reduce temptation for future generations.

An additional cost of properly disposing of nuclear waste, take out the good stuff. Else future war lords will use slaves or prisoners to process it and discard the bulk into the environment.

I focus on silver because we normally think of silver as desirable, but I see it as the worst waste. To leave it in with the rest of the waste adds temptation, but how to remove it and sequester it for several thousand years (a la Genghis Khan's funeral wealth or King Tut's gold) away from greedy future generations ?

Alan

Ocean-bottom sediments in subduction zones are pretty sure bets if you don't want it back, ever.

Unfortunately, silver (and palladium) has intrinsic value for a variety of applications, so recycling it for the next metal working species is not my favorite idea.

A 4,000 year alarm clock would be great !

Alan

The vast majority are not economic.
All of the "waste" is economic to partition, considering the costs of Yucca or similar. 97% are reusable nuclear fuel. The rest, fission products, shall be partitioned for valuable stuff, some of which will sell for less than freshly mined metals (book keeping costs, limited markets), some are unique and very pricey, such as technetium and tritium.

Details: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/10/91157/6580
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/15/113557/787
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/1/17162/29083

The the mix of otherwise useless remaining stuff shall be vitrified, encased in stainless steel and used as industrial radiation sources, with many application but in particular in sewage treatment. Why this matters - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/27/162624/003/115/444308

A nice revenue stream if the price of Palladium ever reaches a million dollars an ounce. It sounds like you don't have much experience with tunable dye lasers either.

In hyperinflation, Pd could hit $1 million/ounce but it is currently $295/troy ounce.

Your understanding of economics extends to the costs to process via laser diffusion. And the impact on the market price of radioactive silver with even a small amount of residual Ag108 from "depleted" silver.

The burial treasure of Genghis Khan has stayed secret and buried for almost two half-lives of Ag108. Perhaps similar measures# should be used to hide any reclaimed fission product silver (all isotopes).

Go with what works !

Alan

# The Mongol escorts executed all those that saw the funeral procession and the slaves that buried the many cartloads of treasure, and they were in turn executed as they returned to the capital. Their ears were collected and counted to confirm that none got away.

BTW: is there any public data on the distribution of fission products ? The relative ratios ? Thanks,

I was just pointing out to E-P that the cost of laser separation is astronomical with the hope that he would not invest all his retirement savings in such a scheme. Laser separation may be justified for enrichment purposes, but as you point out, nobody is going to buy radioactive silver or Pd, especially when it is so cheap to by the mined product.

My apologies ! Sorry for the misreading.

Alan

Chinese Demand Speeding up ?

I checked the recent news on Chinese nukes (found increased plans for wind in same articles).

I do not follow Chinese nuclear plans closely enough to know if this is a speed up.

The government is also considering revising the target, as earlier reports said the country aims at a nuclear power capacity of 60 gigawatts by 2020, a 50 percent jump from the earlier target.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-04/21/content_7697913.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/02/content_8346480.htm

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-05/23/content_7935200.htm

Best Hopes for Less Coal,

Alan

New Indian Demand on World Uranium Market

Posted today (Chinese POV)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-09/08/content_8667265.htm

Alan

What?
No thorium?
The folks at ThoriumPower will be crushed.

Thorium energy's LWR fuel will be ready in 2021, while China will double its nuclear capacity in 2012. So Thorium folks are not crushed, but excited to sell to China after 2021...

A few days ago in Drumbeat was an interesting article about India and their failure to secure adequate uranium for their needs.

A few thoughts/questions.
1. If it is a matter of price, are the agencies projecting costs will decline in the future?
2. At what capacity level are other Indian power plants operating? Must they operate at 100%.
3. What are the ramifications of starting/stopping power plants?
4. What other countries are experiencing difficulties in obtaining fuel?

I would love to see a paper on the environmental/human costs of uranium mining (compared with other extractive industries).

1. If it is a matter of price, are the agencies projecting costs will decline in the future?

This is actually a very interesting question to me when rephraised as,

'Is there such as thing as Peak Price'

Does there exist a price at which uranium (or oil) cannot go? (like the speed of light--hehe)

I believe that there is.
This lastest oil crash suggests that oil prices over $100 per barrel are not sustainable. Look at any history of uranium prices and you will see similar logistic price curves.
When the market price gets too high, the demand dries up.

Some people say that the uranium price can rise without limit so we can harvest all the uranium resources.
Is it true?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Also there is a chart of uranium production costs showing that at 75000 tons per year the cost of uranium production will exceed $40 per pound/ $88 per kg.

Interesting is it not, michaeld?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html

Is there such a thing as Peak Price

That is what I am trying to get at but every nation will have its price breaking point. Has it been reached for India?

Debbie,

The concept of peak price may not hold water if you consider one country or region at a time and also include a time frame-the maximum sustainable price could go way up or down over a few years or longer time periods as infrastructure wears out or is abandoned and new economiic models emerge.

I have no doubt that two hundred dollar plus oil would wreck whats left of our current bau economy,but as long as we still have usuable highways ,trucks to drive on them ,and tractors on farms we could much more easily pay even three hundred dollars a barrel for such oil as is necessary to keep the farms, supermarkets, electrical grid,water systems, etc running than we could do without or produce adequate amounts of synthetic liquid fuel in a hurry.

Finding the money for that much three hundred dollar oil would be a big problem but we would either find it or starve.This scenario might hold for several years until biofuels, ng trucks,and electrically operated railroads etc, could be ramped up.

I cannot see that demand destruction NECESSARILY means that there is a sharp hard limit to the price of oil-supply could concievably decline fast enough that whatever is available is literally almost priceless-just as a few swallows of water are worth any price to a man dieing of thirst.

That is what I am trying to get at but every nation will have its price breaking point.

No. I think there is a 'world price' based on the world export trade and the consumers of energy which is the OECD(with the probable inclusion of China), not producers. Consumer nations who cannot pay the 'world price' will collapse in a short time.

My argument in the case of oil goes like this.
The OECD as a whole takes 1 toe of fossil fuel to make $5000 of GDP(PPP). Let's say that 50% of OECD fossil fuel energy comes from oil.
Let's say that the world could sustain $70 a barrel oil, which equals $500 per ton or $250 per half ton. That means that under sustainable conditions the world receives $4750 of GDP(PPP) for $250 of oil.

Now let's say the oil price rises to $100 per barrel or $730 per ton...$365 for a half ton. The world economic machine that produces $5000 GDP per ton now gives only $4635 GDP, a loss of $115 per toe to the citizens of the world. The world economy contracts and we are in recession.

So after a price driven crash we can see what the 'world price' is.

The problem with predicting the world price for uranium is that it actually meets a small percentage of our energy needs. With enough number crunching we probably can guess what the peak price for uranium should be in the recent 2007 spike is rose to
$140 per pound but soon crashed down to $40, so you could guess that the peak price is is less than $140 per pound.

From what I can tell, India is having a terrible time with all kinds of energy and is already at Peak Pricing.

After India exploded an atomic bomb, they were frozen out of most suppliers for decades.

Alan

Does there exist a price at which uranium (or oil) cannot go? (like the speed of light--hehe)

Worldwide, we get 2600e9 kWh for 65e6 kg uranium, or 40,000 kWh/kg. For natural gas, we have been prepared to pay more than 6 cents per kWh in fuel costs. I guess we could pay this for uranium too without breaking too much of a sweat, if we had no better options. This would allow for a price of 40,000*0.06 = $2,400/kg.

Using fast breeder reactors, we may stomach a uranium price of perhaps $100,000 per kg.

uranium prices and you will see similar logistic price curves.
When the market price gets too high, the demand dries up.

I have never heard of nukes standing still due to a high fuel price. Also, the current nuke building ramp-up happened during the last few years uranium price spike.

All I'm saying is that there exists a maximum price that can be charged for uranium and after we reach it we will know what the maximum is as GDP output collapses.

Nuclear is a very small part of the energy mix so it is going to be overshadowed by coal, gas and oil.

The world uses 18000 Twh of electricity and nuclear is only ~2800 Twh which coal is ~7500 Twh.

The variable cost of nuclear electricity is 1.2 cents per kwh but the fixed amortized cost is 7.1 cents per kwh(8.3 total). You can't separate nuclear fuel cost per kwh from the amortized cost of the plant per kwh--no plants no electricity.

About 8 kgs of uranium metal produces 1 kg of LWR fuel which produces 300000 kwh of electricity. So $44/kg =$.0012/kwh
A kg of coal produces 2 kwh of electricity. So $50/ton =$.025/kwh

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

The variable cost of conventional coal electricity is 3.3 cents per kwh with the fixed costs at 4.1 cents per kwh.
Coal and nukes are in competition so the price of coal can rise
relative to nukes by .8 cents per kwh. So really the cost of coal fuel could rise from 3.3 cents per kwh to 4.1 before nukes would compete equally with coal. However for simplicity, let's assume that the total cost per kwh of conventional coal and nuclear are the same, say 7.5 cents per kwh.

Let's say that 50% of the worlds energy comes from electricity
and that 1 toe = $5000 GDP(PPP) and that the world price of electricity is 10 cents per kilowatthour(with profit).
1 toe equals 12,000 kwh.
Therefore .5 toe =$600. So $600 in electricity produces $4400 in GDP.

3000 kg of coal produces 6000 kwh of electricity(.5 toe) and at $50 per ton that would cost $150 for fuel to get $600 worth of electricity.
Doubling the coal price would raise the electricity price by 25%
and reduce the GDP output from $4400 to $4250 per toe by~4%.

I don't know what the 'world price' of coal or nuclear is because we have yet to face a world collapse based on those commonities but I think it is safe to say that a maximum price does exist.

About 8 kgs of uranium metal produces 1 kg of LWR fuel which produces 300000 kwh of electricity. So $44/kg =$.0012/kwh
A kg of coal produces 2 kwh of electricity. So $50/ton =$.025/kwh

I agree, coal is 20 times more expensive than uranium.

However for simplicity, let's assume that the total cost per kwh of conventional coal and nuclear are the same, say 7.5 cents per kwh.

Yes, lets assume that. Then lets conservatively assume that the improved regulatory environment and the AP-1000, which is of greatly simplified design compared to old nukes, cuts total costs by 10%, or 0.75 cents/kWh. Then the uranium cost could increase from $.0012 to $0.7512 per kWh, or 300000*0.007512/8 = $282/kg, and coal and nuclear would still have the same total cost.

Doubling the coal price would raise the electricity price by 25%
and reduce the GDP output from $4400 to $4250 per toe by~4%.

Which is quite ok, I guess. And if the cost of coal doubles, the cost of uranium can 20-fold for the same effect on total cost.

" This lastest oil crash suggests that oil prices over $100 per barrel are not sustainable. Look at any history of uranium prices and you will see similar logistic price curves.
When the market price gets too high, the demand dries up. "

That is true for commodities that are priced near their maximum intrinsic value, but when the price of uranium goes up demand stays the same and the supply expands.

Hi Debbie,

some thoughts about your questions, not really answers.

While having sympathy for India and my friends there,
all "nuclear" contacts with India, Pakistan and Israel
(probably including activities at my beloved CERN)

are according to the NPT treaty illegal.

the Bush administration changed the view of the treaty
in order to have deals with India (I guess with Pakistan this was never a problem and Israel is of course never ever mentioned).

I hope this will be changed again, but at least so far it looks like that India does still not get the fuel..

as far as I know the power plants in India are running on 50% capacity now.
It seems that they try to run with reduced capacity as long as possible.
As far as all public figures and principle physics tells me
any unforeseen shutdown will make it very difficult to bring power on again.
(the lower the remaining fissionable material the more difficult this gets
this is one reason why one leaves considerable U235 and Pu239 in the fuel rods when changing them).

For other countries difficult to know.
But indications are that
the "minor earthquake" in Japan, as well as minor incidents in Germany and elsewhere
caused 2 year and more shutdowns.
Either the incidents were not so minor
or they hide uranium fuel shortages
or other reasons. (your guess is as good as mine)

regards

michael

It has to be "other reasons". Your analysis of India's reasons for benching 50% of it's fleet misses the point that India has traditionally always gotten its fuel from Soviet bloc nations. Perhaps collapse of those and India's relationships post-Soviet collapse are more relevant?

just in case

the "other reasons" was for surprising long reactor outages for a tiny incident and for
Japan and Germany.

For India, yes sure their dependence on Russia was and is a problem.

Thats among other reasons why I say it is not healthy for your and my countries
nuclear power plants to be dependent on Russias good will.

thanks for providing more evidence for this view.

michael

Those are older targets.

More recent target is 86GW for 2020.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-07/02/content_8345808.htm

40gw was two years ago.
Raised to 50-60gw then to 72gw and now 86gw.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a_2qCOGzC4_I
The country may build about 22 reactors in the five years ending 2010 and 132 units thereafter, compared with a company estimate last year for a total 60 reactors, President Ikuo Sato said in an interview.

What?
No thorium?
The folks at ThoriumPower will be crushed.

That is what is so cool about hanging out with engineers-- if it can't be solved by moving dirt , or making machines, it does not exist. The world gets really simple on one level, while complexity abounds on the inner sphere.

? As opposed to arts grads, who solve all problems immediately ?

It's worth looking at the actual production figures (in t U) of the main uranium producers from 2005 to 2008.

Canada 11628/9000 - a fall of 22.6%
Australia 9516/8430 - a fall of 11.4%

Kazakhstan 4357/8521 - a rise of 95.6%!

The drop in Canadian production appears to be due to the passing of McArthur River's Hubbert peak (the other mines passed their peak some time ago) and the failure of the new Cigar Lake mine which is catastrophically flooded and may never be opened.

The fall in Australia is due to the fall in the combined ore grades at the current Olympic Dam underground mine and the delay in starting up the open pit expansion (ODX). BHP Billiton has now published its EIS which shows that to reach the first ores five years of excavation and the re-siting of an airport to make room for the spoil are needed. The amount of rock to be shifted is estimated at 2 billion tonnes. A decision is expected in 2010, so that no uranium will emerge until 2015. No capital costs have been released.

If Cigar Lake never opens and ODX is abandoned, as seems likely given the amount of diesel consumed before a kg of U is produced, Canada and Australia will lose their major producer status.

This leaves Kazakhstan which is the only producer showing a major rise in production. This rise is astounding and needs scrutiny given the arrest of the managers of the state enterprise for corruption.

When the end of the Megatons to Megawatts programme of diluting HEU to supply half of the US NPPs with fuel comes in 2013, there seems little evidence of the equivalent of 10,000 tonnes of natural uranium arising from new mine openings to replace it.

This puts the US and France in competition for dwindling supplies from Canada and Australia, with some relief from Niger and Namibia, while if the Kazakhstan figures are real, its output is contracted to Russia, China, Korea and Japan.

As the US and France have the greatest reliance on nuclear, both can expect some of the lights to go out!

I think a fatal delay on ODX is quite possible, caused by paralysis-by-analysis. Many people think the water and energy needed should come from a nuclear power station in the region. Conceivably even explosives could be made nearby. However Australia's political elites like the status quo, that is hate nuclear but enjoy the benefits. If decisions are left too late then strangely Peak Oil could kill a major part of the uranium industry.

If Cigar Lake never opens and ODX is abandoned, as seems likely given the amount of diesel consumed before a kg of U is produced, Canada and Australia will lose their major producer status.

Australia's Olympic Dam isn't the only game in town.  The Honeymoon mine was just approved earlier this year, and is due to be producing next summer.  Its design rate of production is 880,000 lb/a U3O8, or about 340 metric tons of metal per year.

The schedule from breaking ground to starting operations is about 15 months, so these mines can be put into place very quickly if demand exists... and if the regulatory agencies stop throwing up roadblocks.

The delays in bringing the Canadian mines into production are not insurmountable. Especially if supply issues were idling hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear plants. $2-3 billion more to overcome the flooding would be made available. Just like tens of billions go to solve oil sand recovery. Higher uranium prices also would also justify the investment needed to fix the problems. Canada also continues to find 4000-7000 ppm deposits.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html

Canada's production is expected to increase significantly after 2011 as several new mines, now planned or under construction, go into operation.

Uranium production in Canada is likely to increase significantly as several new mines, now planned or under construction, go into operation sometime after 2011. The two largest projects are Cameco's Cigar Lake mine and Areva's Midwest mine, both in northern Saskatchewan. The mill at McClean Lake has been modified to process ore from both mines. The Rabbit Lake mill will also be modified to take ore from Cigar Lake. Total production is expected to be 8,200 t/y U3O8 from Cigar Lake and 2,600 t/y from Midwest.

The proven and probable ore reserves at Cigar Lake are extremely large and very high grade. A 450-metre-deep underground mine is being developed in very poor ground conditions. Hence it will use ground freezing and high pressure water jets to excavate the ore. High-grade ore slurry from remote mining will be trucked for toll treatment at Areva's expanded McClean Lake mill, 70 km northeast, for the first two years. The average feed grade will be 20.7% U3O8. Then, as production approaches full capacity, all of the leaching will be done at McClean Lake but about half of the uranium solution will go on to Cameco's Rabbit Lake mill 70 km east for final production of uranium oxide concentrate. From both mills total production is expected to be 8,200 t/y U3O8 (7,000 tU/y) ramping up to this over three years from production start in 2011. Known resources are 160,000 tonnes U3O8 at about 19% average grade, and with other resources the mine is expected to have a life of at least 30 years.

Construction on the project began in 2005 with production originally scheduled to start in 2011. However, underground floods in 2006 and 2008 set the start date back until after 2011 and increased the overall cost of the project from C$660 to more than C$1billion. There will be extra requirements for pumping capacity and ground refrigeration. Some 1.3 million cubic metres of waste rock from Cigar Lake is being emplaced under water in the Sue C pit at McClean Lake, to prevent acid generation from it. Tailings will remain at Mclean Lake and Rabbit Lake.

A Cigar Lake II deposit nearby is being investigated

In addition to mining operations planned for the near future, active exploration involving more than 40 companies continues in many parts of Canada. While exploration has concentrated on northern Saskatchewan, new prospects extend to Labrador and Nova Scotia in the Atlantic provinces, Nunavut Territory in the far north, Quebec province and Ontario's Elliott Lake area. Resource figures quoted are generally NI 43-101 compliant.

In uranium-rich northern Saskatchewan, exploration projects are now well-advanced at three locations. The Millennium deposit (42% owned by Cameco, 30% by JCU and 28% Areva Resources) has indicated resources of 21,000 tonnes of 4.5% grade U3O8 and 4,400 tonnes of 2.1% grade inferred. Ore would be milled at Key Lake. A feasibility study on the project is under way. The Tamarack deposit associated with Dawn Lake is also a focus of interest.

The Shea Creek project (51% owned by Areva, 49% UEX Corp.) in the western Athabasca Basin has reported very high grade ore and a 900 metre shaft is being sunk to provide better access. UEX (21.3% owned by Cameco) has invested about C$30 million in exploration. UEX is also exploring the Horseshoe and Raven deposits at Hidden Bay in the eastern Athabasca basin (close to Rabbit Lake and McClean Lake). The Horseshoe deposit has indicated resources of 11,100 tonnes of U3O8 at a grade of 0.237%, and Raven has indicated resources of 7,060 tonnes at 0.02% cut-off.

Denison is actively exploring the Wheeler River deposit half way between Key Lake and McArthur River. It is a long strike from the latter and geologically very similar, with some high-grade uranium mineralisation. Denison has a 60% interest, Cameco 30% and JCU (Canada) 10%.

The main Labrador prospect centres on the Michelin deposit, which is being drilled in a C$21million program by Aurora Energy Resources (46.8% Fronteer Development). Michelin and the adjacent Jacques Lake deposit have identified resources of 46,000 tonnes of U3O8. Michelin was originally scheduled for development starting in 2010, but a provincial government moratorium until 2011 will delay the project. In Nova Scotia, exploration has been proposed at Millet Brook, but it awaits a review of a 1985 moratorium on uranium mining in the province.

Far north in the Nunavut Territory, a joint venture headed by Areva is conducting a feasibility study on the Kiggavik uranium deposit in the Thelon Basin, with an estimated 67,000 tonnes U3O8 at 0.24% grade. The indigenous Inuit organization, Nunavut Tunngavic, reversed its previous ban on uranium exploration and mining in 2006, but the project has faced opposition from other groups. The project involves the development of three open pit mines at Kiggavik and both an open pit mine and an underground mine at Sissons. Areva and its partners, JCU (Canada) Exploration and Daewoo, hope for a start-up of the mine and mill complex in 2015.e

Also in Nunavut, at Amer Lake, Uranium North Resources has reported resources of 8,770 t U3O8.

In Quebec, exploration is underway at several locations with a total of more than 40,000 tonnes of indicated or inferred deposits. Strateco Resources has reported indicated resources of 1,700 t U3O8 grading 0.68% and inferred resources of 6,000 tonnes grading 0.44% at its Matoush deposit in the Otish Basin of central Quebec. The company completed a scoping study in 2008 and will begin underground development in mid-2009, with a view to mine production in 2012. Azimut Exploration has committed C$42 million to uranium exploration, mainly for the Katavic project in Quebec's northern Nunavik region and other prospects in the Ungava Bay region further north. Uracan Resources reports 18,400 tonnes of U3O8 of inferred resources at its North Shore prospect in eastern Quebec.

The Elliot Lake area of Ontario, which was the centre of Canada's early uranium mining, is again attracting exploration. In September 2008, Pele Mountain Resources commenced the permitting process for its Eco Ridge underground uranium mine and processing facility in the region. Eco Ridge contains indicated resources of 5,700 tonnes U3O8 and inferred resources of 37,300 tonnes U3O8.

In British Columbia, the Blizzard prospect south of Kelowna, which was first explored in the 1980s, has been revived by Boss Power. The company has challenged a provincial government moratorium on exploration and mining imposed in April 2008, and the British Columbia government has indicated the Blizzard project may be able to go forward.

Uranium exploration appears to be on the upswing throughout Canada. Cameco spent C$57 million on exploration in 2008 (plus a further $32 million in three strategic partnerships with junior explorers) and plans C$50-55 million for 2009, mainly in Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. In late 2007, Cameco announced an agreement with the Russian company Uranium Holding ARMZ (JSC Atomredmetzoloto) to create a joint venture to explore and mine uranium in northwest Russia, Saskatchewan and Nanavut.

advancednano wrote:

>The delays in bringing the Canadian mines into production are not insurmountable. Especially if supply issues >were idling hundreds of billions of dollars in nuclear plants. $2-3 billion more to overcome the flooding would be >made available.

idling hundreds of billion dollars??

i only heard that trillions of dollars have just disappeared in some black holes.
are you sure or just stating an arbitrary number?

for putting 2-3 billions in Cigar lake

that would be a lot of money for 5000 tons/year eventually
not very likely either.

for the WNA on Canada

they have some nice tables about uranium extraction and exports evolution
during the past years

check again

looks like they have a hard time to keep on going.

michael

Niger's production is going up, probably to 10,000 tons per year.

The "corruption" was a squabble over trying to steal ownership by two thugs. It was not a question of whether the uranium is real or not.

It is naive to think that the lights are going to go out in France or the US.

In 2003, the RAR resources were reported as 89,800 tons in the < 40 dollars/kg and 12,447 tons in the 40-130 dollars/kg category. These numbers changed in 2005 by incredible amounts to 172,866 tons and 7600 tons, respectively. Another drastic change is reported in the 2007 Red Book, where the corresponding RAR numbers are now given as 21,300 tons and 222,180 tons, respectively.

Clearly, the 13,000 tons of uranium extracted during these 4 years are not accounted for, and the Red Book authors do not care to comment about the incredibly large jumps back and forth between the < 40 dollars/kg and 40-130 dollars/kg RAR categories.

These numbers must contain a substantial fantasy factor, which can perhaps be explained with the misinformation hypothesis. This suspicion is further supported by Areva's problems with the real owners of the mines, often referred to as "Tuareg rebels," who (somewhat understandably) ask for a larger share in the profits.

This borders on paranoia. Perhaps the numbers actually increased by 172,866 + 13,000 tons and 7,600 + 13,000 tons and everything is accounted for. I do not see anything "incredible" about it, with increasing demand it makes economic sense to prospect more. I also do not see any evidence presented by the author that the numbers were cooked, besides the drama.

Ups and downs of up to ±10% may appear reasonable. For example, one might expect that inflation moves some resources from a cheaper to a more expensive category. Such an explanation, however, would also require that a certain amount be moved out of the highest cost category into a yet more expensive category.

Ditto concerning the paranoia. There is no evidence presented in the article that some resources were actually not moved out of the <$130/lb category due to inflation. If the author has these open questions, he should had done more research before he published the series, and present answers backed by facts, rather than his own gossips.

Author suggests that the large increase in Inferred Resources (IR) was basically cooked up, yet he again comes short of providing any facts to back such a serious charge up, besides him not being able to answer his own questions. Again it seems to me that the series author's logic is backwards, applying selective attention to whatever fits the ideological bias.

In fact the resource categories (RAR, IR, etc.) are based on solid methodology, as folks money depend on their accuracy. See this report for an example - http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Uranium-North-Resources-Corp-TSX...
If the author knows about any fraud, he should have reported that to respective agencies. It seems the author does not know about any, however his doomsday conclusion requires some, hence the author postulates the fraud.

Thanks loiz
for highlighting this part. I could not get a better promotion for
this important point!

I guess that you are very lonely in finding that a sudden increase/decrease
in the RAR <40 dollar/kg category for Niger is not "surprising".

2003: 89,800 tons
2005: 172,866 tons
2007: 21,300 tons

while only roughly 6000 tons have been extracted during these periods.

what is your explanation for these changes?

michael

What has been the exchange rate fluctuations for the US$ vs. Nigerian currency in this period?

This whole series and all commentors apparently ignore recent dramatic fluctuations in US$ exchange rates, instead dealing with the $US as though it were a constant value worldwide forever. I assure you, that is not the case. A LARGE part of the recent oil run-up was due to a nearly 40% devaluation of the $US exchange since 2000. (Thank the neo-cons, people. Republicans "claim" to know how to manage the economy, yet all they actually do is waste your country's assets on foreign adventures, military weapons and government debt due to tax reduction induced devaluations). Regean and the junior Bush were worst.

Chart over 5 years of nigerian currency versus US$

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=USDNGN=X#chart2:symbol=usdngn=x;range...

Stupid chart required Adobe Flash player which I'm not allowed to install here. What are the Jan 1 numbers from 2000 to 2009?

It only goes back halfway into 2004.

2005 132 NG naira to USD
2006 128
2007 128
2008 128
Dip in 2008 118

2009 146 and now about 155

So it looks like they have been trying to maintain a peg.

I noticed that this thread is off track. As we got Nigeria confused with Niger.
Niger has the 4th largest uranijum reserves.
Nigeria also has uranium

The official Niger currency is the CFA Franc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc#Exchange_rate

the CFA franc is proportional to the Euro.

The CFA franc was created with a fixed exchange rate versus the French franc. This exchange rate was changed only twice: in 1948 and in 1994.

Exchange rate:

26 December 1945 to 16 October 1948 – 1 CFA franc = 1.70 FRF (FRF = French franc). This 0.70 FRF premium is the consequence of the creation of the CFA franc, which spared the French African colonies the devaluation of December 1945 (before December 1945, 1 local franc in these colonies was worth 1 French franc).
17 October 1948 to 31 December 1959 – 1 CFA franc = 2.00 FRF (the CFA franc had followed the French franc's devaluation versus the US dollar in January 1948, but on 18 October 1948, the French franc devalued again and this time the CFA franc was revalued against the French franc to offset almost all of this new devaluation of the French franc; after October 1948, the CFA was never revalued again versus the French franc and followed all the successive devaluations of the French franc)
1 January 1960 to 11 January 1994 – 1 CFA franc = 0.02 FRF (1 January 1960: the French franc redenominated , with 100 "old" francs becoming 1 "new" franc)
12 January 1994 to 31 December 1998 – 1 CFA franc = 0.01 FRF (sharp devaluation of the CFA franc to help African exports)
1 January 1999 onward – 100 CFA franc = 0.152449 euro or 1 euro = 655.957 CFA franc. (1 January 1999: euro replaced FRF at the rate of 6.55957 FRF for 1 euro)

The 1960 and 1999 events were merely changes in the currency in use in France: the relative value of the CFA franc versus the French franc / euro changed only in 1948 and 1994

Dear lengould,

first of all it is Niger and Nigeria we are analyzing.

second uranium in Niger is under total control
of Areva France
salaries are tiny and only the oil price went up
but according to the RAR methodology (read my paper or the red book)
market fluctuations are not taken into account

and yes
as I wrote and you seem to ignore

the change was from
2005: 172,866 tons
to
2007: 21,300 tons

large factor no?

and totally different in the other categories
perhaps it would help to read my analysis.

michael

Well instead of analyzing the discrepency in a few numbers in documents of several hundred pages, why don't we look at data sources that can help figure out what the current and correct numbers should be and how much uranium can we expect from Niger.

21 page presentation (from 2007) on Niger Uranium Limited.
http://clients.westminster-digital.co.uk/minesite/microsite/events/45/pd...

21 April 2006 - Admitted to trading on AIM:
• Market Capitalisation US$200 M
• Share price US$1.20/share
• Focus on Namibia
• Estimated future production from projects: 3 million lbs U3O8 pa
• 31 July 2007 - Acquired by Areva:
• Acquisition cost US$2,500 M (all cash offer)
• Share price US$7.75/share
• Feasibility studies ongoing on projects in Namibia, South Africa and
Central African Republic
• Estimated future production from projects: 16 million lbs U3O8 pa

100% of Niger’s Uranium Production comes from Areva’s Somair and Cominack Mines near Arlit

$10 million exploration program spread over 2 years just completed.

Exploration efforts
A 2 year exploration plan currently underway - Budget– US$10 M until July 2009
• Successfully completed an initial drill program on the highly prospective Irhazer and In Gall concessions
• A total of 15 mud rotary holes covering 2,671 meters have been drilled and rock samples have been sent to SGS Laboratories. Additional drilling to commence after Niger’s rainy season
• Initial results combined with previous exploration results have enabled the delineation of high priority areas from Irhazer and In Gall
• Irhazer and In Gall have returned grab sample uranium values ranging from 0.22% U3O8 to 1.0% U3O8 (Producing mines and deposits in Niger typically grade from 0.1% to 0.42% U3O8)
• Kamas and Dabala are adjacent and situated along the proven Arlit fault, north of a successful uranium-producing mine

niger's political unrest
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=3827

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva_NC#2007_conflict_with_Niger

Despite the violence in the Air Massif, Areva NC and the Nigerien government were by later 2008 unhindered in their exploitation of the Arlit uranium mines and in the transport of its product by highway to ports in Benin

At the beginning of 2009, Niger and the French state mining company agreed a deal to build near Arlit the Imouraren mine.Areva would hold a 66% stake to the Nigerien mining office's 33%. At a projected output of five thousand tonnes of ore a year, it would be largest uranium mine in the world by 2012, as the SOMAIR and COMINAK mines are phased out. The deal would make Niger the second largest uranium producer in the world, and included plans to construct a civil nuclear power station for Niger. While Areva officials earlier in the year admitted the security situation makes it impossible to prospect at night, the operations of the mines were by December unaffected by the Tuareg rebellion. Despite the 2007 awarding of nearly 100 prospecting contracts to firms other than Areva, the high profile Chinese and Canadian projects were in 2009 not yet formalised

May 2009 article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jtC3VDAocoKfqR1rQGpmU...

The Imouraren mine will le launched with an initial investment of more than 1.2 billion euros (1.6 billion dollars) and create almost 1,400 jobs. Once up to full production capacity, it should be producing 5,000 tonnes of uranium a year for 35 years. [Looks like the larger reserve number is right. 35 years times 5000 tonnes]

Despite the unrest France, China, India and others are in Niger and cutting deals and getting Uranium. France seems to know how to get what they want out of Africa. It is like they have many decades of experience and the willingness to do whatever it takes. I wonder if there is some kind of lessons from history on this ?

http://www.wise-uranium.org/upne.html
Niger to award 100 exploration permits to ramp up uranium industry
Niger Energy and Mines Minister Mamadou Abdulahi said that the country will award 100 mining exploration permits over the next two years. State-controlled French utility Areva has enjoyed a monopoly on production of uranium in Niger for some 40 years. In recent years, the government has issued a slew of new exploration licences in an effort to diversify the uranium sector. (Resource Investor Jan 10, 2008)

Indian company granted uranium exploration and mining permit in Niger
Taurian Resources Pvt Ltd. has recently won a contract which gives it exclusive rights over 3,000 sq. km. of the Sahara Desert known to be rich in deposits of uranium. According to the estimates of the Managing Director of the company, Sachin Bajla, the area in the Arlit region is likely to hold at least 30,000 tonnes of uranium. This is the first time any Indian has won a contract for uranium exploration and mining anywhere in the world.
Niger is not a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the 45-member nation that controls all nuclear-related commerce, and hence it should be easy for India to access the uranium once the mines become operational - this will take several years. (The Hindu Aug. 19, 2007)

Chinese uranium prospector captured in Niger by Tuareg rebels
A Chinese employee of a mining company was captured on July 6, 2007, by Tuaregs of the rebel Movement of Niger People for Justice (MNJ) in the Ingall region 100 kilometres south of Agadez, the movement said. According to the Niger government, the Chinese national worked with a team prospecting for uranium. (The News July 7, 2007)
The Chinese company has suspended its activities in the country. The kidnapped employee was released on July 10, 2007. (Reuters July 10, 2007)

Niger to triple uranium production in the next few years
Niger communication minister and government spokesman Mohamed Ben Omar has said his country plans to raise its annual uranium production from 3,500 to 10,500 tonnes a year in the next few years.

the mines were by December unaffected by the Tuareg rebellion.

How often are these "rebellions" eg. Tuareg's in Nigeria's uranium producing region, "delta indigenous" in Nigeria's oil producing region, Western Somali's in Somalia's oil-producing region, West Sudan, etc. etc. simply manifestations of a local warlord trying to grab an unfair share of a nation's producable mineral resources. I know, probably not always, but it MUST happen sometimes....

They were re-classified to different price brackets. What is so surprising about that, given the currency markets and the uranium price development in this decade?

Again you come short of any proof that there were fraudulent claims of RAR or IR, you are just gossiping. Such significant charges should be backed up by facts, not by drama. Your continuous failure and refusal to support these serious charges is rather telling.

2003 89,800 tons in the < 40 dollars/kg and 12,447 tons in the 40-130 dollars/kg category. Total is 102,300 tons on both categories

2005 172,866 tons in the < $40/kg and and 7600 tons in 40-130
Total is 180,000 tons in both

2007 21,300 tons and 222,180 tons, total is 243,480 tons in both categories.

If Niger's uranium prices range from $35-50 then 150,000 tons might float above and below the magic $40/kg price. I think this simple explanation solves the "categorization mystery" and also would not require the Redbook people to make note of something so simple and unnoteworthy.

As I noted below, Niger has a mine that is expected to produce 5000 tons/year for 35 years and they have more mines. so they have 185,000+ tons of reserves.

Plus as noted, they only spent $5 million per year on exploration.

I think one third of your paper just blew away like a fart in the wind.

Michael Dittmar

It seems the answer to your Niger/Red Book number mystery is solved. You kept asking for the answer. You get it and then you ignore it.

If you do not agree then indicate where you disagree.

could you explain how you
define numbers for
a35-50 dollar category?

by the way you should look at all the other numbers I provide!

so far you are just showing that you did not read what I have written!

you invent some numbers out of your head with no basis

so much for your tone about
a fart in the wind.

Michael

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/features/uranium
The uranium price paid by Areva rose from € 41.62/kg to € 60.98/kg, valid from the beginning of 2007.

Back when the euro was weaker, then all of the Imarouen resources (140,000-150,000 tons would be <$40/kg) then a weaker dollar and the shift in price paid by Areva, shifts all of the Imarouen resources into the $40-130/kg. Plus the Areva contract could have been a few euro cheaper to get it under $40/kg.

http://www.vaec.gov.vn/userfiles/file/Uranium%20in%20Niger%20and%20Gabon...

Areva is reported to have been paying royalty of 27,300 CFA francs (US$ 57) per kg, and in 2007 this was increased to 40,0000 CFA (US$ 83) plus 300 tonnes of product for Niger to sell on the open market.

http://www.afrika.no/Detailed/17819.html
Areva lists the selling price of uranium (2007) as '60 €/kg, increasing by around 50% in 2008.' The company broke down the profits of the Niger government, as follows:

"Main direct profits include the Mining fee, 5.5% of the selling value of uranium produced; the Income Tax, 40.5% of the annual profit of the companies and the annual dividend of the companies; ONAREM (whose name changed recently to SOPAMIN) owns 31% of COMINAK and 32% of SOMAÏR, which fixes the dividend percentages."

=============

My simples news research has completely explained the movement between categories in Niger.

All your other number analysis is attempts to conjure relevance and meaning out of numerical noise. You only considered inflation but did not look at contract renegotiation or currency movements.

You were wrong about Niger. Your approach and methodology was wrong. You can do simple internet searches to see what happened in Niger and see what happened in all of your "suspicious number countries". The movement between $40 and less and $40-130 categories is a trivial matter as has been shown with Niger. All of the $40 and less can move to $40-130 and it would not effect the course of the nuclear energy industry.

Niger's uranium resources are going to boom. The $10 million in exploration over 2 years is going way up with 100 exploration contracts bid out. China and other countries will be looking for Niger's Uranium.

Exploration in general is going to ramp up and a lot more uranium will be found and the mines will be put into production.

totally inconsistent what you write!

look at the changes for RAR and IR
(for simplicity I did not separate between in my paper

< 40 40-80 and 80-130 dollars

look yourself in the red book (s you do not believe anyway my numbers)

and compare you fantasies about the dollar changes
between 2005-2007
with the other countries

that would be a valuable work you add!

michael

For Niger, it was mostly not currency fluctuation. It was a renegotiated contract with Areva.

I am done researching this issue.

I have explained the section about RAR <$40 category and $40-130 category.
Which is also what your prior posting comments were claiming as a big mystery.

I believe that unbiased readers of this can see who is right and who is wrong. The fact that you will continue with your biased views is irrelevant.

I went to the trouble of making my predictions for nuclear power generation so we have that comparison to see who is right. although there is more going on than just uranium availability that will effect nuclear power generation.

Your blatant anti-nuclear energy, anti-corporate, anti-US biases are screamingly obvious from your writing and comments.

This borders on paranoia.
....
Ditto concerning the paranoia. There is no evidence presented in the article that some resources were actually not moved out of the <$130/lb category due to inflation.

I see I am not the only one to notice this.  I am tempted to draw a parallel between the tone of this series and the chemtrails conspiracy theorists.

I plotted the production figures for the Canadian uranium mines.

See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear6.jpg

It clearly shows the applicability of the Hubbert peak concepts to uranium mining as all the Canadian mines exhibit a similar curve.

As for peak oil, the aggregate of the individual mine production curves will eventually add up to a global peak, which may well have been passed in 2005.

Reference to http://www.gold.org will show that world gold production passed it peak in 2001 and although gold prices have rocketed since, production of it continues to decline with declining ore grades.

It seems that oil, uranium and gold extraction are analogous.

As for peak oil, the aggregate of the individual mine production curves will eventually add up to a global peak, which may well have been passed in 2005.

This is crazy talk - we are nowhere near a peak. And 2008 production were markedly higher than 2005:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

jeppen

It all depends whether the Kazakhstan extraordinary rise in production of 96% since 2005 is genuine. The trend was 2005/2006/2007 41702/39655/41279 until 2008 when with Kazakh doubled production it went up 6% to 43930 t U.

The managers of the state enterprise are in prison for alleged corruption so it may take some time to find out what has been going on.

Kazakhstan current mines are ISL, which means that a rapid rise in production is possible, but as the production is from a large number of small deposits, it may tail away as rapidly as it rose. It is the only producer country with a rise in production, while the major producers are in decline.

The plot of the Canadian individual mines production figures show a collection of Hubbert curves.

See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear6.jpg

The peak oil philosophy applies to all minerals and uranium production will eventually peak, even if the Kazakh rise is verified and it was not in 2005.

However, the idea that rising prices will allow the economical mining of lowering ore grades is shown to be invalid when the experience with gold is studied. Gold production peaked in 2001 and in spite of significant rises in gold's price it has continued in its decline.

The nuclear lobby remains sanguine even though the Areva EPR project in Finland is at least three years late and 50% overspent. Areva's financial troubles will deepen if its underpriced Chinese projects follow the same pattern as Olkiluoto, especially as it paid $2.5 billion for its Trekkopje project in Namibia from which 35% is dedicated to China.

The main challenge to Western society is the peaking of oil production, the effect of which will reduce associated electricity consumption. The reduction in demand will avoid the "black-outs" predicted by the nuclear lobby, though the US and France being over reliant on nuclear will suffer the most.

The main challenge to Western society is the peaking of oil production, the effect of which will reduce associated electricity consumption.

Please explain that logic. Peak oil will REDUCE electrical consumption?

though the US and France being over reliant on nuclear will suffer the most.

Even after reading all you posted, I conclude this looks more like wishing than fact.

Oil production has been level for three to four years and assuming this was the start of a peak it will begin to effect life in developing countries. Since 2003 new car registrations have dropped - recently at a greater rate as a result of the credit crunch. As a result of rapidly increasing fuel prices all road transport begins its inevitable decline. Several car and vehicle factories will close. Filling stations will use less electricity as will motor dealers, repairers and manufacturers.

Airlines are already passing into bankruptcy with rising jet fuel prices and flights are being cut. So electricity associated with terminals, maintenance and associated services such as travel agents will be less in demand. Aircraft orders are being rescheduled and will eventually be cancelled as there will be insufficient jet fuel to feed an expansion. So airframe manufacturing will be turned down and with it the use of electricity. Metals and mining will be less a used, especially smelters for aluminium and copper, which use huge quantities of electricity.

Isn't this pretty obvious stuff to a peak oiler?

To turn to overdependence on nuclear; the US imports the equivalent of 19,000 tonnes of natural uranium, while France imports 13,000 tonnes, 10,000 for itself and 3,000 for its nuclear hegemony. The equivalent of 10,000 tonnes of this is going AWOL when the secondaries end in 2013. Meanwhile the suppliers of both in Canada and Australia are finding their uranium production is declining. So the three principle suppliers of fuel to them, viz., Russia, Canada and Australia are shortening their supplies. As the US relies for nukes for 20% of its electricity and France 77%, it is obvious where some of the lights will go out! Michael's article above has produced the facts on which this conclusion is based.

it is obvious where some of the lights will go out!

Are you saying you think France will run out of electricity before any other country? Britain, which depends almost entirely on imported gas generation? Interestingly novel idea. Suppose we wait 30 years and see before declaring as fact.

Notice in a post above that Niger is heading to 10,000 tons per year of uranium production. They are finding quality uranium mines in Niger using $5 million per year in exploration spending. In spite of the unrest, the uranium is getting out. It is like France does not play nice when their stategic interests are at stake

Kazakhstan is a dictatorship. It appears to be a stable dictatorship.
Kazatomprom, a state-owned holding company produces the uranium.

http://silkroadintelligencer.com/2009/06/02/kazakhstans-uranium-stolen-b...

Former Kazatomprom head Mukhtar Dzhakishev and other company officials illegally shifted ownership of uranium mines worth tens of billions of dollars through a network of offshore companies, the KNB security service said.

====An underboss over-reached and got put down by the Don and the Don's security forces. Or the whatever the real story is... the top guy decide to put down one of his underlings.

==The uranium is real and the reserves look real too. The godfather in the movie had an olive oil business that was "real".

==Just like the developed countries deal with bastards who control oil, they will deal with bastards who control uranium. The bastards with oil and uranium still sell it. It is not a question of if they will sell, it is a question of price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan#Independence

The years following independence have been marked by significant reforms to the Soviet-style economy and political monopoly on power. Under Nursultan Nazarbayev, who initially came to power in 1989 as the head of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan and was eventually elected President in 1991, Kazakhstan has made significant progress toward developing a market economy. The country has enjoyed significant economic growth since 2000, partly due to its large oil, gas, and mineral reserves.

Democracy, however, has not gained much ground since 1991. "In June 2007, Kazakhstan's parliament passed a law granting President Nursultan Nazarbayev lifetime powers and privileges, including access to future presidents, immunity from criminal prosecution, and influence over domestic and foreign policy. Critics say he has become a de facto "president for life." Over the course of his ten years in power, Nazarbayev has repeatedly censored the press through arbitrary use of "slander" laws, blocked access to opposition web sites (November 9, 1999), banned the Wahhabi religious sect (September 5, 1998), and refused demands that the governors of Kazakhstan's 14 provinces be elected, rather than appointed by the president [2000]"

Intelligence Services
Kazakhstan's National Security Committee (KNB) was established on June 13, 1992. It includes the Service of Internal Security, Military Counterintelligence, Border Guard, several Commando units, and Foreign Intelligence (Barlau). The latter is considered by many as the most important part of KNB. Its director is Major General Omirtai Bitimov.

Energy is the leading economic sector. Production of crude oil and natural gas condensate in Kazakhstan amounted to 51.2 million tons in 2003, which was 8.6% more than in 2002.

So your point is that the present governments of Nigeria and Kasakhstan don't play fair? Not exactly news, but neither relevant to the discussion.

There were previous claims that the increase in Kazakhstan uranium production was not real. I am presenting that the uranium is real. There were claims that corruption/imprisonment of the head of the Kazak uranium company would either slow production or was in some way evidence of fake uranium numbers. I was showing that what was going on had nothing to do with fake uranium or inflated uranium numbers. If anything it was a fight over the billions of dollars involved.

Niger (not Nigeria) was a key part of the article. Claiming that total uranium in different categories meant that there was less uranium in Niger. I have shown that is not the case. There was also a claim that the situation with fighting in Niger might stop/slow uranium. That does not look like the case. There was a claim that France would run out of uranium and have power outages. Again not the case and what I showed in my postings.

Those were the points that you missed and why they are and were relevant.

France is reprocessing fuel today (although not enough for 100% of their fuel needs), has SWU, and depleted uranium and a few nuclear bombs it could dismantle.

The USA has SWU, massive amounts of depleted uranium and more than a few nuclear bombs.

I see other nations nukes going to less than full power amidst a fuel shortfall before the USA or France.

Alan

You know, uranium is at about 2 ppm in the earth's crust. Gold is considered economically mineable at such ore grades of 0.5 ppm! So for a quarter of the effort of profitable gold mining, we could extract uranium from the average rock.

Furthermore, gold is average 0.003 ppm in the earth crust. So uranium is about 700 times more abundant. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the current gold production dip is not a transient SA problem, but really peak gold:

Now, the cumulative, total amount of gold extracted worldwide is about 158,000 tonnes. Uranium, being 700 times more abundant, should then reach a cumulative 110 million tonnes before peak? As today's consumption is about 60,000 tonnes, that 110 million tonnes should last us 1833 years at current consumption rate.

They are selling gold for $1000 an ounce. If somebody is willing to pay $250/ounce for uranium, I'm sure you could mine average rock.

To power a 1GWe reactor, about 800kg of heavy metal needs to fission per year. With breeders, your fuel is NU. Assume it costs the same as gold. 800 kg of gold costs $26M. 1GW year is 8.77e9 kilowatt hours, only 0.36 cents per kWh.

So the fuel cost is still <10% of the electricity price, even if uranium costs as much as gold does. Rock burning seems quite feasible. Interestingly, Alvin Weinberg published an essay such titled back then in 1959.

A HVDC grid costs only 0.075 cents per kWh and wind turbines run on free fuel and wind turbines are already commercially available now and breeder reactors are not.

In the USA it is estimated that to upgrade the transmission system to take in planned or potential renewables would cost at least $60 billion[32]. Total annual US power consumption in 2006 was 4 thousand billion kWh. [33] Over an asset life of 40 years and low cost utility investment grade funding, the cost of $60 billion investment would be about 5% p.a. (i.e. $3 billion p.a.) Dividing by total power used gives an increased unit cost of around $3,000,000,000 × 100 / 4,000 × 1 exp9 = 0.075 cent/kWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

A series of detailed modelling studies which looked at the Europe wide adoption of renewable energy and interlinking power grids using HVDC cables, indicates that the entire power usage could come from renewables, with 70% total energy from wind at the same sort of costs or lower than at present. Intermittency would be dealt with, according to this model, by a combination of geographic dispersion to de-link weather system effects, and the ability of HVDC to shift power from windy areas to non-windy areas.

http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_186-195.pdf

Btw, Brazil is currently building an efficient 2500km long HVDC line through the jungle despite its AC grid.
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/06c9cd09d993758cc1257601003db274.aspx

What if jungle-less windy regions in the US were just to be interconnected with the rest of the US and Canada:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/05/14/sdwind/

South Dakota has the potential to generate enough wind energy to power half of the nation's electrical needs.

No need to wait and lose precious time - just go ahead with what is commercially available now.

HVDC line gets you wind where the consumption is, but does not solve the grid stability issue. Each HVDC line would harvest power from a region with some prevalent winds, similarly to >10 GWe of German wind capacity at the Baltic sea shore.

AP-1000 or other plants now available are much cheaper than wind + HVDC + spinning backup for grid regulation + replacement capacity for the 70-90% time the wind does not blow.

"Wind's fuel is for free" is a lapse of logic. Wind operation and maintenance costs are far from zero.
Esp. with a large farms, when a turbine's lifetime is ~15 years and 10 months. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953

AP-1000 or other plants now available are much cheaper than wind + HVDC + spinning backup for grid regulation + replacement capacity for the 70-90% time the wind does not blow.

Besides that the AP-1000 is no breeder reactor, stop lying and ignoring facts:

A HVDC grid costs only 0.075 cents per kWh:

In the USA it is estimated that to upgrade the transmission system to take in planned or potential renewables would cost at least $60 billion[32]. Total annual US power consumption in 2006 was 4 thousand billion kWh. [33] Over an asset life of 40 years and low cost utility investment grade funding, the cost of $60 billion investment would be about 5% p.a. (i.e. $3 billion p.a.) Dividing by total power used gives an increased unit cost of around $3,000,000,000 × 100 / 4,000 × 1 exp9 = 0.075 cent/kWh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

Wiser & Bolinger, ref. 8, p. 27, document 11 recent U.S. utility studies showing that even variable-renewable penetrations up to 31% generally cost <0.5¢/kWh to “firm” to central-plant reliability standards.

And this is besides the fact that the US has already:
449 GW of flexible gas power capacity and
78 GW of flexible hydro capacity,
20 GW of flexible pumped storage,
7.5 GW of flexible wood capacity,
5 GW of flexible biomass capacity installed.

and this is besides the fact that interconnected wind farms provide baseload.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf

And needless to say that nuclear power plants require back up especially if they have unexpected shut-downs:

Seven German nuclear plants have failed to generate any electricity this month due to technical breakdowns. They have about half the production capacity of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors, but Germany did not suffer any power shortages.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47909

Also:
Florida Power and Light estimates its two new nuclear plants (2.2 GW to 3 GW) will cost as much as $24 billion:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Florida_Power_And_Light_Welcomes_Initi...
Even at 3GW that's $8,000/kW (free fuel wind is at $1,400 per kW).
The decommissioning of this nuclear plant has reached $1,400 per kW (after completing the decommission):
http://www.secinfo.com/d11141.253.htm
The ultimate repository at Yucca mountain has already reached costs close to $1000 per kW and nuclear power plant:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/aug/27/nuclear_surge_needs_waste...

Needless to say, that operating and fuel costs of nuclear power plants are also higher.

If you want to discuss energy you need to deliver facts not dreams.

Nukes require spinning reserve, massive amounts, but *NOT* wind.

Any grid with even one 1.2 GW nuke will require zero additional spinning reserve for wind.

Example, Texas, four nukes, all 1+ GW at two sites, zero additional spinning reserve required for 5+ GW of wind so far, and more coming.

Wind is geographically dispersed (200 MW is a decent size wind farm spread over quite a few km2 and GW+ wind installed is several wind farms over a large area) and wind turbines have large amounts in rotational inertia.

Cold NG plants, not spinning reserve, are adequate to back up wind.

Just pro-nuke nonsense, trying to make things up against wind for no good reason except emotional bias.

Alan

Just pro-nuke nonsense, trying to make things up against wind for no good reason except emotional bias.

Some wind is economical and helpful, however experience shows that this rosy picture is not the case once there is enough of wind capacity, with exception of small Denmark with access to huge hydro resource in Scandinavia. Wind is geographically dispersed over vary large areas, such as continents. Windy areas have prevailing winds. If you have enough spinning reserve already to catch errors of wind speed predictions, you may "only" need cold natgas plants for the 70-80% when the wind does not blow.

I fail to see how burning methane, the most scarce fossil fuel, is a good idea. I also realized that many wind advocates are really methane sellers in disguise - Lovins, Pickens, Schroeder, Fischer and other "Greens".

I fail to see how burning methane, the most scarce fossil fuel, is a good idea.

Besides the fact that methane can easily be produced from organic waste and is more abundant than oil.
The US has 449 GW of gas power capacity installed. If wind power were to be increased, methane consumption will go down.

And because the US has 449 GW of gas power capacity installed, their average power has to be reduced when there is more wind power feeding the grid. If gas power is reduced less methane is consumed.

In addition, if wind power in the US were to be increased, the 449 GW of installed gas power plants in the US need to reduce their average power. If gas power is reduced less methane is consumed.

Some wind is economical and helpful, however experience shows that this rosy picture is not the case once there is enough of wind capacity, with exception of small Denmark with access to huge hydro resource in Scandinavia.

Actually, Denmark mostly exports electricity during winter months when Norway's electricity demand is significantly higher and Norway's rivers flow the least water.
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/08/10/elektrisitet_en/fig-2009-09-...
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsAndFigures/Energy_statistics_and_indic...

Same in Spain:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSL1...

Spain's biggest utility, Iberdrola (IBE.MC), derived 9.7 percent of all the power it produced in Spain in the first quarter from hydroelectric stations, down 20.8 percent for 2007 as a whole. Wind power has done much to fill the gap recently and has set new generation records by providing as much as 24 percent of total demand in a given day.

Same in Alpine countries (France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Slovenia):

Here's for instance the filling degree of the hydro storage lakes in Switzerland:
http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/00630/index.html?lang=e...
Let's for example pick the canton of Wallis/Valais. It's hydro storage lakes had a filling degree of 51.4% on January 5th 2009 and a filling degree of only 7.4% on May 5th 2009.

If there was more wind power in Europe, these hydro storage lakes would not need to be emptied that quickly as there is always more wind power during winter time when there's less precipitation.

Besides Europe has also a gas power capacity of 164 GW (in addition to a hydro capacity of 180 GW). So, if wind power capacity were increased, gas consumption will also go down.

Just pro-nuke nonsense, trying to make things up against wind for no good reason except emotional bias.
Very true.

After 30 years of enormous subsidy the problems with wind are gradually being revealed.

" The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmark’s annual
electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%. "

" Over the last eight years West Denmark has exported (couldn’t use), on average, 57% of the
wind power it generated and East Denmark an average of 45%.The correlation between high
wind output and net outflows makes the case that there is a large component of wind energy in
the outflow indisputable. "

" The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway. "

" the subsidy per job created is 600,000- 900,000 DKK per year ($90,000-140,000). This subsidy constitutes around 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing industry. "

" As a consequence, Danish GDP is approximately 1.8 billion DKK ($270 million) lower than it would have been if the wind sector work force was employed elsewhere. "

" The Ecogrid Study Group has concluded that extrapolating the future from the past is not feasible, so that if the extra wind power is to achieve the aims of the consensus, drastic re-engineering of the whole system will need to take place. Wisely, it has not tried to estimate the costs of doing this. "

These are summary comments from a new report on wind power in Denmark.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/denmark/Wind_energy_-_the_case...

Ckeck the graph on page 27 to see how reliable wind is in January.

It seems to me that just a rough idea of how much uranium is available is enough to address the question of "is there sufficient fuel" when contemplating the possible future role of nuclear power.

1). If one advocates using nuclear power more heavily during the 21st century as a "bridge" to help transition out of fossil fuels before we are at the point of being able to deploy renewables on a scale where they are our primary energy sources, it seems to me there is sufficient uranium for nuclear power to fill that role.

2). If one advocates nuclear fission as a longer-term mainstay of energy use then it seems like availability of fuel does become an issue unless one assumes the development of next generation fission plants that are able to use non-fissile uranium as well as thorium, in which case I believe I have read estimates that the nuclear fuel supply would last on the order of a few thousand years.

Not that I'm advocating option 2, it raises a host of issues and my impression is that there hasn't been much research on it to-date so it would require a lot of research with no guarantee of ultimate success.

Option 1 is, however, clearly a real possibility, and it seems to me there is sufficient uranium for nuclear power to be deployed on that scale.

Actually, whether or not one supports a limited expansion of nuclear power (option 1), it looks like it is going to happen because there are clearly countries committed to it (e.g. China), and even in the US it appears it has enough support that there are going to be some new nuclear plants built, although I suspect a fairly modest number due to pushback by those in opposition.

But I don't see insufficient uranium as a problem there.

It's strange that Canada's Cigar Lake has flooding problems because Olympic Dam will need a 35 MW 120 ML/day reverse osmosis desal plant on the coast and a 300km pipeline. The scuba diving fraternity want the desal moved 50km along the coastline next to a spot where yet another uranium ISL project is proposed. The energy for the RO will come from the fossil fuelled grid but there is talk of 'offsetting' it with say 100 MW of nameplate wind power.

An alternative would be to build a nuclear plant and use the waste heat in multiflash distillation. That would reduce the electrical demand considerably compared to RO. The mine itself will need 690 MWe. My feeling is that if that energy and water costs improved in the area up to a dozen small hard rock and ISL prospects would become economic.

An alternative would be to build a nuclear plant and use the waste heat in multiflash distillation. That would reduce the electrical demand considerably compared to RO. The mine itself will need 690 MWe.

It looks like somebody should put in an order for a CANDU, with some natural gas capacity for backup.

... the Red Book, estimates the identified amount of conventional uranium resources ... to be about 5.5 million tons, .... Undiscovered resources, i.e. uranium deposits that can be expected to be found based on the geological characteristics of already discovered resources, have also risen to 10.5 million tons....

As far as I can tell, the second number — 2/3 of the total conventional resources — has disappeared from the discussion without a trace!

The circumstances of the two prospective mines, Cigar Lake in Canada and the Olympic Dam expansion (ODX) in South Australia are entirely different.

The Cigar Lake deposits occur between water saturated sandstone layers. To keep the workings dry the ground above and below is frozen by refrigeration. The ore grade is so high that it has to be mined with robotics to avoid worker irradiation. Although this technology has worked at another location a huge water inflow occurred so that the mine had to be evacuated. The pumping rate to allow the water level in the mine to fall exceeds the rate which is allowed to flow into the local river because of its contamination from the uranium rich ore. The energy input to provide 500 tons of refrigeration is presumably covered by the high ore grade eventually obtained, but so far the energy expenditure has not been recovered. Attempts to plug the water inflow have so far failed and there are doubts that the mine will ever open.

The situation at ODX is entirely different, because the ore contains copper, gold, silver and uranium with ore grades of 0.87%, 0.45 g/t, 2.2 g/t and 0.029% respectively, but the deposit although large occurs below 300 metres of rock. When the original underground OD mine started in 1986, the grades were 2.5%, 0.60 g/t, 6.0 g/t and 0.08% resp. so the lower grades have led to ODX as an open pit.

The viability of the mine is as yet undecided, but an EIS has published the parameters, the most significant being that to reach the first combined ore 2 billion tonnes of rock has to be shifted taking 5 years. The original mine was gifted with artesian water, but ODX is to build a desalination plant and pipeline. The mine is West of the Murray Darling basin, currently racked with drought.

The claims of uranium production of 19,000 tonnes a year are suspect, because the yield from the complex chemical extraction process is perhaps 65%, with the rest going into the lagoons.

My article "An even bigger hole" on the ODX project can be found on

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

while the EIS is available from BHP Billitons's website.

Money is trickling away at Cigar Lake and the capital costs of ODX depend on the price of imported diesel from 2010 to 2015. It remains to be seen whether either project gets into production, but my view is neither will.

The Cigar Lake situation suggests a solution:  change the chemistry of the water to put more uranium in solution, circulate it past ion-exchange media to extract it, and forget about physically moving the rock for the moment.

Engineer-Poet

Cigar Lake

Your solution for Cigar Lake is called in-situ leaching (ISL) used in Kazakhstan for its many small low grade mines. The downside is that the waste water would be even more contaminated and the quantities of water are so huge that it would be difficult to raise the chemical concentration. Cameco, the part owner of Cigar Lake is aware of it as it has an ISL joint venture in Kazakhstan. Its problem is that it can contaminate groundwater without it being evident.

ODX

The obvious energy source for desalination is solar power, best at a decentralised small scale for isolated farms. The ODX desalination project may be part-funded by the state if it provides water for its neighbours. It would be better supporting the desperate wine industry than ending up in a tailings pond.

Busby:

Attempts to plug the water inflow have so far failed and there are doubts that the mine will ever open.

Yes, John, but the only doubts you can find online are those of one John Busby, transition town propagandist, and believer in the dubious notion that a one year lowering of production signals a peak and terminal decline.

Here's what Cameco say about Cigar Lake:

"Many of you are impatient to see development of this mine resume, and we are too. But we intend to do it systematically, to ensure success at every step," Goheen said.

"Education always comes with a price, but we are learning how to deal with these challenges."

Cameco is the operator of the Cigar Lake project, and owns 50%, while Paris-based Areva holds 37%, Idemitsu Canada Resources owns 8% and Tepco Resources owns the remaining 5%.

Through the process, the company has become more experienced in assessing the pumping capacity needed at the project, Goheen said.

"We absolutely will bring that mine into production," he affirmed.

"It is far too valuable to consider otherwise."

I remain puzzled, John, by the inherent contradiction in your position that there will be a mid decade shortage of uranium, yet companies like Cameco and BHP Billiton will choose to abandon projects such as Cigar Lake and Olympic Dam. If the former is true then they are surely licenses to print money and should be brought into operation as soon as possible, no matter the cost.

Busby:

The situation at ODX is entirely different, because the ore contains copper, gold, silver and uranium with ore grades of 0.87%, 0.45 g/t, 2.2 g/t and 0.029% respectively

The figures you quote are for the entire resource at Olympic Dam, not what is being mined currently, nor what will be mined for the first few decades after expansion: (shown in table below)

In 2008, Olympic Dam mined 9,674,000 tonnes of ore at a grade of 0.06% to produce 4,144 tonnes of U3O8. This equates to an extraction efficiency of 71.4%.

Busby:

My article "An even bigger hole" on the ODX project can be found on...

Are all your predictions this accurate?

It is now in rapid decline with only 3,382 tonnes produced in 2006.

(2008 Production of 4,144 tU3O8 = 3522 tU)

And while we're talking about dodgy predictions:

The drop in Canadian production appears to be due to the passing of McArthur River's Hubbert peak

For someone who shouts 'peak' at the slightest downward movement, you do seem to have a very patchy understanding of the basics. McArthur River has produced 60,609 tU3O8 since 1999 and has proven reserves of 150,000 tU3O8. How can it have peaked when it's nowhere near the halfway point of its extraction and when an expansion to 10,000 tU3O8/a is planned?

Busby:

It remains to be seen whether either project gets into production, but my view is neither will.

But couldn't that just...maybe...possibly be because you're transition town fanatic John Busby and reliable electricity from nuclear power puts a crimp in your Year Zero daydreams of herding the UK population into your beloved towns?

Category Ore (Million Tonnes) Grade U3O8 (%) U3O8 Contained (Tonnes)
Proven Reserves 221 0.059 130,400
Probable Reserves 253 0.061 154,300
Measured Resources 1329 0.033 438,600
Indicated Resources 4514 0.028 1,263,900
Inferred Resources 2497 0.025 624,300
Total Resources 8339 0.028 2,327,000

MCrab

Cigar Lake

If you study the plot of the individual Canadian mines' production as on http://www.after-oil.co.uk/nuclear6.jpg it shows Hubbert's principles in a set of classic curves. Canadian production fell by 22.6% from 2005 to 2008, largely due to a fall in McArthur River's output in 2008. To compensate for successive mine closures a series of new openings is needed, so that the delay in the opening of Cigar Lake meant Canada's production couldn't be maintained. Whether McArthur River continues to decline and whether Cigar Lake will eventually take over its role is obviously a matter of conjecture, but Murphy's Law usually applies.

Olympic Dam

The reason for the expansion into an open pit is that since the mine opened in 1988, the ore grades for all the components has fallen. Production of uranium peaked in 2000 at 4,500 tonnes, since when it has gone down to 3352 t U in 2008. It is the intention to replace the underground mine with an open pit to extract the four components of the low grade ore, though a combination of both is possible. The decision to go ahead or not is to be made in 2010.

I note that the yield in the underground pit was 71%, so the figure of 65% for uranium in the open pit (submitted by Gavin Mudd) seems about right. So the 19,000 t U3O8 claimed in around 2017 is soemwhat overstated.

Since its inception in particular the ore grade of the main product, copper, has fallen from 2.5% to 0.87%, which must effect the prospects of ODX, especially as it occurs below 300 metres.

Cigar Lake (7,000 t U claimed) and ODX (19,000 t U claimed) together represent 65% of the current production of 43,000 t U, so a negative decision for both will give a severe limitation of nuclear's prospects.

Peak oil and other minerals is not so much about reserves, but on the progressively more difficult and energy expensive extraction becomes as time passes. It is often claimed that rises in price will make the least accessible viable, but this is clearly not the case for gold. When its production passed its peak in 2100 gold was $300/oz $9,600/kg). Since then its production has steadily declined even though the price of gold is now $1000/oz ($32,000/kg).

The idea that rising prices of uranium will lead to rising production is somewhat far-fetched if the experience with gold is taken into account.

" The ore grade is so high that it has to be mined with robotics to avoid worker irradiation. Although this technology has worked at another location a huge water inflow occurred so that the mine had to be evacuated. "

There is a solution. Think of the water as an advantage, not a hindrance. Develop robotic equipment that works underwater. Transport the ore in a slurry, as is done with some coal mines.

Genius!  You could even run the mechanical equipment with hydraulic power via single water hoses, as you don't need to return the fluid.

An absolutely incredible book just came out about why the world IS going to go nuclear this century. The book covers all the themes of peak oil and climate change, energy transitions, alternatives to nuclear, and advanced 4th generation reactors:
http://www.thenucleareconomy.com

The book sums up the whole energy situation in one compact volume!

Cigar Lake

The proposed mining operation can be clarified from Cameco's 2008 Annual Information Form page 34. It is a "non-entry" method to control ground water, weak rock formations and radiation protection.

It is jet boring of cavities in previously frozen ore, producing a slurry which is pumped to an underground size reduction facility. The operation is controlled remotely from headings in the basement rock below the ore body.

Although the jet boring is remote from the operators they are located underground below it and if operations were to be performed completely under water a different methodology is needed from the surface. It may be that ISL may not be applicable in such saturated sandstone as the chemicals would be continually washed away as would the product.

As it was reported the first flood was caused by a sudden rockfall and the operators has a narrow escape. Quantities of concrete were poured from above to create a "plug". Following the second flood it proved impossible to empty the workings as the water level in the shaft refused to recede.

It must be very disappointing to Cameco because the technology applied is successfully operating at McArthur River. They now have to satisfy the licensing authority that its operators can work safely once the remedial work is adequately performed.

They may welcome suggestions from the Engineer-Poet, but their response might not rhyme.

For those who need more facts...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-PBMR_postponed-1109092.html

PBMR postponed
11 September 2009
South Africa's pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) Demonstration Power Plant (DPP) project has been indefinitely postponed due to financing constraints.

this is also relevant:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41_US_nuclear_power_policy.html

there is much more in this document

but a few key statements:

The Obama adminstration's FY 2010 budget request would drastically reduce funding for the Nuclear Power 2010 program, with only $20 million for the next fiscal year versus $177 million for fiscal 2009. The budget cuts have brought criticism from the nuclear industry, and as of May 2009, it was not clear whether the US Congress, which has the final decision of appropriations, would go along with the reductions. While the broad outlines of US nuclear policy, on matters such as energy independence and controlling carbon emissions remain the same, each new administration brings shifts in policy.

Then, in June 2009, the DOE announced it had decided to cancel the GNEP programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) "because it is no longer pursuing domestic commercial reprocessing, which was the primary focus of the prior Administration's domestic GNEP program."2

regards Michael

Gas cooled PBMRs become obsolete by developments in technology, there will be much better and cheaper reactors for TRISO fuel than a PBMR or NGNP could ever be. I hope you include these reactors in your next part. Similarly for reprocessing, quoting DoE secretary Chu, when asked about reprocessing which the French do: "We can do it better". The various politically correct labels and terms were evolving during the Bush administration as well. Any conclusion from these selected "key statements" is therefore best be drawn with caution.

loiz:  please get in touch with me via the mail link on my blog.

" The Obama adminstration's FY 2010 budget request would drastically reduce funding for the Nuclear Power 2010 program, with only $20 million for the next fiscal year versus $177 million for fiscal 2009. "

If this were a joke the funny part would be the idea that $177 million is a lot of money.

Total U.S. expenditures on energy are about $1,000 billion per year. The government is spending far less to solve our energy problems than it collects in energy taxes. We should be spending at least $100 billion per year on R&D to make non fossil energy sources that are less expensive than fossil fuel.

We should be spending at least $100 billion per year on R&D

I agree that the nuclear fantasy you envision may require that much R&D, but ZERO R&D is required to solve our energy problems.

No new technology required.

First 5 years

$100 billion/year to electrify and expand/speed up US railroads

$75 billion/year on Urban Rail

$5 billion/year on encouraging bicycling/bike infrastructure

$5 billion/year on new nukes

$50 billion/year on wind turbines, HV DC, pumped storage

$30 billion/year on conservation & efficiency

Second 5 years

$40 billion/year to electrify and expand/speed up US railroads

$75 billion/year on Urban Rail

$3 billion/year on encouraging bicycling/bike infrastructure

$7.5 billion/year on new nukes

$50 billion/year on wind turbines, HV DC, pumped storage

$30 billion/year on conservation & efficiency

Third 5 years

$25 billion/year to electrify and expand/speed up US railroads

$100 billion/year on Urban Rail

$2 billion/year on encouraging bicycling/bike infrastructure

$25 billion/year on new nukes

$75 billion/year on wind turbines, HV DC, pumped storage

$30 billion/year on conservation & efficiency

Fourth 5 years

$20 billion/year to electrify and expand/speed up US railroads

$100 billion/year on Urban Rail

$2 billion/year on encouraging bicycling/bike infrastructure

$75 billion/year on new nukes

$50 billion/year on wind turbines, HV DC, pumped storage

$30 billion/year on conservation & efficiency

Problems pretty well solved in twenty years, no new tech required.

ALan

Problems pretty well solved in twenty years, no new tech required.

Sounds a lot like my proposals, except that I put more weight on 1965 tech and metallurgy than those new-fangled giant whirlygigs.

Now who's the techno-cornucopian? ;-)

$5 billion/year on new nukes
$50 billion/year on wind turbines, HV DC, pumped storage

Why should we spend less on a nukes - a source which is cheaper, more scalable, last longer, and has smaller externalities - than on the one which is more expensive, less reliable, lasts less, has higher externalities?

Bill:  I've mailed you via the address in your profile but not received a reply.