Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

Uranium, like petroleum (and coal, and natural gas ...) is not a renewable resource. There is only so much of it around, and increased usage will more rapidly deplete that supply. This raises the issue of peak uranium as a check on this "solution" to the world's energy woes. The New Internationalist Magazine has an informative article on peak uranium. Here is a pertinent excerpt:

PEAK URANIUM • The global nuclear industry requires approximately 68,000 tonnes of uranium ore a year to operate. *

• Approximately 36,000 tonnes of uranium a year is manufactured from 'primary sources' (mining). *

• Nearly half of all uranium supply is now provided from military sources (decommissioned weapons stocks and reserves) as well as spent fuel recycling. *

• The European Commission estimates that there may be only 2-3 million tonnes of exploitable uranium sources globally. **

• At current projections of nuclear capacity, uranium mining operations will need to increase output by 100% within 10-20 years to meet demand. **

• It is estimated that global exploitable reserves of uranium will likely be depleted within 30-40 years. **

• If all the world's existing fossil fuel based power stations were replaced by nuclear, there would only be enough uranium for 3-4 years. **

*Uranium Information Centre. WISE-Uranium.

**Nuclear Energy: the Energy Balance, Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, 2005. Nuclear Monitor, WISE/NIRS.

While it is unlikely that all of the fossil fuels based power will be replaced any time soon, the 3-4 year time is stunning. The Ux Consulting (a uranium consultant company) verifies the reality of peak uranium:

The decline in global commercial uranium inventories is rapidly shifting an inventory-driven market to one that is production-driven. Consolidation over the last several years has squeezed the number of uranium suppliers, reduced geographical diversity, and now several existing and future uranium production centers are in question. In the interim, long-term indicators are pointing toward a demand curve that will exceed supply within the next several years and ultimately lead to higher prices.

So the more we depend on nuclear power, the sooner that energy source will disappear, and the supplies are already getting scarce. However, like peak oil, producing lower quality petroleum, peak uranium will produce lower quality uranium, which require more energy to extract and refine. This in turn will cause more global warming emissions, and decrease the efficiency of nuclear produced power. This from The Sunday Herald:

The Oxford Research Group argues that a worldwide shortage of high- grade uranium ore will force new nuclear reactors to exploit increasingly lower-grade ores for their fuel. Because that requires more energy to extract, the process will result in ever-greater amounts of climate-wrecking pollution.

A report by the Dutch nuclear expert Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen says that, after 2034, the grade of uranium ore being dug out of the ground will fall dramatically. "This will cause nuclear power to become increasingly inefficient and expensive, leading to an increase in carbon dioxide emissions," he says.

By 2070 the grade of uranium ore being used will have become so poor he predicts that nuclear power will become a net energy user. At the end of 2005 the world's known recoverable uranium resources amounted to about 3.6 million tonnes, mostly in Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.

Now, the other problem - "cooling water." "Cooling water" is the water utilized to cool nuclear reactors. It is discharged after use - frequently into rivers and streams if they are nearby. Most nations regulate the temperature this water can be to avoid killing fish and fauna in the rivers either through the heat or through algae and bacterial growth. With rising global temperatures, the cooling water is not so cool. Some governments have temporarily waved requirements regarding the discharge. Julio Godoy writes about this in " Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy." He notes that previous releases of higher temperature cooling water into rivers and streams have had disastrous effects: "According to the minutes of the National Surveillance Committee on water drained from reactors Aug. 21 and Sep. 3 2003, "hot water temperatures might have led to high concentrations of ammoniac, which is potentially toxic for the rivers' fauna."

No Nukes!