One of the arguments in my book is that we'll need to start buying nuclear power from the UK and France quicksmart if we'd like to have one small shred of energy security by 2050. Following a perceptive comment on an earlier thread (ht Branedy), I did some digging around and found some very interesting stuff on the potential growth in demand for nuclear power's inputs, and what that might mean for Ireland.
This work largely demolishes that idea, because of the growing relative scarcity of nuclear fuels like uranium while demand for these fuels skyrockets, and also because the components of nuclear power plants, certain types of wire, etc, are also very rare. I'll read these carefully over the weekend, but if this chap is halfway right on his numbers, I think I'll have to rethink. Which is always fun to do, and what makes writing and thinking about Ireland in 2050 so fascinating. Read more below.
The world is about to enter a period of unprecedented investment in nuclear power. The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option. The perception is that nuclear power is a carbon-free technology, that it breaks our reliance on oil and that it gives governments control over their own energy supply.
That looks dangerously overoptimistic, says Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who publishes the final chapter of an impressive four-part analysis of the global nuclear industry on the arXiv today.
Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world's nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. "But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.
via Technology Review: Blogs: arXiv blog: The Coming Nuclear Crisis.
I dunno much about nuclear power but the world has been about to run out of fossil fuels for as long as I remember & that it is a disturbingly long time. The problem is that as prices rise they looked harder and they find more. And technology changes too so its more efficiently used. Conceivably the same might happen with nuclear power. So we should hang on to our Geiger counters.
I wouldn't rush to re-write the book just yet Stephen. The issue is mostly about timing and innovation. As Dittmar himself admits in his article, we can buy time by converting uranium in weapons to use in reactors. That's if you buy his 2013 peak deadline.
On the other hand, the potential for thorium to replace uranium is just one innovation that could head off any peak (the former is much more abundant than the latter: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html).
As with Peak Oil, there will be both real peaks (the 'easy oil' first, say) and incentives to find more oil/uranium (and to innovate around new, more efficient technologies). But it's the same challenge, i.e.: a race between scarcity and innovation.
There's no guarantee of a happy ending to the race (there never is), but as an economist my money is on the innovators and entrepreneurs who have got us where we are today despite all the scarcities and scares of the past.
Hi kevin,
Technological change is certainly one factor to consider, but also is re-use and reprocessing of the fuel that's already there, which Ditmar doesn't look at, definitely, but where are the signs that this technology is advancing rapidly enough to cope with the forecasted increases in demand for these fuels, not to mention the other supplies these reactors need.
@ Gerard,
It might be that the 'easy' uranium peak comes as Ditmar forecasts, or thereabouts, but the harder peaks (and their attendant substitutions toward things like Thorium) would have lots of unintended consequences due to the disruptions these innovations represent. Perhaps that would harm our energy security in many ways, because, at least as far as I can see, we won't be producing the power ourselves, but buying it from the UK and France.
For what it matters
but in case so far the world uranium mining peak and in
different countries is listed in paper I of my series
on the future of nuclear energy.
it was about 70000 tons in 1980/81
and now the miners are struggling to increase
from 44000 tons last year.
the needs right now are 65000 tons/year
and the rest comes from the ending secondary resources
regards
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comment--can you elaborate on whether your estimates take into account the development of reuse of this material? I think many of the commenters on the MIT site pointed this out, and from what I've read they aren't far off. Both Gerard and Kevin are right to point to the influence of technological change and innovation on increased efficiency of these scarce resources, so it makes sense to factor in some increased efficiency in your measurement of their uses. I'm not against what you're saying just yet, I've to study the 4 chapters in detail, but I would like to know if you'd made any advances into this area.
Hi,
In short. Yes I had discussed recycling in my article.
Current infrastructure for this is limited to perhaps
a few thousand tons.
Plans for new recycling plants are little and construction takes a long time.
Safety issues are important and result in super high cost and
under a situation where the WNA, the IAEA and others are claiming that
uranium is plenty even plans for recycling from used fuel rods
are difficult to propose.
Thus, to some extend the denial of problems in their own domain
has resulted in even larger problems.
There is more in my papers.
regards
Michael
Hi Michael,
Thanks again for the comment-other commenters have pointed to the fact that as the fuel becomes more scarce, the incidence of recycling plants will increase, ensuring a continuance of supply. I've read your work now in some detail, and I can't see projections which include that type of reasoning. Could a substantial increase in the production of 'reuse' infrastructure lead to a diminution of your claims?
Hi Stephen,
in principle there is some potential in building up the recycling
infrastructure yes. But recycling plants are very risky and opposition
is huge. Right now the plans in the USA have just been canceled I think
(need to check for the latest of the latest). The extracted is often a mixture
Pu239 and U235 MOX. It has its own problems and not everybody likes it
it seems.
For extraction more uranium 235 from depleted uranium
or do a better job in extracting it. Right now
the companies manage to go down from 0.71 to 0.25 U235 content
in natural uranium. The ideas to reduce 0.25--> 0.15 are potentially
interesting but require also a long term investment in
enrichment capacity. Again unclear if this will happen anytime in the near
future.
Thus in short.. I think it all depends on how fast new reactors
will be constructed and what will happen with the old ones.
The Euratom supply agency (thus for Europe sees a reduction
of something like 23000 tons now to 17000 tons by 2025 or so
because of reduced amount of nuclear power plants.
Thus who in Europe can be imagined to construct another
large enrichment or recycling facility and where?
If the UK government will tell that in addition to
new reactors 1-2 new Sellafield structures are required
I think people will have a hard time to accept it.
In Ireland people are already very nervous about Sellafield right?
michael
Michael, this information is exactly what I was looking for, thanks!