Hi Frank -
Your question (about why we should consider nuclear power, when we're facing a possible shortage of uranium) is quite valid, if one assumes that the slant in the articles is correct.
Not that there's a bias, necessarily, but the writer dramatizes the story somewhat.
I think the matter is subject to the same logic as the "peak oil" discussion - that is, as the price of oil rises, exploration increases, and new, more efficient technology appears.
"The Uranium Institute has investigated the reserve base of current and prospective mining projects using its own classification system [2] and has concluded that there are now 1.32 million tonnes of the best-proven category recoverable worldwide at a marginal cost of US$40 per kilogram or less. This is slightly above the current spot price for uranium, but much in line with longer term contract prices. Given that the current consumption of uranium by reactors is around 64,000 tonnes per annum, these low cost proven reserves may last just over 20 years. It might therefore appear that a sound long term raw material base for nuclear power does not exist.
This is, however, a misreading of the situation and for several reasons...
... With current annual reactor requirements at 64,000 tonnes of uranium per annum, a current world resource base of at least 11 million tonnes could easily accommodate a significant expansion in nuclear power throughout the next century."
worldenergy.org
The uranium market has been unnaturally depressed by processing of Soviet weapons-grade uranium into diluted uranium suitable for use in reactors.
"The United States gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear energy, and roughly half the fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants is now coming from this purchase so dismantled Russian nuclear weapons are providing 10% of all the electricity Americans use every day."
nti.org
There's a lot of heated debate around this subject, some of which is extremely polarized. Depending on who or what one believes, a wide range of conclusions can be reached.
Notwithstanding the fact that the following was produced by the British Nuclear Energy Society, I found it to be fairly reasoned, and factually sound:
"There is no shortage of nuclear fuel, nor is one foreseen. The efficiency with which nuclear fuel is burned has steadily increased and new types of reactor could dramatically raise that efficiency."
bnes.com
Frank, I don't expect anyone to take this post or the links in it as gospel. It's just a quick, broad-brush response to your question.
Regards,
Jim |
