Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.
by sch_peakoiler » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 13:37:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')In place at mines. Come on, your arguing about production capacity that has atrophied over the past several decades.
I do not argue at all. I try to find some numbers amidst pro nuclear slogans like "uranium is plentiful", "we have a 1E+20 years of assured supply" and so on.
till now I found production forecasts
2007 -51000 ton
2008 - 61000 ton.
Is there any place to check the 2007 production?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Now you're just throwing words around. Cigar Lake production is scheduled to start in 2011.
Never tell facts you are unsure of, Dezakin, in the world of Internet this can be dangerous.
because the person you told this might google things
http://the-slow-lane.blogspot.com/2006/ ... -lake.html"Production startup was previously planned for early 2008."
2011 say you??? well well well. This is exactly what I do not like about pro-nuclear things.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Look, even though we're well capable of expanding nuclear power capacity 10% a year, thats not gonna happen.
I am more interested in WNA use cases. Growth 1-2% per year, what happens in 2008-2015.
forget 10% growth. at first, the production from mines must grow 50%. This is painted very optimistic by the industry but the paint just does not hold.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
-
sch_peakoiler
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
-
by sch_peakoiler » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 13:42:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')3. Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
Well gee we have an 85 page thread all around you disputing this factoid on many levels.
well. first things first. Before we start on 2010, lets first find out how much uranium was produced from mines in 2007. And compare that to the 51000 forecast. I was not able to find this number.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
-
sch_peakoiler
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
-
by threadbear » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 13:47:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')f nuclear generation provides energy for heat and transport, much more oil will be freed up for the airlines.
Here in the UK any new nuclear build would first have to go towards replacing the current nuclear fleet before anything else. By the time any new power stations are built oil and gas will have already significantly declined so it won't be freeing up anything.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I just get a sense that big-nuclear is going to jerk us around, in a propaganda battle, using global warming as the compelling reason to build more plants. They'll play up diminishing oil, to the point of hysterics, too, quite likely.
No doubt. But frankly I don't think GW and PO can be over hyped at this point - whether nuclear is a solution is another matter. In principle I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but it requires complete systems analysis to determine its viability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') The truth is out there, but it's going to be increasingly difficult to differentiate between hype and hope, when it comes to claims of "clean energy" by nuclear. This issue is going to gain tremendous traction after the US elections in 2008. Yanks will need some kind of national unifying theme and massive make work projects, after the abuse they've taken at the hands of the neo-cons.
I suspect events will be leading politics by then. The time of the neo-cons creating their own reality will nothing but a brief sad monent of history.
You are predicating many of your assumptions on the idea that oil will run out very soon. Why wouldn't the nuclear industry get behind the Peak Oil theory in a big way?I don't doubt the sincerity of just about everyone on this particular site, but do anticipate the idea of peak to be used as a propaganda vehicle, upon which the nuke industry will ride.
We are heading for an economic downturn, likely a very severe, wrenching and global one. This should extend the life of oil a few more years. It will buy a little more time. I'm wary of the source of much of the "indisputable fact" about the natural world and climate that will gusher forth from the media, both mainstream and alternative.
I believe in Peak Oil theory and man-made carbon induced GW theory, but know they can be spun for hysterical effect that will benefit nuclear in a big way.
-
threadbear
- Expert
-
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
-
by Starvid » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 14:17:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he best work on the subject is MacGregor and Deffeyes (yes, the grand old man of the PO movement), "World Uranium resources" Scientific American, Vol 242, No 1, January 1980.
1980 is a bit old. Is there anything more recent?
Also, if the entire would switched to nuclear for 100% of it's electrical needs, do you see that as being feasible?
I don't think there is anything more recent. There just hasn't been any need for one.
We can't be 100 % nuclear because of grid technical issues. France is 80 % nuclear, but that requires using the flexibility of the grids of neighbouring countries and also quite a bit of fiddling with the output of the reactors, something which represents a suboptimal economic mode of operation, as the fixed costs of nuclear are so very high and the non fixed costs are so very low (=you want to run full blast 24/7 for best economics). Still, France has among the cheapest power in Europe, considerably so compared to its neighbours.
A reasonable average world level might be 50-70 % nuclear (the current level is 15 %). A developed country can go from 0 % nuclear to 50-70 % in 10-15 years.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 16:41:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')'ve already acknowledged that these sources can be variable, but they are effectively infinitely long lived. It's not the plants that I'm asking give the guarantee but the supplier of the fuel source.
But if renewable power plants are not required to give a guarantee why are you requiring a guarantee of nuclear, fuel source or otherwise?
I'm not asking the generator to give the guarantee, whether it is solar, wind or nuclear. That is consistent. I'm asking the supplier of the fuel source to give the guarantee that the source will be available for the life of the generating unit (allowing for occasional interruptions, as it would be impossible to give a 100% guarantee for any source; I'd be looking for long term certainty of supply, not short term variability).
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 16:57:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he only way to do that [supply guarantee] would be if the Uranium mines owned specific power plants or vice versa. In the dynamic market of competition we have now anyone can buy from almost any supplier and as a result competiton drives the price down when supplies are high and up when supplies are low. If supplies are locked into specific users you remove the broad price signals from the market and each user has to sub specialize in two different industries, mining and using.
What you are asking for is the equivelant of a big auto maker like Toyota also owning the iron mines and petroleum wells that produce the steel and plastic component raw materials for their cars.
What I'm asking for is that resources ploughed into a vital service for our societies, providing energy, does not go on electricity generation that cannot be guaranteed for the long term. If that sort of guarantee is impossible but we go ahead, anyway, we are simply keeping our fingers crossed that the gamble pays off.
If there really is no way to guarantee the fuel source, then we shouldn't use that fuel source.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 17:25:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'W')e also know that accessing Wind or Wave or Solar requires a large energy investment up front, to build the turbines or arrays. By some estimates, and I don't have a link handy, it takes about the same quantity of concrete to errect similer levels of wind turbine generating capacity as it does for a 1 Gwe fission power plant. If that is the case should we build enough wind turbines to provide intermittent power while filleting flocks of birds or one constant baseload source of fission power that produces in its entire lifetime of 60 years 1200 tons of high level waste that would occupy a few acre's of dessert in dry storage containers?
In the latter case, it is assumption that it will be able to provide that baseload power for 60 years. In the former case, are you saying that wind farms threaten the extinction of any bird species? If so, we need better designs, but the wind source will be guaranteed for 60 years and more.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')ake a look at the hundreds of abandoned industrial sites in the USA and compare it to decomissioned fission facilities. Even the government owned facilities in Oak Ridge and Hanford are better than many of the industrial sites abandoned around the country.
That's great but I don't know what it has to do with the discussion at hand.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
1.The world's endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
Patently false, nobody who has studied resources for 15 minutes would beleive this statement.
Sorry, I only studied if for 14 minutes but I think David Fleming has studied it for a lot longer than 15 minutes. I don't think your sort of comment is helpful except to illustrate that there is a difference of opinion, which is what we all know to be true.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
2. It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
A) if it is essential why are they opposing permanent facilities at every turn and B) modern temporary dry storage casks could absorb a direct impact from a wide body jumbo jet ala 9/11 or a hit with an shoulder fired anti-tank type armor peircing weapon.
There are many reasons why a particular storage facility might be opposed. Are you saying that David Fleming has opposed all such storage facilities on spurious grounds, and has been successful in every case?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')3. Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
Well gee we have an 85 page thread all around you disputing this factoid on many levels.
Are you saying that the uranium supply situation is guaranteed, or that you, and others, believe it is guaranteed? I'm not totally against nuclear power, if society can hold together, and was a firm supporter before I learned of resource depletion. I'm saying that there are certainly dissenting voices (and not just of lay people), whilst supply is certainly not proven.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')4. The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry's output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
Not only false, but baseless on the face of it. How much energy is it suppossed to take to haul waste to the desert and bury it anyhow?
Well, the base of the argument is laid out later in the document. I can't answer the last question personally but the document suggests about a quarter of the total energy produced in the lifetime of the plant would have to go to decommisioning and in dealing with the waste long term. No doubt you disagree.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')5. Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
Come again? France manages to produce fuel quite efficiently using fission powered electricity to run the manufacturing plants and 1970's era gasseous diffusion enrichment plants. The new American Centerfuge plant being built in Piketon, Ohio uses just 5% of the electricity per SWU as the Gasseous Diffusion plant in Paducah, KY it is being built to replace. So once again we have a patently false claim.
The details are in the document. I assume that you completely disagree.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '7'). An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
Sounds lovely, why doesn't this group seek funds for an independent unbiased audit instead of making up facts as they go along?
It suggests an independent audit. Do you disagree? The study lays out some opinions but doesn't state that they must be correct, instead suggesting an independent audit. Sounds reasonable.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')8. There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
I support the first three suggestions in point 8, I don't beleive the last point is acheivable without some sort of fascist controlling state being implemented and I oppose that wholeheartedly.[/quote]And yet the last one may be the only fair way of managing the downslope. I would guess that you think market forces will take care of it and that those who can't afford the energy they want or need should simply do without?
In any case, this gets us away from the main point of this discussion, uranium supply, and my suggestion about guaranteed supply of the fuel source.
Last edited by
TonyPrep on Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:51:08, edited 1 time in total.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 17:51:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')ony, renewables are part of the long-term solution but they cannot possibly be relied upon to provide the only element. Not only do we have to replace the the energy lost from declining oil but also, within a couple of decades, gas.
Well, we don't have to replace that energy, we could, instead, reduce our total energy use.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'P')eak oil is going to cause enough economic problems by itself, the last thing we need is a wider energy problem due the lack of foresight.
What lack of foresight? This little group are arguing some of the points here and I'm sure the discussion is taking place elsewhere, also. The one thing we know for certain is that finite energy sources will deplete. I still cling to the hope that peak oil will make people realise the finite nature of our planet and that, ultimately, we'll have to do things differently. I don't see why we should try to delay that realisation, even if it were possible to do so.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '
')It is clear uranium supplies are suffcient in the medium to long term. The two reports you quoted are based on the discredited SLS study. This is without considering 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plants. The plants being built today are far more fuel effcient and standardised than the ones currently in operation. The UK reactors are generation 1 based on designs 50 years old!
I'm not so sure the study is discredited (and although both reports draw on that study, one does so much more than the other). I'm reminded of the supposed discreditation of the hockey stick, in the global warming debate. I also accepted that situation but later discovered that the hockey stick had been validated by later research and accepted by at least one of the main science organisations in the US. So, I don't think it's clear that uranium supplies are sufficient for the medium or long term, especially if the nuclear build up that many are proposing goes ahead.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'R')elying solely on largely experimental and costly renewables would be stupidity beyond belief.
And yet, at some stage, humans will have to be that stupid since renewable energy sources are the only long term reliable source we have.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by mkwin » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 19:03:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, we do not have to replace that energy, we could, instead, reduce our total energy use.
That will be part of the drive yes but it will take decades before new building regulations bring more efficient buildings and before PHEV and EV make an impact. If you think that people are going to accept a worse standard of living your wrong. Coal plants will be going up faster than you can say suicide when the reality of peak oil and a wider energy problem begins to develop.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am not so sure the study is discredited (and although both reports draw on that study, one does so much more than the other). I'm reminded of the supposed discreditation of the hockey stick, in the global warming debate. I also accepted that situation but later discovered that the hockey stick had been validated by later research and accepted by at least one of the main science organisations in the US. So, I don't think it's clear that uranium supplies are sufficient for the medium or long term, especially if the nuclear build up that many are proposing goes ahead.
Read the discussion on the previous two pages Tony. SLS overestimate the energy cost of extracting uranium by a vast order of magnitude let alone other elements of the nuclear cycle.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd yet, at some stage, humans will have to be that stupid since renewable energy sources are the only long term reliable source we have.
How can you say this? The 4th generation nuclear plants are being designed to use 1/30th of the fuel as 2nd generation plants or thorium and waste stockpiles. What about Nuclear fusion?
When the 2007 redbook on uranium comes out documenting another massive rise in proven and probable uranium reserves this uranium debate will be over. Given the exploration and development budgets since 2005 I would not be surprised if P90 goes to 6+ million tons plus and P50 goes to 50 million tons.
The current situation with uranium reserves is similar to the oil industry in the 1930's, very little exploration had been done because demand was not yet there. You are like someone in the 1930's talking about the impending shortage of oil and there were people doing this.
-
mkwin
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
-
by TonyPrep » Sun 06 Jan 2008, 23:48:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')f you think that people are going to accept a worse standard of living your wrong. Coal plants will be going up faster than you can say suicide when the reality of peak oil and a wider energy problem begins to develop.
I don't think people will readily accept a worse standard of living, if it means a lower quality of life. The question is can we engineer a society where quality improves even as living standards (which are usually measured in terms of wealth) decline?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd yet, at some stage, humans will have to be that stupid since renewable energy sources are the only long term reliable source we have.
How can you say this? The 4th generation nuclear plants are being designed to use 1/30th of the fuel as 2nd generation plants or thorium and waste stockpiles. What about Nuclear fusion?
Well, fusion may be the technology that changes things but it always seems to be 40 years away. The generation IV projects (which brings together a number of countries) was started in 200 and still doesn't even have a design for a demonstration plant. If we get there, then we may have energy for a long time, but energy is now only one of our problems. But even these energy solutions are, so far, still dreams, not realities.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'Y')ou are like someone in the 1930's talking about the impending shortage of oil and there were people doing this.
No, I'm like someone who recognises the earth's limits.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by TonyPrep » Mon 07 Jan 2008, 00:04:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'Y')ou are like someone in the 1930's talking about the impending shortage of oil and there were people doing this.
You know, if such voices were heeded then (or in the 50s or in the 70s), we might have taken a different course. Instead, we have a huge global economy and population striving for ever more wealth and we have former peak oil deniers now not even denying that peak will occur but, instead concentrating on trying to calculate the total oil endowment, in order to have us believe that, therefore, we have oil for x decades (at current levels of consumption). If the red book is to be believable, I hope it shows independently audited numbers and looks at potential growth rates for nuclear, at what rates we can expect uranium to be recovered and processed, and what the environmental impacts are likely to be.
It seems to me that we are headed down exactly the same route that we chose with fossil fuels. The trouble is that energy is not the only problem we face, so we will probably never reach the point that we have with fossil fuels.
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by Dezakin » Mon 07 Jan 2008, 20:29:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')In place at mines. Come on, your arguing about production capacity that has atrophied over the past several decades.
I do not argue at all. I try to find some numbers amidst pro nuclear slogans like "uranium is plentiful", "we have a 1E+20 years of assured supply" and so on.
till now I found production forecasts
2007 -51000 ton
2008 - 61000 ton.
You're talking about two entirely different things, long term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.
We have over 1 million tons of depleted uranium stockpiles and surplus enrichment capacity, and strong price signals for opening new mines and expanding surplus capacity. Are you suggesting this just isn't going to happen? Do you really believe thats likely?
-
Dezakin
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by TonyPrep » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 05:54:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', 'l')ong term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.
Any long term period? Well the viability may be assured but I don't think the rate or amount is, at least not yet. Any long term period would include 50 years, 100 years, 200 years, ...
-
TonyPrep
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
-
by sch_peakoiler » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 07:22:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're talking about two entirely different things, long term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.
neverending short term problems become long term.
Assured supplies are a forecast of the industry. And facing the many failed forecasts i started to pay attention to what is being said.
are the any production numbers available for 2007 to check up that forecast? For if short term forecasts all fail, who will believe a long term assumption?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We have over 1 million tons of depleted uranium stockpiles and surplus enrichment capacity
how many SWUs exactly out of 50 million we have got are surplus?
please link a document or a calculation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
'), and strong price signals for opening new mines and expanding surplus capacity. Are you suggesting this just isn't going to happen? Do you really believe thats likely?
I am questioning the ability to forecast the transition from signals to action. Mind the 2007 production numbers. are they available?
if short term forecasts fail for a timeperiod long enough they also fail long term.
that has become my opinion after looking some numbers up for myself.
look, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?
There is no knowledge that is not power.
-
sch_peakoiler
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 555
- Joined: Sun 15 Jan 2006, 04:00:00
-
by Tanada » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 09:22:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '
')are the any production numbers available for 2007 to check up that forecast? For if short term forecasts all fail, who will believe a long term assumption?
The new Red Book should be out in June 08, until then there might be some preliminary reporting, but nothing with garunteed substance.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')We have over 1 million tons of depleted uranium stockpiles and surplus enrichment capacity
how many SWUs exactly out of 50 million we have got are surplus?
please link a document or a calculation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
'), and strong price signals for opening new mines and expanding surplus capacity. Are you suggesting this just isn't going to happen? Do you really believe thats likely?
I am questioning the ability to forecast the transition from signals to action. Mind the 2007 production numbers. are they available?
if short term forecasts fail for a timeperiod long enough they also fail long term.
that has become my opinion after looking some numbers up for myself.
look, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?
Until the new Red Book comes out in June of this year everyone is operating on past figures plus projections.
As for the excess capacity in SWU, unless the Russian's have suddenly changed policy they have some 10-12 million SWU in excess to what they are using and the USA plant in Paducah, KY is running at about 6 million SWU below capacity. The reason the USA plant is running at the low end is pure economics, it is a gas diffusion plant and costs 20 times as much in terms of electricity consumption to operate than a modern centerfuge plant does. Why run full out when there is not the demand for that more expensive SWU? The Russian facilities are modern centerfuge style plants and operate at much lower costs, the excess there comes from being in a closed market where demand is capped, not capacity. The Russians do make use of a lot of their capacity for tails upgrading because they can sell natural uranium equivelent on the world market.
Its complicated but something like this. Russia can only sell X amount of reactor grade enriched Uranium to the world market. Once they have sold X for the year in contract terms they have a huge remaining capacity of SWU sitting idle. By contracting to take in European depleted tails and upgrade them to natural uranium equivelent they do three things, they produce salable natural uranium equivelent, they keep their plants operating, workers paid, maintenence taken care of ect ect, and they take in large quantities of tails that they take permanent custody of.
By taking in partially depleated tails and fully depleating them over and above their contract requirements with the Europeans they profit from the excess natural uranium equivelent material. The Europeans are releived of meeting expensive western disposal requirements for their own tails so in their eyes they also come out ahead.
In the process they add natural uranium equivelent to the world market as replacement for fresh natural uranium.
$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.
-
Tanada
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
-
by Starvid » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 12:27:52
The argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
-
by Dezakin » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 12:51:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sch_peakoiler', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')You're talking about two entirely different things, long term viability of the resource base, which I think we can agree is assured for any long term period, and short term supply.
neverending short term problems become long term.
Assured supplies are a forecast of the industry. And facing the many failed forecasts i started to pay attention to what is being said.
You're looking in hindsight at a huge price collapse in uranium following the atrophy of new nuclear builds coupled with huge stockpiles of enriched uranium These aren't neverending short term problems except in the handbook of simple rhetoric.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'l')ook, what i want is to just see the exact numbers. When somebody says: "We can mine whatever uranium we need from any ore you like", and then I see the numbers on existing *large* mines struggling to cough up just 300 ton more out of lean ores - what do you think I should believe then?
It doesn't matter. It looks like you've made up your mind what you want to believe. Whenever projected numbers are offered, you reject them as incorporeal paper proejections, and then demand real data. Cigar Lake is scheduled production thousands of tons in 2011, but somehow that isn't going to happen I suppose. To say nothing of the routine capacity upgrades at the numerous smaller mines around the world.
-
Dezakin
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by EnergyUnlimited » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 13:32:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he argument that we shouldn't build reactors now because we can't be sure of long term fuel supply is wrong on so many levels, but even if it was correct, it wouldn't matter as ordinary bog standard reactors can be converted to thorium breeders without much problems.
But in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.
Again, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.
-
EnergyUnlimited
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 7537
- Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
-
by Dezakin » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 13:54:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut in such situation you should also build reprocessing infrastructure, not only reactors.
If thorium cycle is to be used (and IMO it is about the only realistic option if one wants to ensure long term future of nuclear industry), then we must develop reprocessing infrastructure as well.
Reprocessing infrastructure is a silly, expensive waste of time given the price of uranium today. If we're going to go that route, we might as well just build molten salt reactors which dont require offsite infrastructure as the reprocessing is done online.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.
No it doesn't. The thorium cycle breeds U233, and U233 is allways contaminated with U232 which has strong gamma emitters in the decay chain. While U233 is good for weaponization from a neutronic perspective, the gammas make such a weapon undeployable because of the handling issues around it. If you have the infrastructure to do this, you'll much more likely just rationalize having enrichment infrastructure for using U235 which doesn't have the problem of lots of gamma radiation.
-
Dezakin
- Heavy Crude
-
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
-
by EnergyUnlimited » Tue 08 Jan 2008, 14:38:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, wide use of thorium cycle will guarantee proliferation of atomic weapons, so proponents must accept this.
No it doesn't. The thorium cycle breeds U233, and U233 is allways contaminated with U232 which has strong gamma emitters in the decay chain. While U233 is good for weaponization from a neutronic perspective, the gammas make such a weapon undeployable because of the handling issues around it. If you have the infrastructure to do this, you'll much more likely just rationalize having enrichment infrastructure for using U235 which doesn't have the problem of lots of gamma radiation.
1. U232 is not formed or only formed in irrelevant amounts, if your reactor is working in strictly thermal regime.
2. Due to short life of U232 it is enough to leave recovered U233 for few hundred years in storage, and your material will
self-enrich itself to weapon grade without doing anything.
-
EnergyUnlimited
- Light Sweet Crude
-
- Posts: 7537
- Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
-
Return to Energy Technology
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
