How long can Uranium last for nuclear power ? 5 billion years at double...

Next Big Future ^ | August 15, 2008 | Brian Wang

[decimon]

Breeder reactors: A renewable energy source by Bernard L. Cohen, American Journal of Physics, 1983 (H/T Crowlspace Uranium can last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year from the oceans [with breeder reactors this would be double current world electricity usage]. This estimate does not include using Thorium which is more common in the earth's crust than Uranium.

< >

Currently nuclear reactors use about 100 to 200 tons of uranium every year. 10,000 to 20,000 kg of uranium per billion kWh. 200 to 400 times more uranium than the french msr design uses. The MSR can generate 1000 times less uranium and plutonium waste and everything else that is left over has a halflife of less than 50 years.

< >

[decimon]

This and its links have good info. We need to change our regulations to allow breeder reactors. I think we have such regulations.

[mountn man]

Fuel For Nuclear Reactors Running Low: Women Children And Minorities Affected Most.

[DarkWaters]

About 2 years ago the estimate for extracting uranium from seawater was about $200 per pound. Probably a little up from there, but you can definitely get the Uranium you need if we where to build a number of nuclear plants as we should. To be honest we will probably have to use this method along with mining in order to supply the current power plants now given that uranium stockpiles are dwindling in the next 5 years or so.

[mountn man]

Oh Yeah,

BUSH'S FAULT.

[decimon]

To be honest we will probably have to use this method along with mining in order to supply the current power plants now given that uranium stockpiles are dwindling in the next 5 years or so.

If there's a worldwide rush to nuclear power generation then uranium use will multiply and uranium will likely become like oil. OTOH, it looks like the more plentiful thorium is becoming a viable alternative.

One thing I don't like about McCain's statements on this matter is that his plan sounds too much a government plan. I'd prefer government's role to be in reducing what government barriers are in the way of private industry building nuke plants based on their best judgment.

[decimon]

BUSH'S FAULT.

Did you know that the Bush's are killing children with radium glow sticks? Neither do I but I feel like starting a vile rumor.

[G Larry]

The envirowhackos who don’t want American energy independence, have succeeded in destroying our key plutonium production resources.
These “earthfirst” idiots won’t be content until World population is below 1 Billion and we’ve learned to live off a dirt diet.

[DarkWaters]

I'd prefer government's role to be in reducing what government barriers are in the way of private industry building nuke plants based on their best judgment.

I certainly do agree with you on that. Government has micro managed our energy policy into the ground as it is. But with all the 'Green' movements out there I don't see any reduction in regs until there is a full blow crisis. Unfortunately, McCain has too much socialism in his blood for my taste and so will many of the people he picks to be around him. Obama is an outright Marxist, which means things will be even worse. The status quo of do nothing or trying to make things worse will prevail until people have had enough pain and of course we have some genuine intelligent leadership surface.

[mountn man]

BUSH'S FAULT.

Did you know that the Bush's are killing children with radium glow sticks? Neither do I but I feel like starting a vile rumor.

Did you know that the San Andreas Fault is officially being renamed Bush's Fault?

In fact, I think I heard that there is a worldwide effort to change the names of all fault lines.

The New Madrid Fault is to be renamed Also Bush's Fault.

The earthquake that caused the tsunami in the Indian Ocean is being named The Really Bush's Fault.

The North Baikal Fault Fault in Russia is being renamed Always Bush's Fault.

The Dead Sea Transform Fault is now All Bush's Fault.

[decimon]

A fault in the Bush is worth two in the Gore. Something like that.

[wolf78]

This and its links have good info. We need to change our regulations to allow breeder reactors. I think we have such regulations.

Breeders have been proven to work, however they are more difficult to operate than conventional reactors, which drives up prices. Also there's all the R&D necessary to bring them from an experimental prototype state to full commercial deployment. In the end it all boils down to economics: We will not run out of energy, but making fissible material last longer costs. Maybe windmills combinded with hydrogen fuel cells (fusion reactors, solar power, yadda, yadda, yadda..) one day will beat breeder reactors costwise and make them obsolete. In any case the market should decide.

[thackney]

About 2 years ago the estimate for extracting uranium from seawater was about $200 per pound. Probably a little up from there, but you can definitely get the Uranium you need if we where to build a number of nuclear plants as we should.

Weighted-Average Price of U.S. and Foreign-Origin Uranium Purchased by Owners and Operators of U.S. Civilian Nuclear Power Reactors, 1994-2007 Deliveries

Uranium Marketing Annual Report
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/umar.html

[DarkWaters]

As stockpiles dwindle and usage increases as well, the price will eventually reach that amount possibly greater if we let the stockpiles dwindle down too low. Currently U8O8 is going for $64.50, and in December of 2007 it was above $90 for about a month. While the chart above may be the average for previous years, the trend is up mid to long term. Also notice from the website which your chart comes from, the amount coming from foreign suppliers, US traders, and US civil for 2007 are down yet prices show a nice spike in the chart above. It’s also important to note that this is for US owner/operators of civil nuclear reactors as well. So does this mean more and more supply is going else where do to growth in the nuclear power around the world and/or other reluctant to sell Uranium at these prices? Could also be just a blip in the data for 2007. We will have to see what 2008 and eventually 2009 look like

[SierraSkyHook]

I noted that Google is avoiding nuclear power (due to security concerns) despite its use throughout the industrialized world. Fox News reported earlier this month that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will consider the Energy Department’s application for nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. What has not been reported is that this problem was created by Jimmy Carter in 1977 when he outlawed the recycling of nuclear fuel. Recycling reduces tons of spent fuel into more energy and leaves only a few pounds of waste that becomes harmless after 30 years or so. 98% of the “nuclear waste” is actually very usable fuel and other useful elements. All of the other nuclear power users (France, Japan, etc.) recycle their fuel and have no disposal problems. If we recycled nuclear fuel, we wouldn’t need Yucca Mountain!

I worked at Westinghouse Nuclear Energy Systems in the '70s and we had an optional design on our reactors for Plutonium Recycling. It was being widely adopted until Carter squelched it. ...more at airburst.blogspot.com/

[wideminded]

All of the other nuclear power users (France, Japan, etc.) recycle their fuel and have no disposal problems.

According to this article Japan, Canada, Sweden, and Germany all have plans for long term deep repositories for nuclear waste.

This article says that France is effectively doing the same thing but they sell the idea to the public with the concept that the waste will be only be stored until such time in the future as a better way is found to deal with it.

So apparently the nuclear waste storage problem is not just Jimmy Carter's fault.

[wideminded]

"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing." - link

Apparently the volume of nuclear waste can be greatly reduced through reprocessing, but there are still some long-lived isotopes which have no practical use at this time.