[p2p-research] Peak Uranium? Our nuclear future might be shorter than we thought

Ryan rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 19:53:29 CET 2009

  Sent to you by Ryan via Google Reader: Peak Uranium? Our nuclear
future might be shorter than we thought via Futurismic by Paul Raven on

We’ve all heard of Peak Oil (even if there’s some doubt about whether
we’ve heard the truth over when it’s going to actually kick in), but
there’s no need to worry – nuclear power will step in to fill the gap,
right? [image courtesy Wikimedia Commons]

Well, not for long, perhaps, at least according to Dr Michael Dittmar
and his new analysis of the global nuclear industry:

… the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is
plentiful. The world’s nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000
tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about
40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and
military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. “But
without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium
stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes Dittmar.

It’s not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to
know where the mining industry can look for more.

That means countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and
many western countries will face uranium shortages, possibly as soon as
2013. Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments
are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly

But what of new technologies such as fission breeder reactors which
generate fuel and nuclear fusion? Dittmar is pessimistic about fission
breeders. “Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and
their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they
will ever become commercially significant,” he says.

The upswing of Dittmar’s research is that it provides a good reason for
the nuclear powers of the world to continue using their military
weapons-grade stock for civilian purposes… I can’t find the link, but I
read somewhere recently that something like 10% of the US energy grid
is powered by decommissioned warhead material already. Swords to
ploughshares, indeed.

Of course, as with any matter pertaining to energy generation these
days, there are disagreements as to the validity of Dittmar’s research;
a commenter at the Technology review piece linked above points to this
response in the Wall Street Journal:

Worries about long-term uranium supplies surface every so often; talk
of a global nuclear revival fans the flames. So what’s the score?

The International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Energy Agency figure
there’s enough uranium to power existing plants for 100 years. Granted,
there are some supply-side issues. About 40% of current uranium
supplies come from stockpiles and old weapons—not from uranium mines—so
new sources need to be developed soon to avoid “uranium supply
shortfalls,” they say.

Nuclear power’s growth will nearly double the world’s appetite for
uranium by 2030, says the IAEA/NEA “Red Book,” but there should be
enough in the ground to go around…

So, once again, the problem for a layman like myself (in the absence of
access to the evidence, plus the time and expertise to do the research)
is deciding whose version to believe. I rather suspect this issue will
increase in visibility in the coming years, so I’m going to withhold
any judgement for now… though I will note that both Peak Oil and Peak
Uranium are being downplayed by those non-governmental organisations
whose power and influence will wane and disappear in sympathy with the
availability of the resource which they manage. Cui bono, and all that.

Project Wonderful - Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0.00

Peak Uranium? Our nuclear future might be shorter than we thought
Tags: fuel • nuclear-power • peak-oil • resources • uranium

Related posts
- Man investigated by feds for making nuclear reaction in bedroom (0)
- Making carbon-neutral fuel from air and water (2)
- Is Peak Oil a lie? (1)
- Charlie Stross on the future of nuclear power (2)
- Wind and solar better than nuclear or clean coal (1)
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Futurismic using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091118/d539c419/attachment.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list