We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

It would bear some resemblance if nuclear energy wasn’t being choked off politically.

Source, please.

The math. Your math.

My math? I did no math saying nuclear would be prosperous if only it wasn't choked off politically.

I keep on hearing that claim. Can you give me a source that documents this claim is true?

 

[Merle]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.
...

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

The 700 year figure was for uranium that was already known to be concentrated enough for profitable extraction; it wasn't for dispersed uranium.

"Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use" (https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/energy-text/energy-murphy.html p258) We don't know how much more we will find that is economical to process, but we have been looking hard, and not finding much.

But people here are talking about using it for most of our electric power generation, or even most of our total power generation. Then that supply would go much quicker.

 

[Merle]

I have driven past the site on the way to the shore. Dontt know about today the cooling towers were there for a long time. A bond was approved for the nuclear plant and the cost of electricity dropped below where it was profitable to finish building it.

Energy Northwest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Energy Northwest (formerly Washington Public Power Supply System) is a public power joint operating agency in the northwest United States, formed 67 years ago in 1957 by Washington state law to produce at-cost power for Northwest utilities. Headquartered in the Tri-Cities at Richland, Washington, the WPPSS became commonly (and derisively) known as "Whoops!",[1][2] due to over-commitment to nuclear power in the 1970s which brought about financial collapse and the second largest municipal bond default in U.S. history.[3] WPPSS was renamed Energy Northwest in November 1998, and agency membership includes 28 public power utilities, including 23 of the state's 29 public utility districts.

Whoops!

 

[Merle]

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

Yes.

Uranium can be economically extracted from the oceans at around the peak spot price seen in 2007; And it is replenished by natural processes faster than we could ever expect to use it (see the graph above).

Now you're talking! That's interesting. I don't know the date on your link, but here is another co-authored by the lead author of your study in 2015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988315000328.

Here it says we could get uranium out of the ocean at 4 to 10 times the current cost, which is not bad at all if we really needed it. Let's hope it works on a commercial scale.

Still, the problem is that, even with the current reserves that can be mined at a lower cost, investors still don't see building nuclear power plants as a good investment. And this is even though they surely must know that anybody who owns an array of power plants that don't need fossil fuels should have a valuable asset 30 years from now. In spite of that, investors just aren't finding nuclear worthwhile.

 

[Elixir]

investors still don't see building nuclear power plants as a good investment

The only thing that the right wing shills for big oil have tarred worse than Hillary Clinton is Nuclear Energy.
They think it's a bad investment because it IS a bad investment, due to the campaign to make it a bad investment.
If people knew how many more people died - and still do - from coal mining and its proximity than from nuclear power generation, politicos would be out there ranting like Trump 2016 promising the return of coal mining, but promising nuclear reactors for everyone.

 

[steve_bank]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.
...

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

The 700 year figure was for uranium that was already known to be concentrated enough for profitable extraction; it wasn't for dispersed uranium.

"Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use" (https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/energy-text/energy-murphy.html p258) We don't know how much more we will find that is economical to process, but we have been looking hard, and not finding much.

But people here are talking about using it for most of our electric power generation, or even most of our total power generation. Then that supply would go much quicker.

I generally don't go by net references without looking at the context and the source. There is misreading pro and anti nuke disinformation.

I'd look at the US Dept Of Energy estimates.

U.S. Uranium Reserves Estimates - Energy Information Administration

www.eia.gov

At the end of 2008, U.S. uranium reserves totaled 1,227 million pounds of U3O8 at a maximum forward cost (MFC) of up to $100 per pound U3O8 (Table 1). At up to $50 per pound U3O8, estimated reserves were 539 million pounds of U3O8. Based on average 1999-2008 consumption levels (uranium in fuel assemblies loaded into nuclear reactors), uranium reserves available at up to $100 per pound of U3O8 represented approximately 23 years worth of demand, while uranium reserves at up to $50 per pound of U3O8 represented about 10 years worth of demand. Domestic U.S. uranium production, however, supplies only about 10 percent, on average, of U.S. requirements for nuclear fuel, so the effective years’ supply of domestic uranium reserves is actually much higher, under current market conditions.

In 2008, Wyoming led the Nation in total uranium reserves, in both the $50 and $100 per pound U3O8 categories, with New Mexico second. Taken together, these two States constituted about two-thirds of the estimated reserves in the country available at up to $100 per pound U3O8, and three-quarters of the reserves available at less than $50 per pound U3O8. By mining method, uranium reserves in underground mines constituted just under half of the available product at up to $100 per pound U3O8 (Table 2). At up to $50 per pound U3O8, however, uranium available through in-situ leaching (ISL) was about 40 percent of total reserves, somewhat higher than uranium in underground mines in that cost category. ISL is the dominant mining method for U.S. production today. See Table 3 for more estimates from 1993 through 2003 and 2008.

Find joules/kg of refined uranium fuel ready for a reactor. Lookup the estimates for total energy production in the US per year in recent years. Look up efficiencies for nuke plants.


Factor in the efficiency loss and come up with a kilograms of refined uranium fuel per year t meet demand.

You also have to factor in the efficiency of the refining process. How many kg of uranium ore per kg of refined uranium fuel.

Work backwards to estimate how long the uranium reserves would last.

Uranium Supplies: Supply of Uranium - World Nuclear Association

Uranium is ubiquitous on the Earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.

world-nuclear.org

How long will the world's uranium supplies last?

Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer

www.scientificamerican.com

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

My 80s era text put the global reserves at 700 years. Now it is less, obviously with increased demand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

Seeing as you like visuals rather than text:

View attachment 45415

Where is he getting that 76,000,000 figure from? It's in the ballpark but I'm not finding that exact value.

However, that chart doesn't go far enough. 269,000,000 MJ/kg for lithium deutride.

The stated value of 76'000'000 MJ (76 Terajoules) per kg Uranium corresponds roughly to the energy released by the fission of U-235 nuclei of 202.5 MeV or 3.24·10-17 MJ per nucleus [[1]]. One kilogram of pure U-235 would release about 83 Terajoules. In a real nuclear power plant more energy is generated due to breeder reactions, so that per kg U-235 about 128 TJ are produced. One kilogram of natural uranium has about 0.71% U-235 and therefore the potential to produce about 910'000 MJ in a usual nuclear power plant. A fuel rod as used in a nuclear power plant (enriched to 3.5% U-235) has the potential to produce about 4.5 TJ

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale

Which is a complete non-answer. 76 != 83.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you show me dollars per Kwh, your graph would look nothing like the graph above.

It would bear some resemblance if nuclear energy wasn’t being choked off politically.

Source, please.

The regulations require nuclear plants to be as safe as feasible. If nuclear is economic it could be made safer, thus must be made safer until it is no longer competitive. It's a rule designed to ensure failure.

And it's a completely wrong rule. Safety needs to be balanced against cost. Making things too safe kills people because it drives them to cheaper but more dangerous options (Standard example: lap babies on airplanes. A lap baby isn't as safe as one riding in a proper infant seat--but a lap baby is safer than the family choosing to drive instead.) This is only obvious when there are competing options but in actuality it applies to everything--spending money on safety item X inherently means less is available for Y.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ask your AI buddy what should be done....

LOL, Should I respond to this, or should I worry that humor-challenged people will complain?

Decisions, decisions.

What the heck, this is what ChatGPT drew when I asked for, "The world of the future in which our energy problems have been solved." It drew:

View attachment 45413
Apparently it likes wind, solar and sailboats, and some sort of spherical something. Perhaps it is fusion.

For the pessimists, I asked it to draw, "the world of the future in which our energy problems have not been solved." It drew, coal, coal, coal, internal combustion engines, and two-bladed windmills.

View attachment 45414

Why is ChatGPT so sure that in the future the Earth will be in orbit around another planet so close it's inside the Roche limit?

Well, that would be showing a world in peril....

 

[bilby]

"Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use"

As I said:

You can find all kinds of variations on the theme of "we have enough X for Y years", but finding any that don't commit the error of conflating reserves with resources is very hard indeed.

It's been a theme since the 1960s, and one beloved by "environmentalists" to the degree that the passing of the various dates set by their early prophets has had no impact whatsoever on their belief. The Jehovahs Witnesses have a similar track record with predicting the date of Armageddon.

https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

When you don't understand the difference between a reserve and a resource, it's very easy to scare the crap out of yourself with dire forecasts of doom.

Most minerals have a known reserve around the fifty year mark, and always have, and always will. Ninety tears of proven reserves makes uranium an abundant and seriously underutilised resource. It does NOT mean that we will run out of the stuff in a century or less.

Nobody is wasting money on prospecting and mineral assays in the search for stuff that's not going to run out for many decades.

 

[bilby]

Work backwards to estimate how long the uranium reserves would last.

Nobody cares.

What matters is the unrelated question of how long the uranium resource will last.

If you haven't understood this important point, then you are inevitably going to make completely foolish prophesies of doom. Nobody sensible needs to give them any credence.

 

[DBT]

Neo classical economists and politicians cannot abide stagnation, it appears. An economy that is not growing is seen as stagnation.

I think one reason for that is competition.

Whatever the reasons, growth perceived as a positive thing and thus pursued .

Let's say Australia's economy stopped growing, but everyone else's economy kept growing. Australia would become a poorer country relative to other countries, and this could make it more expensive to Australia to import the things that we don't make here.

No single government will willingly impoverish their people in such a way.

Given we are in overshoot now, it's a race to disaster. The longer it goes on, the harder the fall. Nor does a steady state economy entail impoverishment. Everyone can do well with steady productivity that meets all of our needs and wants, just simply not adding more and more and more until it collapses out of sheer unsustainability,

Our illustrious Prime Minister, for instance, is going down that path in a big way, even before there is sufficient infrastructure, housing, etc, to cater to the influx of migrants without creating a housing crisis.

We've been in a housing crisis for at least a couple of decades now. In the second half of the 20th century population growth was high but Boomers still had access to abundant and cheap housing. The housing crisis didn't happen because of an "influx" of migrants, but because government stopped building houses for people, and because landlords are pushing owner-occupiers out of the market.

Immigrants are a convenient scapegoat, but even if we stopped or slowed immigration we would still have a housing crisis. This is because landlords will continue to drive up house prices, both by adding demand and by reducing supply, and because government has stopped building affordable housing for people.

Both foreign ownership of residential property (houses sometimes left vacant) and immigration are creating greater demand for houses and units and thereby inflating prices.

Albanese's policy of increasing intake to 400 - 500 thousand migrants a year does not help improve property availability or rental vacancy, most of whom go to our already congested cities, Sydney, Melb, Brisbane....

 

[Bomb#20]

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

The 700 year figure was for uranium that was already known to be concentrated enough for profitable extraction; it wasn't for dispersed uranium.

"Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use" (https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/energy-text/energy-murphy.html p258) We don't know how much more we will find that is economical to process, but we have been looking hard, and not finding much.

But people here are talking about using it for most of our electric power generation, or even most of our total power generation. Then that supply would go much quicker.

I followed your link's links.

"First, we take 0.72% of the 7.6 million tons available to represent the portion of uranium in the form of U235. ...
We see from this that proven uranium reserves give us only ... about 5% of our total remaining fossil fuel supply. ...
Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use...
To be fair, proven reserves are always a conservative lower limit on estimated total resource availability. And since fuel cost is not the limiting factor for nuclear plants, higher uranium prices can make more available, from more difficult deposits. ...
In its native form, U235 is too dilute in natural uranium—overwhelmingly dominated by U238—to even work in a nuclear reactor. It must be enriched to 3–5% concentration to become viable. ...
But what if we could use the bulk uranium, U238, in reactors and not only save ourselves the hassle of enrichment, but also gain access to140 times more material, in effect? Doing so would turn the proven reserves of uranium into about 7 times more energy supply than all of our remaining fossil fuels."​

There are three takeaways from all this. First, the guy is not an expert on nuclear power; he's just regurgitating conventional American practice. An expert would know native "too dilute" natural uranium works just fine in a nuclear reactor. If he told the Canadians it must be enriched to become viable they'd roll their eyes and go right on powering their cities with the same natural uranium reactors they've been using for decades. What "must be" done to get a reactor to work depends on the reactor; not everybody builds their reactors to American designs.

Second, see everything bilby keeps having to write over and over about the difference between proven reserves and how much we have.

And third, the guy just said our proven reserves are enough for twelve thousand six hundred years ( 90 * (1/5%) * 7 = 12600 ), and he granted that that's a conservative lower limit, even if we don't take price rises into account. We know how to build breeder reactors.

 

[Merle]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.
...

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

The 700 year figure was for uranium that was already known to be concentrated enough for profitable extraction; it wasn't for dispersed uranium.

"Proven uranium reserves would last 90 years at the current rate of use" (https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/energy-text/energy-murphy.html p258) We don't know how much more we will find that is economical to process, but we have been looking hard, and not finding much.

But people here are talking about using it for most of our electric power generation, or even most of our total power generation. Then that supply would go much quicker.

I generally don't go by net references without looking at the context and the source. There is misreading pro and anti nuke disinformation.

I'd look at the US Dept Of Energy estimates.

U.S. Uranium Reserves Estimates - Energy Information Administration

www.eia.gov

At the end of 2008, U.S. uranium reserves totaled 1,227 million pounds of U3O8 at a maximum forward cost (MFC) of up to $100 per pound U3O8 (Table 1). At up to $50 per pound U3O8, estimated reserves were 539 million pounds of U3O8. Based on average 1999-2008 consumption levels (uranium in fuel assemblies loaded into nuclear reactors), uranium reserves available at up to $100 per pound of U3O8 represented approximately 23 years worth of demand, while uranium reserves at up to $50 per pound of U3O8 represented about 10 years worth of demand.
According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

.

My 80s era text put the global reserves at 700 years. Now it is less, obviously with increased demand.

Ah, so the original claim was that we had a known viable supply of uranium for 700 years at 1980s level of usage.

I quoted a recent college textbook that said the known supply would last 90 years at current usage.

You then respond with a quote saying we have enough for 23 years at current usage at current costs.

The numbers seem to be doing the limbo.

If we use lower grades of uranium, your link says we could find enough to last 500 years at current usage. But we currently use uranium for only 10% of our electricity needs. People here are suggesting that we use it for close to 100% of our electricity while population expands another 30% and average affluence increases. They also want to use nuclear to provide all our energy needs including direct heating and transportation. Then they want to add desalination plants and pump the ocean water up to the plains where it is needed. Then they want nuclear to power all the other gadgets we would need to end fertilizer runoff, species extinctions, and all the other problems we are having due to overshoot. Fine. Please figure out how long uranium would last then.

We have been pouring money into searching for more uranium. We are finding little. See .

 

[Merle]

They think it's a bad investment because it IS a bad investment, due to the campaign to make it a bad investment.

I asked for a source to validate that nuclear would be much more profitable if there was less resistance to it. You respond by repeating the claim? That doesn't qualify as a source.

 

[Merle]

The regulations require nuclear plants to be as safe as feasible. If nuclear is economic it could be made safer, thus must be made safer until it is no longer competitive. It's a rule designed to ensure failure.

And it's a completely wrong rule. Safety needs to be balanced against cost. Making things too safe kills people because it drives them to cheaper but more dangerous options (Standard example: lap babies on airplanes. A lap baby isn't as safe as one riding in a proper infant seat--but a lap baby is safer than the family choosing to drive instead.) This is only obvious when there are competing options but in actuality it applies to everything--spending money on safety item X inherently means less is available for Y.

Obviously yes, poorly written regulations can do more harm than good.

However, the claim is that nuclear reactors would be much more efficient if not for regulations and grass-roots resistance. I certainly agree that we could probably get efficiency gains if we reviewed and modified our regulations. Fine. But where is the verification that we would get the huge gains promised here?

Again, the claim here is that we are so overwhelmingly certain that modifying our regulations will allow nuclear reactors to save the planet, that we are not allowed to ask, "What happens if nuclear doesn't save the planet?"

Please show me the evidence that, when nuclear reactors are operating without unneeded regulations, the result will be so overwhelming that we should not even ask what we should do if nuclear fails to fulfill this promise.

Regarding the claim of grass-roots resistance being the problem, see .

 

[Merle]

Second, see everything bilby keeps having to write over and over about the difference between proven reserves and how much we have.

And then read everything I write agreeing that we will find more than what we have already found.

 

[steve_bank]

Merle, Merle, Merle...

I said that my 80s era text said at the rate of the day there was about 700 years of uranium reserves.

As I said, the calculations are not difficult. Work it out for yourself.


In any case if we went all nuclear it just kicks the can down the road to future generations.

Fossil fuels and nuclear fuels are in teed finite resources in terms of maintaining growing consumption and production.

Over the last 7 years following my forced medical retirement I have watched more TV than over my previous life.

The consumption and garish decadence being marketed 24/7 is nauseating. The cultural inertia is too high to overcome. It will play out until it fails. Looking back I was certainly part of it as an engineer and a card carrying member of the free market club,

Predictions of peak oil have been put off by improved survey and drilling methods, but it is still finite.

Peak oil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think our global civilization will fail before we hit resource limits. Too many people and complex problms that can not be resolved.

 

[Merle]

90 * (1/5%) * 7 = 12600

???

 

[Merle]

An expert would know native "too dilute" natural uranium works just fine in a nuclear reactor. If he told the Canadians it must be enriched to become viable they'd roll their eyes and go right on powering their cities with the same natural uranium reactors they've been using for decades. What "must be" done to get a reactor to work depends on the reactor; not everybody builds their reactors to American designs.

Stupid Yankees! The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says uranium needs to be enriched before it can be used ( see Uranium Enrichment). Maybe we should all write to them and tell them they are full of baloney. Can you give us a credible source that refutes their claim?

We know how to build breeder reactors.

Yes, that is one way to get around potential shortages of uranium. It is very risky, because the plutonium produced can easily be made into nuclear bombs, but yes that is an option.