Comments on: The Achilles Heel of Nuclear Power http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:08:43 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7462 Earl Killian Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:57:02 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7462 John, I am not an expert on Uranium, but I will provide you with a few more references that I am aware of to explain the energy issue I mentioned. The first is about CO2 rather than energy, and challenges the idea that nuclear energy is always a big CO2 win (it depends upon the grade of ore, according to the author): http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf Chapter 2 of the same report more directly consider energy yield as a function of ore grade: http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf The WNA critiqued the above. Their critique is no longer at the cited page, but the rebuttal to the critique is here: http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Rebuttal_WNA.pdf John, I am not an expert on Uranium, but I will provide you with a few more references that I am aware of to explain the energy issue I mentioned. The first is about CO2 rather than energy, and challenges the idea that nuclear energy is always a big CO2 win (it depends upon the grade of ore, according to the author): http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_1.pdf

Chapter 2 of the same report more directly consider energy yield as a function of ore grade: http://www.stormsmith.nl/report20050803/Chap_2.pdf

The WNA critiqued the above. Their critique is no longer at the cited page, but the rebuttal to the critique is here: http://www.stormsmith.nl/ report20050803/ Rebuttal_WNA.pdf

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7389 John Lawton Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:30:23 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7389 Earl Killian, Thank you for your reasoned response to the Hopf paper. I can't answer for Hopf, but I would suggest that energy cost and monetary costs are part of the same thing. As a theoretical construct, let us suppose that all energy involved in uranium mining is electrically-driven (trucks, plants, etc.). I think you are saying that it would take so much electricity costs to extract the low grade uranium, that it would not be economically feasible, even if the net electricty derived is positive (more gained than used). Is that right? If so, isn't it self-regulating? I mean, if the net electricity gain is profitable, wouldn't it be a going concern? By chance, I was in central New Mexico last year. I was sitting in a local coffee shop, and I asked about some uranium mining activities in the area. A local geologist was there, and he entered the conversation. He said he used to be involved in uranium exploration. He gave it up, when the market crashed. He also said that he would reenter the uranium exploration game, only if nuclear power plants were to start to become approved. His view was that we have only begun to explore for economical uranium, but only stability in the marketplace will get it discovered/out of the ground. Just an anecdote, I know, but something to think about. BTW, I have nothing to do with uranium or nuclear power. I am just an interested citizen. Regards. Earl Killian, Thank you for your reasoned response to the Hopf paper.

I can’t answer for Hopf, but I would suggest that energy cost and monetary costs are part of the same thing.

As a theoretical construct, let us suppose that all energy involved in uranium mining is electrically-driven (trucks, plants, etc.). I think you are saying that it would take so much electricity costs to extract the low grade uranium, that it would not be economically feasible, even if the net electricty derived is positive (more gained than used). Is that right?

If so, isn’t it self-regulating? I mean, if the net electricity gain is profitable, wouldn’t it be a going concern?

By chance, I was in central New Mexico last year. I was sitting in a local coffee shop, and I asked about some uranium mining activities in the area. A local geologist was there, and he entered the conversation. He said he used to be involved in uranium exploration. He gave it up, when the market crashed. He also said that he would reenter the uranium exploration game, only if nuclear power plants were to start to become approved. His view was that we have only begun to explore for economical uranium, but only stability in the marketplace will get it discovered/out of the ground. Just an anecdote, I know, but something to think about.

BTW, I have nothing to do with uranium or nuclear power. I am just an interested citizen.

Regards.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7362 Earl Killian Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:18:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7362 Thank you John Lawton for the Hopf paper. First, let me observe again that the price of U has gone up by a factor of 6 to 8 already, and reserves have only increased a bit, which seems to undermine some of his arguments. Also, given the price increase, the 0.1 cents becomes 0.6 to 0.8, so if another large factor of U price increase is necessary for yet more reserve increases, then we're starting to get into the point at which it has a large effect. Second, Hopf never addresses the an important question about U reserves. When we talk about economic recovery, there are two meanings: monetary and energy. Hopf talks only about the monetary cost. There are enormous quantities of U in places like granite and seawater where the energy cost of extracting them may too large of a fraction of the energy that results from the once-thru fuel cycle. Third, when talking about monetary economics, Hopf does not make specific predictions for different reserve levels at different price points (as does the Red Book), and that is what is appropriate. He is very hand waving. He argues that there is exponentially more U at decreasing ore grades, but that might mean at exponentially increasing prices. I would read Hopf's hand waving as an attempt to justify increasing IAEA Red Book figure of 4.7 million tonnes to figures such as 15 to 30 million tonnes of U (e.g. as MIT has done), but not for, say, 150 million tonnes. But since the author never really makes his own estimate, that is left up to the reader, and there lies the problem. Without a specific estimate (and its justification), it is hard to know what to do with Hopf's argument. Thank you John Lawton for the Hopf paper. First, let me observe again that the price of U has gone up by a factor of 6 to 8 already, and reserves have only increased a bit, which seems to undermine some of his arguments. Also, given the price increase, the 0.1 cents becomes 0.6 to 0.8, so if another large factor of U price increase is necessary for yet more reserve increases, then we’re starting to get into the point at which it has a large effect.

Second, Hopf never addresses the an important question about U reserves. When we talk about economic recovery, there are two meanings: monetary and energy. Hopf talks only about the monetary cost. There are enormous quantities of U in places like granite and seawater where the energy cost of extracting them may too large of a fraction of the energy that results from the once-thru fuel cycle.

Third, when talking about monetary economics, Hopf does not make specific predictions for different reserve levels at different price points (as does the Red Book), and that is what is appropriate. He is very hand waving. He argues that there is exponentially more U at decreasing ore grades, but that might mean at exponentially increasing prices.

I would read Hopf’s hand waving as an attempt to justify increasing IAEA Red Book figure of 4.7 million tonnes to figures such as 15 to 30 million tonnes of U (e.g. as MIT has done), but not for, say, 150 million tonnes. But since the author never really makes his own estimate, that is left up to the reader, and there lies the problem. Without a specific estimate (and its justification), it is hard to know what to do with Hopf’s argument.

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7321 John Lawton Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:02:03 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7321 Earl Killian, you may want to take a look at a 2004 position paper by James Hopf ( http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html ). He argues that, since cost of uranium is such a small factor in nuclear economics, low grade ores are permissible, and there is no real concern about uranium supplies. He argues, strenuously, against the 50 year scenarios that are bandied about. Earl Killian, you may want to take a look at a 2004 position paper by James Hopf ( http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html ).

He argues that, since cost of uranium is such a small factor in nuclear economics, low grade ores are permissible, and there is no real concern about uranium supplies. He argues, strenuously, against the 50 year scenarios that are bandied about.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7316 Earl Killian Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:19:14 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7316 John Lawton, it is easy enough to read page 34 (PDF page 44) online. Indeed, I have quoted that page before, so I know it well. The problem is that everyone reads words like "a very long time" differently. When that text was written uranium was 30/kgU. It is now 170/kgU, and was in the last year as high as 250/kgU. That factor of 5.7 to 8.4 in price is of course much more than the "doubling" trigger suggested by the Australian UIC (an industry group). So what has happened in reserves since? According to the UIC, Australia's have gone from 1.143 MMT to 2.307 MMT, a 100% increase. Since UIC predicted a 1000% increase for a doubling, it appears there may have been a bit of hyperbole involved. I have no doubt that reserves will increase further, but I wouldn't want to bet the planet on the UIC's factor of 10. Note also that 97% of Australia's reserves are at the Olympic Dam mine, which has very low grade ore (0.029%). According to the UIC, this low grade ore is economically viable because the mine also produces copper, silver, and gold, which is fortuitous (and may not apply in other mines with low grade ores). Only 20% of the mine's revenue is from U. Please also consider that if the world has 2000 EJ of U235 and 11000 EJ of Th232 (estimates from Aldo V da Rosa's textbook, EJ = exajoules = 10^18 joules of energy), and in 2050 the world is using 900 EJ/year (MIT's The Future of Coal report), then this U235 and Th232 represents only 14 years. It would last several times longer because no energy source is going to be 100%, but I believe the above calculation shows that U235 and Th232 are not unlimited and not renewable. In the long term we need renewable energy. The question is what place nuclear has during our transition to renewables. John Lawton, it is easy enough to read page 34 (PDF page 44) online. Indeed, I have quoted that page before, so I know it well. The problem is that everyone reads words like “a very long time” differently. When that text was written uranium was 30/kgU. It is now 170/kgU, and was in the last year as high as 250/kgU. That factor of 5.7 to 8.4 in price is of course much more than the “doubling” trigger suggested by the Australian UIC (an industry group). So what has happened in reserves since? According to the UIC, Australia’s have gone from 1.143 MMT to 2.307 MMT, a 100% increase. Since UIC predicted a 1000% increase for a doubling, it appears there may have been a bit of hyperbole involved. I have no doubt that reserves will increase further, but I wouldn’t want to bet the planet on the UIC’s factor of 10. Note also that 97% of Australia’s reserves are at the Olympic Dam mine, which has very low grade ore (0.029%). According to the UIC, this low grade ore is economically viable because the mine also produces copper, silver, and gold, which is fortuitous (and may not apply in other mines with low grade ores). Only 20% of the mine’s revenue is from U.

Please also consider that if the world has 2000 EJ of U235 and 11000 EJ of Th232 (estimates from Aldo V da Rosa’s textbook, EJ = exajoules = 10^18 joules of energy), and in 2050 the world is using 900 EJ/year (MIT’s The Future of Coal report), then this U235 and Th232 represents only 14 years. It would last several times longer because no energy source is going to be 100%, but I believe the above calculation shows that U235 and Th232 are not unlimited and not renewable. In the long term we need renewable energy. The question is what place nuclear has during our transition to renewables.

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7287 John Lawton Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:48:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7287 Guess not. Anyone know how to submit a relatively longer message? At any rate, go to page 34 of the MIT study for its view that uranium is not limiting. Guess not. Anyone know how to submit a relatively longer message? At any rate, go to page 34 of the MIT study for its view that uranium is not limiting.

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7286 John Lawton Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:47:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7286 (Sorry, original message was truncated, I think...continues here:) recoverable at costs (Sorry, original message was truncated, I think…continues here:)

recoverable at costs

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7277 John Lawton Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:51:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7277 There is real intellectual danger in trying to be too precise about uranium supplies, becasue uranium exploration is at a very early stage. I offer the following from the MIT report (page 34): "AVAILABILITY OF URANIUM RESOURCES How long will the uranium ore resource base be sufficient to support large-scale deployment of nuclear power without reprocessing and/or breeding?10 Present data suggests the required resource base will be available at an affordable cost for a very long time. Estimates of both known and undiscovered uranium resources at various recovery costs are given in the NEA/IAEA “Red Book”11. For example, according to the latest edition of the Red Book, known resources12 recoverable at costs There is real intellectual danger in trying to be too precise about uranium supplies, becasue uranium exploration is at a very early stage.

I offer the following from the MIT report (page 34):

“AVAILABILITY OF URANIUM RESOURCES
How long will the uranium ore resource base be
sufficient to support large-scale deployment of
nuclear power without reprocessing and/or
breeding?10 Present data suggests the required
resource base will be available at an affordable
cost for a very long time. Estimates of both
known and undiscovered uranium resources at
various recovery costs are given in the
NEA/IAEA “Red Book”11. For example, according
to the latest edition of the Red Book, known
resources12 recoverable at costs

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7226 Earl Killian Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:35:07 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7226 In reply to John Lawton, let's get away from fuzzy words like limiting when higher precision is at hand. Nuclear reactors can provide some, but not all of the global warming solution (they might be one "wedge"). If you call "not all" limiting, then so be it. I prefer numbers, and I have now looked up a few for a bit more precision. (Here I am cribbing from another post of mine.) There are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world producing about 300 gigawatt (GW). If the world builds 700 new reactors at 1GW each, this brings us up to 1000GW/year. If we take the IAEA's 2005 Red Book data of known recoverable U235 reserves of 4.7 million tonnes, and 204 tonnes per GW year, then this 1000GW of nuclear power will use 204,000 tonnes per year from the MIT report. The 4.7 million tonnes will then last 23 years. Using the Red Book non cost constrained figured of 14.8 million tonnes of "Reasonably Assured", "Inferred", "Prognosticated", and "Speculative" uranium, then the calculation yields 76 years. I cannot say whether the 4.7 or 14.8 million tonnes (23 or 76 years) is more realistic, but it seems to me then that this is approximately what the U235 once-thru fuel cycle can support. To save Charles Barton a post, let me guess that he would say we therefore need spent fuel reprocessing, breeder reactors, and thorium reactors. Whether that is politically feasible in the long term or not is a question I don't feel is too important right now, because right now those things cannot happen soon enough to make a dent in global warming. We need solutions now. By the way, there is a thread about thorium reactors at http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/ In reply to John Lawton, let’s get away from fuzzy words like limiting when higher precision is at hand. Nuclear reactors can provide some, but not all of the global warming solution (they might be one “wedge”). If you call “not all” limiting, then so be it. I prefer numbers, and I have now looked up a few for a bit more precision. (Here I am cribbing from another post of mine.) There are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world producing about 300 gigawatt (GW). If the world builds 700 new reactors at 1GW each, this brings us up to 1000GW/year. If we take the IAEA’s 2005 Red Book data of known recoverable U235 reserves of 4.7 million tonnes, and 204 tonnes per GW year, then this 1000GW of nuclear power will use 204,000 tonnes per year from the MIT report. The 4.7 million tonnes will then last 23 years. Using the Red Book non cost constrained figured of 14.8 million tonnes of “Reasonably Assured”, “Inferred”, “Prognosticated”, and “Speculative” uranium, then the calculation yields 76 years. I cannot say whether the 4.7 or 14.8 million tonnes (23 or 76 years) is more realistic, but it seems to me then that this is approximately what the U235 once-thru fuel cycle can support. To save Charles Barton a post, let me guess that he would say we therefore need spent fuel reprocessing, breeder reactors, and thorium reactors. Whether that is politically feasible in the long term or not is a question I don’t feel is too important right now, because right now those things cannot happen soon enough to make a dent in global warming. We need solutions now.

By the way, there is a thread about thorium reactors at
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/

]]> By: John Lawton http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7170 John Lawton Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:06:12 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/30/the-achilles-heel-of-nuclear-power/#comment-7170 Earl Killian, are you saying that the MIT report states that uranium supplies for single pass (no recycling) is limiting? I didn't read it that way. My read of the report is that uranium is very abundant, and that much more of it will be discovered and mined, without significant increases in real costs, with respect to electricity production. Earl Killian, are you saying that the MIT report states that uranium supplies for single pass (no recycling) is limiting? I didn’t read it that way. My read of the report is that uranium is very abundant, and that much more of it will be discovered and mined, without significant increases in real costs, with respect to electricity production.

]]>