Nuclear Energy Production Is So Profitable That Germany Plans a $2.8 Billion Per Year Windfall Profits Tax

BillWoods said:

So, we really need about 6000 tons per 1000 MW reactor per 30 year design life… we have extended the design life of these plants by regulatory fiat to 40 years. ... And guess what, there is a move afoot to extend the operating licenses for existing plants to 60 years. Do the math…

The EIA (Energy Information Agency-footnote 2 below), unlike the USGS (United States Geological Survey) estimates we had some 445,000 tons in 2003 of mineable uranium. ... It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure the price of uranium will skyrocket.

There’s also the direct heating of the atmosphere to consider. ... What is the hot button issue again…global warming? So even with nuclear power we dump huge quantities of heat directly to the atmosphere. fuels and nuclear, three kilowatts of electricity for each one consumed ... That’s a huge amount of heat to the atmosphere, let alone from another 100 nuclear power plants.

Nathan Wilson said:

Toby, the uranium shortage fantasy is a favorite of nuclear opponents.  In the example you posted, the author uses the typical tactic of changing the question to mislead the reader.  We've always known that eventually the nuclear power industry would need to switch to breeders (which require 200 times less natural uranium than today's light water reactors, and are therefore 200 times less sensitive to ore cost).

There are not one, but two relevant questions:  

1. When will we run out of cost-effective fuel for breeders?  As Charles pointed out, this answer is in the millions of years.
2. When will we be forced to switch to breeders?  Every time a study is done on this, the answer always comes out, "at least many decades in the future".  Whenever price goes up, exploration increases, and reserves go up.  However, we may choose to switch sooner, for the real or perceived energy security, waste management, and anti-proliferation benefits (and cost, in the case of LFTRs).

Several of the reactors being developed today by startup companies are touted as having long (30-60 years) refueling intervals.  These are breeders, even though they don't use the word. 

It's also a little known fact that the older Canadian heavy water reactors can operate as break-even breeders on the thorium cycle (this would be expensive, since they would need to have the fuel reprocessed more often than in other breeders, due to their low enrichment).  Of course with the low price of natural uranium, they don't bother to use them this way.

TobyGrotz said:

Rod,

I read your response and it made sense to me.  Iworked in a plant that used thorium -

Fort St. Vrain in Colorado.

 I am posting an article by a geologist below.  I'm interested in your views.

Is Nuclear Power Part of

the Energy Solution?

By Philip M. Knighton, MS Geology, JD

 3711 Amidon

Wichita, KS 67204

(316) 838-5936

We don’t have enough uranium resources in the USA to

run the power plants we have.

How can I say this? I used to manage uranium leases and as

a geologist have worked with uranium resources. The principal

source of information is the United States Geological Survey

(USGS) who keeps track of uranium resources. Examine these

resource figures and then use a little simple math that we all

learned in about the second grade. The answer is obvious.

In 1978 when Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Generating Station

near Burlingame, Kansas, was built we had 640,000 tons

of mineable uranium oxide (yellowcake) in America. It takes

5000 tons per 1000 megawatt (MW) sized plant for its 30-

year design life assuming 20% uranium being recovered from

spent fuel rods. That would have been enough for 128 plants

(640,000/5000). But the fuel rods are not being reprocessed

for economic reasons. So, we really need about 6000 tons per

1000 MW reactor per 30 year design life…thus enough for 106

such plants (640,000/6000). We have 104 plants operating.

As that high pitched salesman on TV says, “But wait there’s

more…,” we have extended the design life of these plants by

regulatory fiat to 40 years. So you need a third more which

will service only 80 of the existing 104 plants (640,000/8000).

And guess what, there is a move afoot to extend the operating

licenses for existing plants to 60 years. Do the math…

we have enough for 53 of the existing 104 plants. The USGS

reports we only have 316,600 tons of mineable uranium left

(footnote 1 below).

The EIA (Energy Information Agency-footnote 2 below),

unlike the USGS (United States Geological Survey) estimates

we had some 445,000 tons in 2003 of mineable uranium.

Still that isn’t enough for our reactors with extended 40-year

design lives. And, in my opinion their estimates are largely

undocumented.

I saw recently on TV, a group of Republicans suggesting

100 more nuclear power plants as a solution to global warming

and avoiding the proposed carbon credit legislation. John

McCain was saying we should build 45 or so new nuclear

plants during his campaign. Obama wants more. Where

do they think we’d get uranium for even considering nuclear

power as an option for our energy future? Maybe we should

invade Canada or Australia and take theirs. Be easy…neither

has much of an army and we do speak the language (except in

eastern Canada). Iran has uranium. So does Angola. Targets?

Oh well, I’m joking but with even the environmentalist movements

are coming around to supporting more nuclear power

plants, the pressure is still on to consider building more. So,

what will we do…import it if we can, just like oil, if anyone

has any to spare. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure the price of

uranium will skyrocket.

Nuclear industrial group websites often project “we’ll find

more,” based on a comparison with estimates that we’d exhaust

oil and gas resources long ago. No, we won’t find much more

in the USA. Uranium is radioactive (unlike oil and gas) and

thus it is relatively easy to locate. We did that in the late 1950’s

for weapons. Airborne scintillometer surveys can locate it at

depth. No, we won’t strip mine the eastern half of Tennessee

for lower grade deposits in the Chatanooga Shale (hundreds

of times lower grade) for obvious reasons…cost, water and

the folks who live there won’t like that idea. No we probably

won’t process seawater for the unbelievably low concentrations

there. No, we won’t import it as most of the World’s supplies

are committed to other nation’s nuclear power plants. Even

if it were available at a price, the “import” solution sounds a

little like our current oil situation doesn’t it.

The simple truth is in the USGS uranium resource estimates.

Politicians whose principle source of information is industrial

lobbyist for plant builders, and environmentalist blinded by

concerns about carbon dioxide, all aside, we don’t have enough

uranium to run the plants we have. Why build more.

There’s also the direct heating of the atmosphere to consider.

We really only have three readily available alternatives.

Wind, solar and the wise use of our remaining oil and gas

deposits. I’m on the fence on coal. I have yet to see “clean

coal” more than a drawing board concept. Perhaps it can be

part of the mix, but at a price. Solar photovoltaics have the

advantage of being generated near the point of use, to wit:

the rooftops of our factories and homes. Photovoltaics and

wind are heat neutral. They generate no carbon dioxide and

no heat is vented to the atmosphere generating it. If we are

generating with coal, oil or gas, about 70% to 90% of the heat

from burning the fuel goes directly to the atmosphere. What

is the hot button issue again…global warming?

So even with nuclear power we dump huge

quantities of heat directly to the atmosphere.

fuels and nuclear, three kilowatts of electricity for each one

consumed because of line losses in transmission. That’s a huge

amount of heat to the atmosphere, let alone from another 100

nuclear power plants.

We have to get smart and look at the hard cold facts and

goals whether it be to reduce global warming, provide power

or simply the practical aspects of what will really be usable.

Our economy is too fragile to make the wrong decisions at

this point. Our children and grandchildren’s future in a free

and bountiful nation is literally as stake with our energy decisions

made today. Look at the facts and tell the single minded

simplistic solution folks what your find.

Philip M. Knighton, MS Geology, JD

3711 Amidon

Wichita, KS 67204

(316) 838-5936

1. http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2179-a/B2179-A-508.pdf

2. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.htmlAlso consider that we generate with fossil

eareidjr said:

Rod,

No good deed goes unpunished.

CharlesBarton said:

RodAdams said:

BillWoods said:

Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr.  Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years.  This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals.  Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

WNA: Supply of Uranium

TobyGrotz said:

CharlesBarton said: