Power plants costs double since 2000 — Efficiency anyone?
According to a new index by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA):
CERA’s Candida Scott explains most of the implications:
“These costs are beginning to act as a drag on the power industry’s ability to expand to meet growing North American demand, and leading to delays and postponements in the building of new power plants. As the cost of construction rises, firms may become reluctant to invest in new plants, or delay and postpone these projects, in turn constraining the growth of capacity.”
The real implication for policymakers: It is time to revise utility regulations (as Obama and Clinton both propose) to put energy efficiency on an equal footing (with decoupling and incentives), since it was the cheapest option in 2000, and now is even more cost effective.
The reason for the price rise is straightforward — demand, demand, demand:
“The latest increases have been driven by continued high activity levels globally, especially for nuclear plants, with continued tightness in the equipment and engineering markets, as well as historically high levels for raw materials….”
“The global power sector is facing heavy strains, with new builds in the Middle East and Asia, and expansions in the United States all occurring simultaneously. Nevertheless, we expect 80-110 GW of power to be built and come on-line over the next five years in the U.S. In addition, many long-lead-time items for coal and fired power plants may be contracted in the next three years.”
“As a result of all of this activity, lead times for engineered equipment has increased up to 50 percent in the last 6-12 months for some items, and as expected, prices have increased,” Scott added. “Overseas sourcing for many components further compounds cost pressures because, as costs of raw materials and shipping have risen, those increases are passed through to projects.”
And yet, for all this, CERA expects, “80,000 megawatts to 110,000 megawatts in new U.S. plants to come on line in the next five years.” What a gross mis-allocation of capital — especially for the coal plants. We simply can’t get new presidential leadership in this country soon.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Current US generating capacity is just over 1 million MW, and CERA is predicting an 8 to 10% increase in generators online, not just under construction or planned, in only five years? That’s pretty high. Or is it? The DOE’s figures show that from 2001 to 2006 actual generation grew by 8.8%.
Yowza.
Sources:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ cneaf/ electricity/ epa/ epat2p2.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ cneaf/ electricity/ epa/ epat1p1.html
February 29th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Even if Jevon’s paradox were to be repealed, we still need new electrical generation sources to stop carbon emissions. The decarbonization of society is going to increase demand for electricity, not decrease it. The most promising approach to decarbonizing transportation is electrification. The electrification of transportation will inevitably increase demand for electricity. Other economic sectors are likely to turn to electricity to replace carbon based energy processes.
Thus we have two unavoidable issues that force us to build new power generating facilities:
1. The need to produce electricity through carbon free processes.
2. The new to replace the use of carbon based fuels through out the economy. In most cases the most likely replacement plan involves the use of carbon free electricity.
The issue then how to increase the efficiency of our power investments. How do we get the most electricity to the economy, for every dollar we invest in electrical generation?
February 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
We need to define the we in “we invest in electrical generation”. A lot of what must be done involves expenditure rather than investment. I would invest in concentrated solar because I think it has the best profit potential. I would not invest in nuclear although I hope others do. I am ambivalent about bio-fuels. David B. Benson makes a good case for its future.
“The need to replace the use of carbon based fuels through out the economy. In most cases the most likely replacement plan involves the use of carbon free electricity.” The problem with non nuclear alternatives in lack of proximity. Throughout the economy at some point means every, car every house, every building dependent on electricity for power, heat and cooling. Getting the electricity from the desert southwest and the plains states where it is generated to the midwestern - northeastern megalopolis where it will be used demands immediate investment even in advance of power generation. Think of when every apartment house and office building in New York and Boston is all electric.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Benson put’s his finger on one of the problems with the case for solar. Lack of proximity is a real issue in grid stability. Proximity to demand sources does matter if you want to keep the grid functioning.
Concentrated solar may have good profit potential, but is only provides electricity on average five and a half hours a day. Why make massive investments in electrical transmission lines that only provide power a few hours a day? Either we are all going to get use to shivering in the dark, or we are going to get electricity from more a reliable generating source than southwestern solar.
February 29th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
One possible use of southwestern solar is to produce hydrogen. The stored hydrogen is then burnt (if that is the correct term) to generate power on demand.
I do not know the efficiency of this, but I suspect it is not good.
February 29th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
David, please do not take offense with this comment. It is offered as constructive.
You said:
[One possible use of southwestern solar is to produce hydrogen. The stored hydrogen is then burnt (if that is the correct term) to generate power on demand.
I do not know the efficiency of this, but I suspect it is not good.]
This comes across as another throw away line that has no economic or any analysis to back it up.
I know it will never come to pass, but I live with hope that people who throw down “possible use” of wind and solar will do some calculating to help us decide if it is a thow away idea or one that has legs.
That goes for the biochar advocates as well. A few $ numbers would help their cause.
John L. McCormick
February 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
John L. McCormick — Even if the efficiency is not that good, it still might be economic. I don’t seem to have access to the $$ estimates.
WIth regard to bio-energy, just follow
http://biopact.com/
to discover that tens of millions of $$ are being invested daily in various sources of bio-energy across the globe. While I don’t know the $$ estimates, clearly the investors do.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
John L. McCormick — Oh, you said biochar. Then better, I think, than the Biopact site,
http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/
seems to cover the area fairly thoroughly and has links to other sites as well.
February 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Here an opinion more informed than mine regarding hydrogen:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/ energy/ 2008/ 02/ eu-research-sho.html
February 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
A book to read about hydrogen is ‘The Hype of Hydrogen’ by Joe Romm. There is quite a bit to figure out before hydrogen will do any good and it may never work out because of cost.
Then there is this web site with gives a good visual chart on the efficiencies of hydrogen and batteries for cars.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Electricity production is about 45 percent of the cost of electricity delivered to the need, 48 percent is distribution and about 7 percent is transmission. Transmission is often under invested in, not much money to be made. But sending power across the US would create huge power losses. And almost impossible to solve right of way problems.
My take on the production of non-carbon electricity is to keep the electricity made in the south west US in the southwest if they go to concentrated solar power (CSP). Wind could be used more in the Midwest and the northeast and southeast should go to nuclear. If photovoltaic comes down in price, that could be used anywhere, especially to bypass the utility companies. CSP hopefully can have heat storage to be able to generate more than sunshine hours to lower transmission costs and other costs.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Of course the article was about efficiency and we are talking about production. That’s the view of efficiency, nothing very exciting to bring up. I was talking to a guy yesterday who was selling LED lights. I think he said that eff was 80 percent better than the next best lights. I’m not sure of that number now, I remember at the time he said it, I wasn’t overly impressed but I think now I wasn’t thinking clearly, 80 percent is huge if in fact that is what it was.
Joe,
How about some more articles on efficiency. I don’t think people get the possibilities. It’s to easy to go back to being Tim Taylor (Home Improvement, TV) he would never talk about efficiency, only about the power, ugh, guhm, uhgh.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Yes. I’ll do more posts about efficiency.
February 29th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Ronald — From Wikipedia, electric power transmission losses are about 7% per 1000 km, sometimes less depending upon many factors.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
On hydrogen:
NREL says a “future efficiency goal” is to produce H2 from H2O via electrolysis at 6000psi using 50kWhe/kgH2. There are many types of fuel cells. The ones intended for vehicles are PEMs. The FreedomCar future efficiency goal is 20kWhe/kgH2. Thus 50 kWhe of in produces 20 kWhe out, so the efficiency in using H2 as energy storage *if future efficiency goals are met* is 40%. Some other fuel cell types (e.g. MCFC, SOFC) might do slightly better, especially if a steam turbine is used to regain a little of the energy lost as heat (according to DOE, this might someday get us to 25 kWhe out, improving electricity in to out efficiency to 50%). MCFC and SOFC and turbines are of course not vehicle technologies, but power plant technologies.
For comparison, batteries store electricity with over 90% efficiency (often 97-98%).
As an aside, the above is almost enough data to compare BEVs FCVs in efficiency. This is made easy by the fact that these vehicles are extremely similar, except that some (but not all) of the batteries and/or ultracapacitors are replaced by a H2 tank and fuel cell, and the plug is optional (but desirable). Use 92% for grid efficiency (as above) and 93% for charger efficiency, and 94% for battery efficiency, you find he power plant to battery output is 80% for a BEV. The FCV H2 probably pays a grid penalty too, and thus is 37% power plant to motor, but if the H2 plant is at the solar/wind farm, then there is pipeline efficiency to factor in, and you get a similar number. Thus it will take at least twice as much renewable energy produced using twice the land area and twice the cost to drive using H2 as an intermediary, compared to driving on electricity directly. Actually the cost is more than three times if you add in the capital depreciation on the H2 production plant.
Of course right now, FCVs are nowhere near this level of efficiency (they are perhaps half of these “future goals”) and also PEM fuel cells have cost and lifetime issues far worse than batteries.
Is it any wonder that fuel cells are nicknamed fool cells?
March 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
@Charles Barton,
Please check your facts. Where do you get CSP only averaging 5.5h of power per day? CSP is typically located in areas with high annual insolation. See for example http://www.nrel.gov/csp/maps.html and note the large areas of 7-8 kWh/m^2/day. Since the noonday sun is on a cloudless day is typically 1000W/m^2, one is getting at least 7-8 hours a day (more because that is dividing by peak power rather than average power). Also, I must remind you again that Thermal Energy Storage gives CSP the potential to generate for many hours after the sun goes down. Ausra claims 16h is feasible with their TES, giving 24h baseload power. The new Abebgoa CSP plant in Arizona “will use molten salt to store heat and continue generating electricity for as long as six hours after the sun sets.”
March 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Even without Thermal Energy Storage (TES), CSP makes a lot of sense, since it generates power when the load is highest and electric utilities are firing up their peaking power plants. This becomes instantly clear via a picture. See the graph “Using Off-Peak Power” at the bottom of PDF page 9 of
http://mydocs.epri.com/ docs/ CorporateDocuments/ EPRI_Journal/ 2005-Fall/ 1012885_PHEV.pdf
(or http://tinyurl.com/26opkq)
to see how daytime load is 70% higher than nighttime load in California.
March 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
If we got the per person use of electricity in the U.S. down to the level of the most efficient states, we could be closing power plants instead of building new ones.
The 2050 U.S. population is projected to be 420M people. At 7000 kWh/person/year, that is 2940 TWh/year. In 2005 we had 297M people using 12347kWh/person/year, or 3661 TWh. So even with the growing population, efficiency would let us shutter 720 TWh/year of generation. That’s not enough to fix our greenhouse gas emissions, so we would have to replace fossil plants with renewable energy plants as well. However, it indicates just how foolish it is to build a single new fossil plant.
If however we electrify passenger vehicle travel by 2050, as we should, then 9100 vehicle-miles/person * 420M people = 3.8 trillion miles * 300 Wh/mi / 92%grid = 1247 TWh/year. However that electricity should come from new wind, solar, and geothermal that is built as the vehicle fleet electrifies.
March 1st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Charles…
“Either we are all going to get use to shivering in the dark”
Not only can solar energy be stored as thermal energy at the production site, but energy can also be stored thermally (hot or cold) very cost effectively as part of the climate control systems of buildings and homes.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 am
Please check your facts. Where do you get CSP only averaging 5.5h of power per day? - Earl Killian
Ed, My facts come from Solarbuzz. The following statement appears at the foot of the Solarbuzz “Solar Electricity Price Index verses US Electricity tariff Price Index”:
(http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm)
“The Index is based upon a climate with 5.5 hours of sunshine average over the year. This is typical of locations like US Sunbelt States, much of Latin America, most of Africa, the Middle East, India and Australia. Mediterranean Countries, followed by Japan and then Northern Europe have progressively lower average hours. Saharan and southern Africa, and the areas centered on Saudi Arabia, central Australia, Peru and Bolivia are higher.”
Although various energy storage schemes have been proposed rfor solar generated electricity, none they are all far more expensive than building nuclear power plants. Infact solar instalations themselves are more expensive than nuclear power plants. The 280-megawatt Solana Generating Station is Arizona will cost more then a billion dollars and cover 3 square miles. That comes out to more than $3.5 Billion per GW. TVA has Just announced that it expects to pay no more than three billion for each of two 1.25 GW AP-1000 reactors. That makes the reactors cheaper than solar power for rated capacity. Even if we go with Earl’s claim of 7 to 8 hours a day, that means a capacity factor of around 30% verses 90% for the reactor. That, Earl, means that in the real world it costs you a whole lot more to generate electricity without storage, than it does with nuclear power with round the clock generation. You can either be poor and shivering in the dark with solar electricity, or you can keep your money and have heat and light at night with nuclear.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 am
Earl, it is possible to mass produce nuclear power plants, and even build hundreds of nuclear power plants every year if we need too. Mass production would lower the price of nuclear power plants.
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Does the 5.5 hours come from tracking or non-tracking solar? All CSP is tracking which would give it more hours’ day of collection. I think that CSP can even average 11 hours a day over a year. I did have the statistics a few years ago, but I haven’t been able to find it.
The costs for that solar plant in Arizona is also to pay for development. I think few people would advocate building these solar plants if they didn’t expect costs to decrease. Some have used the example of wind energy, which had costs of 30 or more cents per kilowatt in 1980 to as low as 4 and 5 cents per kilowatts recently. We’ll see if the same thing happens with CSP. Some say it can get down to 5 cents per kilowatt for center tower CSP systems.
If nuclear didn’t have a military use which spent hundreds of billions of dollars to develop it, we may not see economical nuclear either. Solar didn’t have a military use, (except for PV on satellites) so no need for the research or development.
Transmission costs for solar is sometimes criticized because the transmission lines are not filled at night like that are during the day. But you only need more power during the day. That would be like criticizing gearing up for more transmission in the summer than in the winter. How much electricity that the transmission lines will carry will not be more than the demand requires. More demand is required when the sun shines.
California needs 45 000 megawatts during the day in summer but only 26 000 during the day winter.
http://www.caiso.com/
France does have all those nuclear power plants, but I’ve read that they couldn’t get any built now. France has been putting in wind.
I do think some to the non- acceptance of nuclear is more that from just rational criticism. But nuclear still has to overcome that. No matter how many rational arguments a person makes, whether accurate or not, there is the world wide fear of nuclear bombs and radiation that it has to over come.
But also maybe rationally you could explain to me that using dog or cat meat is an acceptable meat form for humans to eat, you would still have to over come some heavy cultural bias against it. I wouldn’t accept that either. For some people that’s the same with nuclear.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
@Charles Barton,
But you were talking about CSP, not PV in your 5.5h remark. Using a PV figure is hardly appropriate. (1) CSP is wholesale electricity, not retail, and is sited in locations with high insolation of direct-normal sunlight (very little cloud cover or haze, which makes light diffuse); (2) CSP usually uses 1 or 2 axis tracking, whereas most PV systems do not. Conclusion: using the PV average is inappropriate. I’ve already indicated NREL’s well-researched CSP data. When CSP is built, it will be mostly be in the places NREL lists as “premium”, “excellent”, or “good”. The annual GWhe for those categories are respectively 1,051,466, 590,627, and 456,340, for a total of 2,098,433 GWhe. Even in December, insolation is >6kWh/m^2/day in appropriate locations.
March 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
@Charles Barton,
On building nuclear reactors, please see Figure 2 at the bottom of PDF page 45 of:
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/secureenergy.pdf
If we build nuclear reactors just to maintain their current 2.2% of world energy supply (15% of electricity), then greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear operations will exceed those of natural gas power plants somewhere around 2050. Figure 1 on the previous page explains why. For details read all of Chapter 3.
Similar conclusions were arrived at by researchers in Australia, but I have not been able to locate the original report, only summaries of it.
March 2nd, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Earl, Every time you discuss nuclear power, you pull out Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, non-peer reviews study, which has been discredited over and over: Seehttp://gabe.web.psi.ch/ pdfs/ Critical%20note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf)
See also:
http://nuclearinfo.net/ Nuclearpower/ SeviorSLSRebutall
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/ Nuclearpower/ WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SSRebuttal
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SSRebuttalResp
http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SSSRebuttal
See also http://www.ans.org/ pubs/ journals/ nt/ va-144-2-274-278
And http://www.uspatentserver.com/686/6863812.html
Also http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/ cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium_supply
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.html
Storm van Leeuwen and Smith were paid for their “research” by European anti-nuclear lobby. There was a good reason why their research was was never submitted to a peer reviewed publication. Most of the studies they referred to, were over thirty years old and have been long since overtaken by more recent research.
I have in the past linked you to references that demonstrate Storm van Leeuwen and Smith’s errors, but you either have ignored my links. Storm van Leeuwen and Smith have been described frauds. In one of the sources I linked you to, Roberto Dones, of the Paul Scherrer Institute, in Switzerland states:
vLS guesstimate relatively high to very high energy requirements and hence corresponding CO2 emissions for the electricity of nuclear origin, the highest to be found in the literature circulating in Internet, especially when low grade uranium ores are considered. The main explanation for SvLS’ high figures lies in their extreme assumptions (often rough guesses, as the authors admit themselves) and partially flawed methodology.
————-
However, because of ideological connotations of the opposition to nuclear energy, often the quotation of (SvLS 2005) is not accompanied by citation of and comparison with the tens of other relevant technical studies that have been and are being produced on the subject, with different results although prevalently converging to relatively low GHG emissions. An opponent to nuclear energy likely chooses the reference that best matches his presumptions, without undergoing the process of critically analyzing and comparing its assumptions and results vs. other studies.,
————–
The problem is that SvLS (2005) often convert costs into energetic terms using generic factors, not reported in the text, lacking critical consideration of cost components, and lacking use of technical match to compare with real energy expenditures…. Furthermore, SvLS (2005) add thermal to electric energy directly to give “total energy”, which is certainly not recommended practice.
—————
ISA (2006) uses data from U-production in the Ranger and Beverly mine/mills, with 0.15% ore grade (in U3O8). The energy intensity is approximately 0.45 GJ/kgU. The direct application of the formula in (SvLS 2005 Chapter 2, #5) would give instead 2.0 GJ/kgU and 4.7 GJ/kgU, respectively for soft and hard ores.
—————
Another example of flaws: SvLS (2005) estimate of Olympic Dam for uranium mining & milling energy uses is 70,209 TJ/a against 1,230 TJ/a predicted by the University of Melbourne vs. 5,477 TJ/a actually measured at the mine.
—————
In SvLS (2005, Chapter 4, #8) the volume of radwaste from NPP decommissioning is guesstimated at 93,900 m3. Official estimations by Swiss operators gave for the 1000 MW-size PWR and BWR 7,000 m3 and 14,000 m3, respectively.
—————-
SA (2006) apparently uses the factor 290 kWh/SWU for centrifuge, same as in (SvLS 2005). This electricity intensity had been taken from very old references and does not correspond to modern technology. Recent literature and reports on/from Urenco give values in the range 35-62 kWh/SWU,51 and the trend is towards further decreasing it.
Since you persist in referring to discredited, logically and scientifically flawed, ideologically tainted sources, to support your arguments, and have ignored my past attempts to call your attention to the problem, I can only conclude that you are Ideologically biased and not interested in the accuracy of the sources that you use.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Earl, I have looked over cost estimates for various ST schemes. I find these estimates to be not entirely credible, because they ignore recent patterns of construction materials inflation. On one hand there are descriptions of installationsd that will requite considerable materials input, but no quantification of materials requirements, only the observation that larger installations will lead to economies of scale. We are also told that increases in the size of intallation will lead to economies of scale, but this is by no means certain. One more disturbing aspect of the reports I read, was the failure to take any account of materials inflation in these reports. This raises a red flag, since materials inflation has affected the costs of all new generating facilities including renewables. Indeed i was unable to find any account of materials input into ST instalations. However European accounts of of recent ST installations suggest significant cost over runs, perhaps as much as 50% over original estimates. ST cost estimates reflect far lower levels of materials inflation that appears to be occuring, and efficiency gains are expected to compensate for an estimated modest level of inflation. Excuse me for not being impressed.
March 6th, 2008 at 3:43 am
Charles Barton, I am unaware of you ever having discussed the stormsmith.nl material before, so it is hardly appropriate for you to chide “I have in the past linked you to references that demonstrate Storm van Leeuwen and Smith’s errors, but you either have ignored my links.” Perhaps you are thinking of someone else? I will begin to look through the material you have just provided. The last time you provided material, it was on the availability of U, and that data confirmed quite well the point I was making at the time.
You criticize Storm and Smith for being paid by the European anti-nuclear lobby but of course the material you cite is paid for the pro-nuclear lobby. If the only data is partisans, then we will have to look beyond the partisanship of the authors.
You also dis Storm and Smith for not publishing in peer reviewed journals, but your citations don’t appear to be peer reviewed either.
One of your links above a broken and so not useful:
http://www.uspatentserver.com/686/6863812.html
I presume the last link is supposed to be
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
If you are citing that as an example to reassure on U supplies, I wonder if you have read it. The primary data there are low values from the IAEA, when I have been using the highest values from the IAEA to make my point.
Note also that the UIC once predicted a 1000% reserve increase for a doubling in price. Since that prediction, prices have increased by a factor of 6 to 8. Do you think UIC’s own numbers show a 1000% increase in reserves (after all prices have far more than doubled)? Not even close. The reserve increase does not even seem in line with the IAEA’s “speculative” “prognosticated” numbers that I have used in the past.
Since you sometimes cite thorium, here is another take on supply. Aldo v. da Rosa’s textbook has energy available from reactor potential materials as
U235 2,600 EJ
Th232 11,000 EJ
U238 320,000 EJ
If one adds U235 and Th232 and divide by half of the 900 EJ/a energy rate projected for 2050, then you get 30 years.
Your argument in the past has been to go for breeder reactors to turn U238 from munitions into fuel. I understand that point well, but breeder reactors have issues that you simply gloss over. What good are breeder reactors if they are politically unacceptable because of proliferation issues?
In your first reference above, the author uses a recent Australian study as the primary point of comparison with SvLS, but that study, while half the GHG emissions, still shows very high emissions. If construction/decommissioning are not included, the numbers are much closer. The author of your cited reference writes, “SvLS (2005) is just one attempt to the estimation of the energy intensity and associated CO2 emission from the nuclear energy chain, whose merit is to raise the issue of the assessment of energy expenditures in mining low-grade uranium ores that may need to be exploited in the long-term, pessimistic scenarios.” From that comment, I would infer that other authors have not addressed the low-grade ore issue, but that issue that is appropriate to address. Indeed the ore issue is how I found the SvLS material in the first place; if others are not addressing it, and SvLS have but are too harsh, then we have a lack of data.
Finally, let’s compare the energy in sunlight striking Earth’s land masses to the above numbers. In a single year we receive 1,000,000 EJ of energy from a nuclear fusion reactor in the sky (at a safe distance I might add) that will continue to arrive for billions of years. 320,000 EJ from U238 kind of pales in comparison to that annual supply.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Earl, Deffeyes & MacGregor in “World Uranium resources” Scientific American, Vol 242, No 1, January 1980, pp. 66-76, estimated world uranium resources. Although this paper does not appear to be online, their data can be found here:
http://nuclearinfo.net/ Nuclearpower/ UraniuamDistribution
Information about the uranium supply can be found here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
James Hopf discusses the yranium supply here:
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html#Deffeyes2
T
The World Nuclear Association has issued a possition paper on Uranium Sustainability which states:
The uranium resource is sustainable, with adequate known resources being continuously replenished at least as fast as they are being used. The essential dynamic is the strength of market forces when the market is constantly evolving
through advances in human knowledge and the technologies of exploration, mining, and resource utilisation. Depletion of today’s known uranium resources will be more than counterbalanced by replenishment from new discoveries, technical progress and possible substitution.
In addition, a huge increase in efficiency is readily possible through the technological step to fast neutron reactors. This option – unique among mineral resources – offers the nuclear industry a special kind of insurance against future resource shortage.
It may therefore be fairly concluded that uranium supplies will be more than adequate to fuel foreseeable expansions of nuclear power. Indeed, in addition to its other noteworthy virtues, An abundant fuel resource will remain a crucial advantage of nuclear power.
The world faces many challenges in achieving a global expansion of nuclear energy to fully realize the technology’s clean-energy potential. A limited supply of uranium resources is not among them.
http://www.uic.com.au/WNA-UraniumSustainability.pdf
In fact Uranium resources from conventional sources compare very favourably with most other resources. Virtually no exploration for conventional uranium sources has been undertaken during the last 30 years. Most of the world’s land surface has yet to be explored for uranium. It is economically possible to extract uranium and thorium from phosphate ore and mine tailings, but this is not done because of the abundance of conventional supplies. This source alone amounts to millions of tons of both uranium and thorium.
For example Chattanooga shale of Tennessee contains about t 6 million tons of recoverable U3O8.
The Conway granite of New Hampshire;contains uranium and thorium deposits estimated to be of the order of tens of millions of tons.
Other unconventional sources of uranium include coal fly ash which contains significant amounts of uranium and thorium, and sea water.
The Japanese have demonstrated that it is technically economically possible to extract Uranium from sea water using low energy techniques:
http://www.ans.org/ pubs/ journals/ nt/ va-144-2-274-278
For discussions see here:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 01/ 207-uranium-from-seawater-part-1.html
and here:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 01/ 208-uranium-from-seawater-part-2.html
There has been virtually no world wide exploration for Thorium, because there is no market for it. Standard references on Thorium state: “Present knowledge of the distribution of Thorium resources is poor because of the relatively low-key exploration efforts arising out of insignificant demand.” Still 2005 IAEA-NEA “Red Book” reported a probable Thorium reserve of of 4.5 million tons, but also acknowledge that there was insufficient data for much of the world to even estimate Thorium reserves. An Australian government reports states “The potential for thorium resources, particularly in types of deposits other than placer, is underexploredin Australia.” http://www.ga.gov.au/image_cache/GA10954.pdf
Yet Australia has the largest reported thorium reserve in the world. Thorium is known to be 3 to 4 times as common on the surface of the earth as uranium.
Your argument that we are running out of Uranium/Thorium resources, amounts to an appeal to ignorance, since you are arguing in effect that undiscovered resources do not exist, and that textbook accounts of proven reserves are always the end of the matter.
Currently uranium market prices are depressed by the effort of the US government to burn up the U235 and Pu239 left over from cold war weapons. Until that stock is drawn down their is virtually no need for new uranium. The only US uranium enrichment plant currently in operation, operates at far less than full capacity. In fact. it only operates at all because a US government owned utility, TVA buys enriched U235 from it. This arrangement has probably been made for national defense purposes. Until the weapons stockpiles are burned up, there is no incentive for more uranium or thorium explorations.