kolm, your post gives me even more evidence that current uranium supplies are very underestimated.
If they are factoring in a long term price of only 14% of current prices...I can only imagine what the reserves would look like at today's prices.
And that ignores any future increase in prices.
Price and EROEI are not synonyms.
Why?
Because Energy is not the only cost involved with uranium production.
PeakOil is You
THE Uranium Supply Thread pt 4 (merged)
Re: Uranium Supply
by Tyler_JC » Thu 14 Jun 2007, 23:04:24
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
- Tyler_JC
- Expert
- Posts: 5438
- Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Boston, MA
Re: Uranium Supply
by Etika » Mon 02 Jul 2007, 16:30:22
For some reason one extremely important source of nuclear fuel is almost always forgotten. The spent fuel removed from reactors contains still a lot of usable uranium (and some plutonium).
For technical reasons the maximum burnup of the fuel is typically around 25-30%. If really pushing, 40% might be possible. This means that over 50% of the usable fuel is still in the assemblies when they are removed from the reactor. Reprocessing the spent fuel so that the usable components are separated and used to make new fuel is technically possible and starts to be economically viable with the current fuel prices. The reason why it is not done on a larger scale is mostly political - the end product of reprocessing is also very good material for nuclear bombs. However I'd expect the opposition for reprocessing die out as people realise ho valuable the spent fuel can be - both in the terms of fuel and energy.
Spent fuel and dismantled nuclear warheads alone would contain enough uranium to run the current reactors for ~100 years. The potential sources for uranium are so diverse that that "peak uranium" won't be coming soon.
For technical reasons the maximum burnup of the fuel is typically around 25-30%. If really pushing, 40% might be possible. This means that over 50% of the usable fuel is still in the assemblies when they are removed from the reactor. Reprocessing the spent fuel so that the usable components are separated and used to make new fuel is technically possible and starts to be economically viable with the current fuel prices. The reason why it is not done on a larger scale is mostly political - the end product of reprocessing is also very good material for nuclear bombs. However I'd expect the opposition for reprocessing die out as people realise ho valuable the spent fuel can be - both in the terms of fuel and energy.
Spent fuel and dismantled nuclear warheads alone would contain enough uranium to run the current reactors for ~100 years. The potential sources for uranium are so diverse that that "peak uranium" won't be coming soon.
-
Etika - Wood
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed 02 May 2007, 03:00:00
depleted uranium - slipping nukes under the wire
by eric_b » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 00:10:38
"Slipping nukes under the wire" Depleted Uranium: link
The use of DU amounts to a self-destructive, suicidal, gesture. And to think its use was coolly contemplated at the highest echelons of US decision making shows the level of insanity we've reached. That we should purposely choose to contaminate the very ground, the Earth - our food supply, for evanescent treasure speaks of the power and blindness of human greed. This stuff has a half-life measured in billions of years and attacks our very genetic structure, damning many future generations.
From the link:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30, 1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B Conant, A H Compton, and H C Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the ‘Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon’:
"As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."
As a Terrain Contaminant: "To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke."
Internal Exposure: "… Particles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body."
The use of DU amounts to a self-destructive, suicidal, gesture. And to think its use was coolly contemplated at the highest echelons of US decision making shows the level of insanity we've reached. That we should purposely choose to contaminate the very ground, the Earth - our food supply, for evanescent treasure speaks of the power and blindness of human greed. This stuff has a half-life measured in billions of years and attacks our very genetic structure, damning many future generations.
From the link:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30, 1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B Conant, A H Compton, and H C Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the ‘Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon’:
"As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."
As a Terrain Contaminant: "To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke."
Internal Exposure: "… Particles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body."
And, this:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')lobal radioactive contamination from atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout.
The author & whistleblower, Leuren Moret, was told shortly after leaving Lawrence Livermore Labs:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')rophetically, an acquaintance coolly said to me, a year after I left the lab, 'You are in a police net you will never get out of ... for the rest of your life.
This, for attempting to speak the truth on the use of depleted uranium.
-
eric_b - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1174
- Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: us
Re: depleted uranium - slipping nukes under the wire
by mmasters » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 00:20:32
-
mmasters - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2272
- Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: depleted uranium - slipping nukes under the wire
by Tanada » Tue 03 Jul 2007, 06:18:00
Given that the LNT (Linear No Threshold) theory on low radiation doses has been disproven every time it has been tested claiming that any dose is deadly is just plain false. Many of those who make the claim do not realize it is false, however some person such as Prof Gofman are very well aware, however they have a large financial interest in perpetuating the lie.
Truely low dose materials are not a threat. Mixing in stories about Co-60 contaminated jewelry is misleading to say the least, Co-60 was planned to be used for radiological warefare and definately does not qualify as low dose for about 10 years after date of manufacture.
Depleated Uranium is a heavy metal threat, not a radiological threat. If you get it in your system 99% of your chances of dieing from it have to due with its chemistry, not its radiology.
Truely low dose materials are not a threat. Mixing in stories about Co-60 contaminated jewelry is misleading to say the least, Co-60 was planned to be used for radiological warefare and definately does not qualify as low dose for about 10 years after date of manufacture.
Depleated Uranium is a heavy metal threat, not a radiological threat. If you get it in your system 99% of your chances of dieing from it have to due with its chemistry, not its radiology.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
The stats on Gulf I vets is just astounding. 
