Re: [asa] $4 gas is here to stay

Glenn wants to press me on claims that Uranium resources are going to run
out too soon. Let's put aside the fact that Dittmar clearly doesn't know
what he's talking about with Fusion/Tritium breeding - after all it's
irrelevant to the immediate energy crisis, as I agree fusion commercial
reactors aren't going to be around till 2060. It's just that Dittmar's
claim that self-sustaining tritium breeding is impossible is just pure
nonsense, backed up by YEC style arguments.

Let's see if Dittmar's figures can be relied upon as regards Uranium
supplies. I looked up on the internet and found this blog site (admittedly
from the nuclear industry so potentially biassed, but as Glenn is at pains
to point out to me, one shouldn't judge the reliability of a source based on
their political opinions, because of course that's totally illogical).

Here's what they have to say (author is one Dr. Clifton W. Farrell)

Full article at:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/06/looking-at-uranium-supply.html

Quote:

Forecasts of new nuclear generation expect approximately 40-60 new reactors
worldwide by 2020. This will increase uranium demand to approximately 195
million pounds in 2010 and 240 million pounds by 2020. For an assumed price
of $30/lb U3O8, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated
world uranium resources in 2003 to be 3,537,000 metric tons, an amount
adequate to fuel conventional reactors for approximately 50 years. The IAEA
further estimated all conventional uranium resources to be 14.4 million
metric tons, an amount which would cover over 200 years'' supply at current
rates of consumption.

End of quote:

Now if I compare this to Dittmar's talk
http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentfiles/ASPO6/3-2_APSO6_MDittmar.pdf

I find Dittmar also gives the estimated known recoverable uranium resources
3.296689 million tons (or 49 years with todays use).

This agrees roughly with Farrell's estimate (so far so good, though how on
earth he can justify giving the number to seven significant figures is
beyond me).

Then you find Dittmar states:

Inferred (expected to exist and extractable with known technology)
uranium resources: 1.446164 million tons.

... compared to Farrell's IAEA figure of 14.4 million tons. I am assuming
that this is just a simple typo on the Dittmar paper, and he meant to put
14.4 million tons.

However, neither Glenn, nor Dittmar mention that this is enough to cover 200
years of usage at today's rates (admittedly the demand is going to go up).
 But that would appear to extend well into the era when fusion reactors are
going to become available. ( But of course such things are impossible
according to Dittmar ...)

To me, this seems an adequate explanation of why the Fast reactor program
has been so slow to take off. It's simply not perceived as necessary, given
the supplies of uranium aren't just about to dry up (according to the IAEA,
directly contradicting Dittmar's views).

Farrell then goes on to talk about "unconventional" supplies of uranium
(dismissed as a "fantasy" by Dittmar on the grounds that we've not yet been
able to do it in an economically viable way). Here's the alternative view:

---
Importantly, these forecasts do not include non-conventional sources of
uranium, such as those contained in phosphates or in seawater, which are
currently not economic to extract but represent a near limitless supply of
uranium to meet increased demand. Clearly, there are very adequate uranium
(and thorium) resources to fuel the world's expanding nuclear fleet.
---
compared to Dittmar:
Fact is: A single huge multi million(?) dollar experiment running over
many months claims to have extracted about 1 kg of uranium from sea
water. No follow up or control experiment has been performed so far!
1 GW(e) conventional reactor "burns" about 6 grams of uranium/sec
! "extract" uranium from about 10000 m3/sec (20% efficiency)!
Rhine river discharges on average about 2000 m3 per second!
! Good luck!
---
In other words Dittmar is saying that on the basis of current experiments,
we can't extract enough uranium.  But given the alternative IAEA forecasts
of conventionally obtainable Uranium lasting 200 years, there is no need for
it yet - it simply isn't economically feasible.
On the next slide Dittmar asks the question:
Why did uranium mining stop in many mines and countries
if energy independence is a goal?
Again, there is an answer (from the Blog article):
World demand is principally met from primary production (mining),
liquidation of utility inventories, ever-improving fuel manufacturing and
fabrication techniques and *decommissioning nuclear weapons*. Nearly half of
the fuel used in U.S. nuclear energy plants is now derived from blended down
uranium from decommissioned Russian nuclear weapons.
In what is the most successful nonproliferation program in history, the
"Megatons-to-Megawatts" initiative, Russia has converted the highly enriched
uranium (HEU) equivalent of nearly 10,000 warheads to low enriched uranium
(LEU) for commercial fuel.
.. so another factor not mentioned by Dittmar is that substantial supplies
of Uranium have been produced from decommissioning nuclear weapons -
elsewhere I have read that this has led to a glut of uranium, and hence a
slow-down in the mining industry.
Now, of course, I don't know how biassed Farrell's article is, giving as it
does the IAEA view.  But as we know it's totally illogical to dismiss
someone's argument based on their ideological position.  So here's a
question for Glenn:
Either Dittmar or Farrell is pulling the wool over our eyes.  Which one do
you think it is, and why?
Iain
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.