Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Uranium Supply Thread pt 4 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
Post a reply

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Tue 01 Jan 2008, 11:20:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') put breeder reactors into the same category as cold fusion. Where are these reactors producing power in any significant amount?


That is completely ridicules. Cold fusion is a controversial theoretical energy source. Breeder reactors have been around since the 1980's. Yes not many have been produced because they are not cost competitive.

Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-600

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he BN-600 reactor is a sodium-cooled fast breeder reactor built at the Beloyarsk Nuclear Power Station, in Zarechny, Sverdlovsk Oblast, Russia. Designed for 600 MW (electric), it produces 560 MW (electric) dispatching energy to the Middle Urals power grid. It has been in operation since 1980.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople saying that uranium reserves increase exponentially based on price? The price over doubled and a supposed 44% increase in reserves occurred. The fact that no one seems to question the mining companies whose share price increases based on their tonnage "find" is mind boggling.


'People' are not saying there is a 'supposed' increase in resources the IEA is. That is the International Energy Agency, who makes their estimation based on expert opinion and knowledge. Maybe you are a more experienced geologist or energy analyst than the entire IEA. If so, please share you unique insight. It would also be interesting to see evidence of these companies apparently inflating their reserves. Do you have any quotes or examples?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f nuclear power is going to save us from an otherwise dark world then regardless of the uranium issue is the building of up too 7-10 times the current reactor capacity by 2040.


Otherwise dark by 2040? Gas may not have peaked worldwide even by then and its very unlikely coal will of either. It would be reasonable to expect 20-30% of electricity to be coming from renewables as well by then.

A large expansion to nuclear construction would take a lead in time of say 5-7 years. Factories producing components would need to be set-up. Engineers trained or retrained. Sites selected for development and construction companies engaged. If a large scaling up of plant production is unfeasible how did the French do it in the early eighties when inflation was 15%?

Reasonable open-minded people can recognize, based on the facts and relatively simple concepts, supply is not a problem. Throwing unfounded speculation based on nothing but a tunnel vision doomer mentality is not going to change that. .
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Unread postby sjn » Tue 01 Jan 2008, 12:03:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'W')hy can't the Brits just pay the French to build the nuke plants? The entire world knows the French have a superior program. Why reinvent the wheel? Is this an issue of pride? :wink:

National security. Fall out with the French or have no means to pay and have no electricity. At least with plants at home fuel can be secured by force if necessary, bombing your electricity supplier would be counterproductive.
User avatar
sjn
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Unread postby TheDude » Tue 01 Jan 2008, 13:05:50

What else should they do? For NG Brits have already built (with Norway) the world's longest underwater pipeline. Can't say they haven't tried. Figure they see the writing on the wall there.

Only took two years for 1200 km. Wonder why they haven't built more than the one line through the Channel. Only have the one LNG import terminal, too.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Brown solution to peak money, peak oil= NUKES!

Unread postby Twilight » Tue 01 Jan 2008, 13:43:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'W')hy can't the Brits just pay the French to build the nuke plants? The entire world knows the French have a superior program. Why reinvent the wheel? Is this an issue of pride?

Not at all. Rival consortia will submit proposals and winners will be chosen. The French have as much chance of getting the business as anyone else.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby ANewHuman » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 00:51:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') put breeder reactors into the same category as cold fusion. Where are these reactors producing power in any significant amount?


That is completely ridicules. Cold fusion is a controversial theoretical energy source. Breeder reactors have been around since the 1980's. Yes not many have been produced because they are not cost competitive.


Those reactors are heavily subsidized and only exist for various political (bombs) and scientific reasons. Again, maybe in the future technology may improve to make them viable for electrical production, however, why would you use them when they "cost" twice (most likely MANY times more as they are subsidized beyond belief) as much compared to traditional reactors? It's completely similar to fusion in that you wouldn't do it because it's less efficient than other means to produce power given the same materials.

So yes, keep waiting on technology to make them viable.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ''')People' are not saying there is a 'supposed' increase in resources the IEA is. That is the International Energy Agency, who makes their estimation based on expert opinion and knowledge. Maybe you are a more experienced geologist or energy analyst than the entire IEA. If so, please share you unique insight. It would also be interesting to see evidence of these companies apparently inflating their reserves. Do you have any quotes or examples?


I have no time to find examples, I have seen the news reports and investigations. You will too, just do a google search.

However where do you think the IEA gets it's data? It's from the companies SPENDING money to do the tests. Data which is biased when taken in context of finds = share price. The IEA does very little independent investigation. If it did we would have good numbers for oil reserves in the middle east.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'O')therwise dark by 2040? Gas may not have peaked worldwide even by then and its very unlikely coal will of either. It would be reasonable to expect 20-30% of electricity to be coming from renewables as well by then.

A large expansion to nuclear construction would take a lead in time of say 5-7 years. Factories producing components would need to be set-up. Engineers trained or retrained. Sites selected for development and construction companies engaged. If a large scaling up of plant production is unfeasible how did the French do it in the early eighties when inflation was 15%?


We need a linear increase to 2040 of nuclear reactors, not a "well we can build maybe 40% of them within 20 years, with the other 60% coming in the next 10 years" otherwise the energy instability alone will stop it all (wars, civil unrest, whatever).

Comparing the wild over spending budgets of the 80s to now is hilarious. Look at France now, almost in an economic collapse. Either way the raw cost of materials used in building big things has ballooned. As raw ingredients become more expensive some constructions are no longer viable. It is why governments now prefer the simple capital outlays (natural gas, coal) for fiscally responsible budget management.

Building of upto 10 times the current nuclear reactor capacity would probably equal nearly *all* the construction which occurred worldwide from 1980 till now. I just can't see how it's possible in a theoretical sense, let alone a realistic sense (most people don't want nuclear power atm, maybe when the lights turn off they might).
Introducing the human evolution.
User avatar
ANewHuman
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 09:34:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')hy would you use them when they "cost" twice (most likely MANY times more as they are subsidized beyond belief) as much compared to traditional reactors? It's completely similar to fusion in that you wouldn't do it because it's less efficient than other means to produce power given the same materials.


You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Cold fusion has never left the lab and has never produced anything more than tiny amounts of electricity. Fast breeder reactors have produced commercial quantities of electricity.

You are right, Breeder reactors will not be used as long as uranium reserves are suffcient (although both China and India are developing a fast breeder program) which they are. As mentioned in one of the articles I linked. The reactors currently under development are up to 30 times more fuel effcient than current ractors, which would vastly expand the time scale current reserves will last for. But this is not the point, the point is current reserves and probable reserves will likely last hundreds of years anyway even with current technology.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever where do you think the IEA gets it's data? It's from the companies SPENDING money to do the tests. Data which is biased when taken in context of finds = share price. The IEA does very little independent investigation. If it did we would have good numbers for oil reserves in the middle east.


Have you any experince with company reporting and accounting? Listed public countries have very strict accounting and valuation procedures. Most current uranium production is done is Canada and Australia who are subject to strict reporting standards. The situation with Middle Eastern oil reserves are complete different. the national oil companies are not subject to the legal and accounting processes of public listed companies in the western world.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e need a linear increase to 2040 of nuclear reactors, not a "well we can build maybe 40% of them within 20 years, with the other 60% coming in the next 10 years" otherwise the energy instability alone will stop it all (wars, civil unrest, whatever).


Why do we need s linear increase? The history of nuclear energy has not been linear. There was a rapid increase in capacity from the mid 70's through to the early eighties then countruction reduced significantly due to Chernobyl.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')omparing the wild over spending budgets of the 80s to now is hilarious. Look at France now, almost in an economic collapse.


France, economic collapse? have you ever been to France? Compared to the US and UK France is doing very well in the current economic crises and is one of the most beatiful countries in the world and the 7th biggist economy in the world. If you think 58 nuclear reactors are some how responsible for 'economic collapse' you over estimate what effect 100 billion euros of construction can do.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')uilding of upto 10 times the current nuclear reactor capacity would probably equal nearly *all* the construction which occurred worldwide from 1980 till now.

Why would it be needed to produce 10x the current nuclear capacity by 2040? That would equal approximately 180% of current worldwide electricity production.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') just can't see how it's possible in a theoretical sense, let alone a realistic sense (most people don't want nuclear power atm, maybe when the lights turn off they might

Are you an energy planner? Do you have any education in construction or civil enginneering? What are you basing your assement on?

Nuclear energy is making a comeback worldwide and will be a significant element in future energy production but it won't be the only one. Safety concerns have given way in many countries to new public acceptance of nuclear power.

Nuclear does not have to replace all other forms of energy, renewables are going to continue to increase in many countries and fossil fuels are not going to disappear between now and 2040. I would expect when peak oil finally gets mainstream cover and acceptance peak gas will be everyones concern and that will spur a move away from gas to nuclear and renewables in many countries on a fairly rapid scale.

Energy production has never been easy and it can seem scary especially when you read alarmist reports that don't present the facts in a coherant and balanced way. The energy industry is, however, one of the most extensive industries in the world. Oil will start to decline certainly by 2020 but probably as soon as 2012 and will certainly cause massive economic problems. However, while a wider energy problem is not unimaginable it is unlikely. There are now so many new potential solutions as well as old technology. Energy projects like oil fields or nuclear plants seem like huge projects to me and you but the energy industy has been building them for decades. Will the industry expand? Sure it will if demand is there. There is no shortage of skilled engineers or construction materials and there is no shortage of uranium in the medium to long-term. Nuclear energy can and will expand to partly fill the gap of fossil fuels. In fact, Britain has just announced the first phase of a new reactor programme, which will renew and expand our nuclear capacity.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby clv101 » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 09:49:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')n fact, Britain has just announced the first phase of a new reactor programme, which will renew and expand our nuclear capacity.


New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..not when you take into account the uranium-peak, the energy return on energy invested in the nuclear life-cycle, and the prospect of much of the legacy of nuclear waste being abandoned for ever.
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
User avatar
clv101
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bristol, UK
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 10:36:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')n fact, Britain has just announced the first phase of a new reactor programme, which will renew and expand our nuclear capacity.


New Nuclear Reactors For The UK: Is This Really A Good Idea?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..not when you take into account the uranium-peak, the energy return on energy invested in the nuclear life-cycle, and the prospect of much of the legacy of nuclear waste being abandoned for ever.


The theory of peak uranium has been fully addressed it is a non-issue.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby ANewHuman » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 11:50:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he theory of peak uranium has been fully addressed it is a non-issue.


Right, it's been addressed by doing the old bait and switch. Whenever uranium supply issues are raised the nuke fanatics say "doesn't matter, breeder reactors my friend, breeders, unlimited energy". When breeder reactors are found suspect it's "thorium will save us, and there's unlimited supplies of thorium". People like you think you can extract uranium out of sea water and granite using 'technology' to have a positive EROEI, it's laughable. People like you think technology is going to make breeders cost effective. Sure it's possible it may end up working but when? You seem to think it's yesterday, a sign you are completely biased due to lack of reasoning. Even if they do manage breeder technology, they are still supply limited, it's not a never ending supply of energy growth.

There are massive supply issues of uranium coming up if the 40000 tonnes of mining doesn't increase to cover the shortfall from non mining sources and growth of the industry, which will probably spit ball any governments attempts to build reactors, thankfully.

Mkwin you are a nuke fanatic
Introducing the human evolution.
User avatar
ANewHuman
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 12:23:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')ight, it's been addressed by doing the old bait and switch. Whenever uranium supply issues are raised the nuke fanatics say "doesn't matter, breeder reactors my friend, breeders, unlimited energy". When breeder reactors are found suspect it's "thorium will save us, and there's unlimited supplies of thorium". People like you think you can extract uranium out of sea water and granite using 'technology' to have a positive EROEI, it's laughable. People like you think technology is going to make breeders cost effective. Sure it's possible it may end up working but when? You seem to think it's yesterday, a sign you are completely biased due to lack of reasoning. Even if they do manage breeder technology, they are still supply limited, it's not a never ending supply of energy growth.


Did you read any of the articles I posted?

I am not talking about any potential new nuclear technology. Forget the ultra-effcient 4th generation nuclear reacotrs currently being tested, forget breeders or any non-traditional fuel.

They are talking about current proven reserves and probable reserves being suffcient for existing technology and ignoring all of the things in development or possible innovations.

You same i am biased due to lack of reasoning? I am basing my points on fact. It is fact that estimated reserves grew by 50% between 2004 and 2006. Why? Because it was profitable to look. Geologists estimate there could be 35 million tons of standard uranium extractable at a cost of $130. 35 million!!! Even if we doubled nuclear capacity using current techology, that would equate to 350 years of supply of standard uranium. Its not that bloody hard to understand. First a post by a nuclear engineer completly debunks the uranium problem, I then post an IEA article also undermining it and an academic study undermining it and you come back at me saying i am baised due to lack of reason?? Why don't you try reading those articles and make a constructive argument against them rather than talking non-sense to maintain your own personal doom mentality.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby ANewHuman » Wed 02 Jan 2008, 21:05:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'Y')ou same i am biased due to lack of reasoning? I am basing my points on fact. It is fact that estimated reserves grew by 50% between 2004 and 2006. Why?


Estimated reserves? Why don't you just grow it by 5000000% and add granite and seawater to your "reserves". It's meaningless.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'B')ecause it was profitable to look. Geologists estimate there could be 35 million tons of standard uranium extractable at a cost of $130. 35 million!!!


What's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade shit uranium, am I right (we've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground) ? Or uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all. I laugh at the people who try to cost things (usually using the year prior as data) as well as estimate how many million tonnes there are. It's an ESTIMATE, based on faulty data (or "estimates" if you want to phrase it nicely) from mining companies. Either way, it is an estimate on estimates, not proof that 35 million tonnes is extractable with a solid return on EROEI at $130 2008 dollars.

The problem is you didn't even read that article on the oil drum, I've read the links you've posted and it hasn't told me anything... unless I should just believe what some ghost writer on the internet tells me "Like um be calm, theres bakillions of uranium out there". Yeah. You act like a document which references the IEA is proof that the other document is valid, or that anyone who believes the IEA is to be trusted. A circle jerk is a circle jerk.
Introducing the human evolution.
User avatar
ANewHuman
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Dezakin » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 02:19:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ANewHuman', 'W')hat's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade shit uranium, am I right (we've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground) ? Or uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all. I laugh at the people who try to cost things (usually using the year prior as data) as well as estimate how many million tonnes there are. It's an ESTIMATE, based on faulty data (or "estimates" if you want to phrase it nicely) from mining companies. Either way, it is an estimate on estimates, not proof that 35 million tonnes is extractable with a solid return on EROEI at $130 2008 dollars.

Talking about energy return on uranium is meaningless nonsense. Measured energy cost.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/Web ... lear_Power

The Rossing mine produced 3037 tonnes of Uranium in 2004, which is sufficient for 15 GigaWatt-years of electricity with current reactors. The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine. The ore grade from the rossing mine is lower than most other comercial ore grades at 300 ppm.

The resources and reserves avaliable today are certainly higher than the estimate of the IAEA redbook because those are avaliable resources at $130/kg when the spot price is nearly twice that today.

This is before we start doing fairly conservative steps like DUPIC, extra enrichment, and MOX fuel... which we'll unlikely ever need to do simply because uranium is so damned plentiful.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 10:52:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')reserves". It's meaningless


Maybe you consider reserve estimates as meaningless but regulatory authorities, the law and investors do not. Do I recognised they are unlikley to be 100% accurate, yes. But a P90 estimate is relatively assured. I trust BP's P90 estimate why wouldn't I trust Rio Tinto's? Reporting reserves by transparent public companies is not meaningless.

The main point is though the scale of the increase in reserves from the 2003 to 2005 figures simply because exploration and development took place.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat's "standard uranium", by that you mean low grade shit uranium,


Standard uranium refers to relatively high density ore that can be developed for a cost of $130 kg. The stuff listed as P90 reserves.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e've already seen scientists claim seawater and granite uranium is extractable, the same retards you trust to tell you how much "normal uranium" is in the ground


It is interesting you refer to scientists as 'retards'. I read an article on sea water extraction. Personally I am not an engineer so I can't comment on the technical or economic feasability of something like that but I do not presume to think they are 'retards', actually I am sure they are quite the opposite. In terms of resource estimates, they are done by trained geologists based on a science well over a hundred years old. Are they right 100% of the time, no. Are they 'retards' who always get it wrong certainly not. If that were the case, business news would be constantly full of mining and oil companies being sued by investors and prosecuted by governments.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')r uranium so far underground and in the desert it's barely EROEI positive if at all.


EROEI in nuclear is the point were opinion differ the most.

The study I linked was carried out by Melbourne University and was based on peer review it is the most neutral and objective study i have ever found. The was no connection or biase by the researchers on either side of the debate. They are very critical of a study often used by the opponents of nuclear energy to argue gainst it on the basis on EROEI of uranium quality.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). The difference is that Vattenfall actually measured their energy inputs whereas Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith employed various theoretical relationships between dollar costs and energy consumed. This paper also grossly over-estimates the energy cost of mining low-grade Ores and also that the efficiency of extraction of Uranium from reserves would fall dramatically at ore concentrations below 0.05%. Employing their calculations predicts that the energy cost of extracting the Olympic Dam mine's yearly production of 4600 tonnes of Uranium would require energy equivalent to almost 2 one-GigaWatt power plants running for a full year (2 GigaWat-years). You can follow this calculation here. This is larger than the entire electricity production of South Australia and an order of magnitude more than the measured energy inputs.

The Rossing mine has a lower Uranium concentration (0.03% vs 0.05% by weight) than Olympic Dam and the discrepancy is even larger in the case of Rossing. Here SLS predict Rossing should require 2.6 Giga-Watt-Years of energy for mining and milling. The total consumption of all forms of energy in the country of Namibia is equivalent to 1.5 GigaWatt-Years, much less than the prediction for the mine alone. Furthermore, yearly cost of supplying this energy is over 1 billion dollars, yet the value of the Uranium sold by Rossing was, until recently, less than 100 million dollars per year. Since Rossing reports it's yearly energy usage to be 0.03 GigaWatt-years, SLS overestimates the energy cost of the Rossing mine by a factor of 80.

The argument against EROEI just doesn't stack-up. This is without considering the 4th generation nuclear plants rather than light water reactors.

The people against nuclear are often irrational. Thousand of people are killed each year by coal power and many more by air pollution. Nuclear is far safer than coal. You said I am a nuclear fanatic. I am not. But i recognise the potential of nuclear to be maintained and expanded along with renewables to make up for some or the majority of the deficit of power from the decline of fossil fuels over the next 50 years.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby ANewHuman » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 20:49:08

Mkwin, slightly OT, do you have shares/investments in any company relating to nuclear power anywhere in the world?




$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')t is interesting you refer to scientists as 'retards'. I read an article on sea water extraction. Personally I am not an engineer so I can't comment on the technical or economic feasability of something like that but I do not presume to think they are 'retards', actually I am sure they are quite the opposite. In terms of resource estimates, they are done by trained geologists based on a science well over a hundred years old. Are they right 100% of the time, no. Are they 'retards' who always get it wrong certainly not. If that were the case, business news would be constantly full of mining and oil companies being sued by investors and prosecuted by governments.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he study I linked was carried out by Melbourne University and was based on peer review it is the most neutral and objective study i have ever found. The was no connection or biase by the researchers on either side of the debate. They are very critical of a study often used by the opponents of nuclear energy to argue gainst it on the basis on EROEI of uranium quality.


To say there is no connection or bias is quite a stretch. How do you know the guy running the lead on that paper or whoever approved it, wasn't a pro nuclear advocate?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Rossing mine has a lower Uranium concentration (0.03% vs 0.05% by weight) than Olympic Dam and the discrepancy is even larger in the case of Rossing. Here SLS predict Rossing should require 2.6 Giga-Watt-Years of energy for mining and milling. The total consumption of all forms of energy in the country of Namibia is equivalent to 1.5 GigaWatt-Years, much less than the prediction for the mine alone. Furthermore, yearly cost of supplying this energy is over 1 billion dollars, yet the value of the Uranium sold by Rossing was, until recently, less than 100 million dollars per year. Since Rossing reports it's yearly energy usage to be 0.03 GigaWatt-years, SLS overestimates the energy cost of the Rossing mine by a factor of 80.


Well you know what makes me wonder how stupid people are who write this kind of stuff? It's when you randomly take one "fact" of theirs and do a little searching.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/wa.html

It seems they produced 1.6GWy in 2005, and consumed 2.6GWy in 2005 - ELECTRICITY alone. Where does this magic 1.5GWy CONSUMPTION OF ALL ENERGY come from? 1990? I wonder how many other facts they got incorrect. It's hilarious how the 2.6GWy the SLS predict is actually how much they consumed, though I guess that's just a coincidence as I'm sure other parts of Namibia use electricity, but still.
Introducing the human evolution.
User avatar
ANewHuman
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby sch_peakoiler » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 21:02:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'Y')ou same i am biased due to lack of reasoning? I am basing my points on fact. It is fact that estimated reserves grew by 50% between 2004 and 2006. Why? Because it was profitable to look. Geologists estimate there could be 35 million tons of standard uranium extractable at a cost of $130.


Unfortunately i was not following this recent discussion. could you please repost the links to those new estimations of 35 million tons (just to not force me reverse engineer the topic diggin' for those links).

Maybe you have more information on uranium exploration in recent years? I find that the old data from the Red Book are just that - old.

Thanks.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
User avatar
sch_peakoiler
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Oil-Finder » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 21:08:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ANewHuman', '
')Well you know what makes me wonder how stupid people are who write this kind of stuff? It's when you randomly take one "fact" of theirs and do a little searching.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/wa.html

It seems they produced 1.6GWy in 2005, and consumed 2.6GWy in 2005 - ELECTRICITY alone. Where does this magic 1.5GWy CONSUMPTION OF ALL ENERGY come from? 1990? I wonder how many other facts they got incorrect. It's hilarious how the 2.6GWy the SLS predict is actually how much they consumed, though I guess that's just a coincidence as I'm sure other parts of Namibia use electricity, but still.

Um, Namibia is right next to South Africa. They probably import electricity from them.

In fact, lo and behold, we look at the CIA World Factbook entry for South Africa, and what do we find?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sf.html
^
Electricity - production: 228.3 billion kWh (2005)
Electricity - consumption: 210.7 billion kWh (2005)

That's an excess of 17.6 kWh. So, guess where Namibia gets its shortfall of electricity from?
User avatar
Oil-Finder
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 630
Joined: Tue 11 Dec 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Seattle
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby sch_peakoiler » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 21:16:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ANewHuman', '
')Well you know what makes me wonder how stupid people are who write this kind of stuff? It's when you randomly take one "fact" of theirs and do a little searching.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/wa.html

It seems they produced 1.6GWy in 2005, and consumed 2.6GWy in 2005 - ELECTRICITY alone. Where does this magic 1.5GWy CONSUMPTION OF ALL ENERGY come from? 1990? I wonder how many other facts they got incorrect. It's hilarious how the 2.6GWy the SLS predict is actually how much they consumed, though I guess that's just a coincidence as I'm sure other parts of Namibia use electricity, but still.



I did not mean to interfere, but could you please be more specific on which number you mean?
The link you provided has this number as Namibian consumption.
2.863 billion kWh (2005)

billion KWh are not GWy. in fact
1 billion KWh = 3600 TJ
2.8 billion Kwh = 10 080 TJ

1 GWy = 60*60*24*365* GJ = 31536000 GJ = 31536 TJ.
Actually this is theoretical, in practice you normally count 1GWy = 90% of that (because power plants do not run 24*7 all the time) but this does not matter here.

I do think you got the numbers wrong. if you have another number for Namibia in mind - please present it.

Indeed, it seems the critic of SLS supplied the correct number : 1.5GWy = 45000 TJ seems to look like the TOTAL ENERGY consumed iin Namibia, as opposed to 10 000 TJ = 0,3 GWy of electricity consumption.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
User avatar
sch_peakoiler
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby WatchfulEye » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 21:52:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ANewHuman', '
')It seems they produced 1.6GWy in 2005, and consumed 2.6GWy in 2005 - ELECTRICITY alone. Where does this magic 1.5GWy CONSUMPTION OF ALL ENERGY come from? 1990? I wonder how many other facts they got incorrect. It's hilarious how the 2.6GWy the SLS predict is actually how much they consumed, though I guess that's just a coincidence as I'm sure other parts of Namibia use electricity, but still.


Dezakin's figures are correct.
The problem is the confusing units: 1 Gigawatt-year (GWy) = 8.7 billion kWh.

The correct conversion for Namibia's 2005 electricity consumption is 0.2 GWy
User avatar
WatchfulEye
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 07 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Thu 03 Jan 2008, 22:05:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t seems they produced 1.6GWy in 2005, and consumed 2.6GWy in 2005 - ELECTRICITY alone. Where does this magic 1.5GWy CONSUMPTION OF ALL ENERGY come from? 1990? I wonder how many other facts they got incorrect.


It seems the numbers are possibly accurate but I am not sure how the conversion works. The point was to illustrate the massive overestimate of the SLS study. The monetary illustration also makes the point more simply, i.e. the value of the goods produced are $100 million and the cost of the energy would have been 1 billion dollars, far higher than the total cost of the entire revenue generated by the mine. The Australian example also makes the same point.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o say there is no connection or bias is quite a stretch. How do you know the guy running the lead on that paper or whoever approved it, wasn't a pro nuclear advocate?


Well they are academics and the authors of the study they have criticized have attempted to rebut their findings, which they have answered. You can't. however, be 100% sure. But, as I said, it is the most objective study I have seen. I.e. it was not written by an eco-warrior with no scientific or academic background and it was not written by the nuclear industry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')kwin, slightly OT, do you have shares/investments in any company relating to nuclear power anywhere in the world?


No, mainly focused on oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nfortunately I was not following this recent discussion. could you please repost the links to those new estimations of 35 million tons (just to not force me reverse engineer the topic diggin' for those links).

Maybe you have more information on uranium exploration in recent years? I find that the old data from the Red Book are just that - old.


The 35 million figure is the probable (P50) figure from the Redbook 2005 up from 10 million in 2003. They are old and do not reflect the exploration and development since then. The next Redbook should be out soon.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby TonyPrep » Fri 04 Jan 2008, 04:39:55

From just over a year ago:Energy Watch Group warns: Depleting uranium reserves dash hopes for atomic energy supply.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron