Peak uranium is the point in time that the maximum global uranium production rate is reached. After that peak, the rate of production enters a terminal decline. While Uranium is used in nuclear weapons, its primary use is for energy generation via nuclear fission of Uranium-235 isotope in a nuclear power reactor. Uranium is a finite resource, and therefore considered non-renewable, though some argue that if the fuel cycle can be closed, uranium could become equivalent to other renewables. The technologies to completely eliminate the waste in the nuclear fuel cycle do not yet exist.
The peak uranium concept follows from M. King Hubbert's peak theory, most commonly associated with Peak oil. Hubbert saw oil as a resource which would soon run out, and believed Uranium had much more promise as an energy source. Hubbert believed that breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing, which were new technologies at the time, would allow Uranium to be a power source for a very long time. The technologies Hubbert envisioned are not economically feasible or widely deployed to date. As a result, the vast majority of uranium is now used in a "once-through" cycle. As for any finite resource, the Hubbert peak theory still applies.
According to the Hubbert Peak Theory, Hubbert's peaks are the points where production of a resource, has reached its maximum, and from then on, the rate of resource production enters a terminal decline. After a Hubbert's peak, the supply of a resource no longer fulfills the previous demand. As a result of the law of supply and demand, at this point the market shifts from a buyer's market to a seller's market.
Many countries have hit peak uranium and are not able to supply their own uranium demands any longer and have to import uranium from other countries or abandon nuclear power. Thirteen countries have hit peak and exhausted their uranium resources.
Nuclear reprocessing, sometimes called recycling, is one method of mitigating the eventual peak of Uranium production. It involves the recovery of fissile material from spent fuel. Although reprocessing of nuclear fuel is done in few countries, (France, United Kingdom, Japan), the United States President banned reprocessing in the late 1970s due to the high costs and the proliferation of plutonium. In 2005, U.S. legislators proposed a program to reprocess the spent fuel that has accumulated at power plants. At present prices, such a program is significantly more expensive than disposing spent fuel and mining fresh uranium.
At higher uranium prices breeder reactors may be economically justified since uranium is bred into plutonium, another fissile fuel. Many nations have ongoing breeder research programs. China, India, and Japan plan large scale utilization of breeder reactors during the coming decades. 300 reactor-years experience has been gained in operating them. However, as of June 2008 there are only two running commercial breeders.
The rate at which uranium can be bred and the rate at which fuel can be reprocessed is not enough to meet the growing gap between the rate that uranium can be mined, and the demand for uranium. There are only two large-scale commercial reprocessing plants: in La Hague, France and Sellafield, England--together capable of reprocessing 2,800 tonnes of uranium waste annually.
The world demand for uranium in 1996 was over per year. And that number is expected to increase to to per year by 2025 due to the number of new nuclear power plants coming on line.
According to Cameco Corporation, the demand for uranium is directly linked to the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants. Reactor capacity is growing slowly, reactors are being run more productively, with higher capacity factors, and reactor power levels. Improved reactor performance translates into greater uranium consumption.
Nuclear power stations of 1000 megawatt electrical generation capacity (1000 MWe or 1 gigawatt electrical = 1GWe) require around of uranium per year. For example, the United States has 103 operating reactors with an average generation capacity of 950 MWe demanded over of uranium in 2005. As population and industrialization increases, more nuclear power plants will be built. As the number of nuclear power plants increase, so does the demand for uranium.
Another factor to consider is population growth. Electricity consumption is determined in part by economic and population growth According to data from the CIA's 2007 World Factbook, the world human population currently is more than 6.6 Billion (July 2007 est.) and it is increasing by 1.167% per year. This means a growth of about 211,000 persons every day. According to the UN, by 2050 it is estimated that the earth's human population will be 9.07 billion. That's 37% increase from today. 62% of the people will live in Africa, Southern Asia and Eastern Asia. The largest energy-consuming class in the history of earth is being produced in world’s most populated countries, China and India. Both plan massive nuclear energy expansion programs. This is being repeated in dozens of lesser developed countries, from Turkey and Indonesia to Vietnam and Venezuela to meet the needs of their burgeoning middle classes.
As countries get more industrialized and their economy grows, so does the demand for electricity. Nearly 2 billion people across the planet have no electricity. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) believes nuclear energy could reduce the fossil fuel burden of generating the new demand for electricity. The WNA forecasts a 40-percent jump in worldwide electricity demand over the next five years. As countries get more industrialized, the higher their Human Development Index (HDI). The higher the HDI, the higher the electric consumption.
As more fossil fuels are used to supply the growing energy needs of an increasing population, the more greenhouse gases are produced. Some proponents of nuclear power believe that building more nuclear power plants can reduce greenhouse emissions.
As world oil is expected to peak early this century, alternatives for gasoline and diesel for powering transportation are being sought. One of the promising solutions are hybrid and electric vehicles. Some experts believe that these vehicles will require 160 new power plants. Others believe none. The true figure lies somewhere between.
As countries are not able to supply their own needs economically from their own mines have resorted to importing better grades of uranium from elsewhere. For example, owners of U.S. nuclear power reactors bought of uranium in 2006. Out of that 84%, or , were imported from foreign suppliers, according to the Energy Department.
Uranium occurs naturally in many rocks, and even in seawater. However, like other metals, it is seldom sufficiently concentrated to be economically recoverable. Like any resource, uranium can't be mined at any desired concentration. No matter the technology, at some point it is too costly to mine lower grade ores. One life cycle study argues that below 0.01–0.02% (100-200 ppm) in ore, the energy required to extract and process the ore to supply the fuel, operate reactors and dispose properly comes close to the energy gained by burning the uranium in the reactor. Mining companies consider concentrations in greater than 0.075% (750 ppm) as ore, or rock economical to mine.
|Very high-grade ore - 20% U||200,000 ppm U|
|High-grade ore - 2% U||20,000 ppm U|
|Low-grade ore - 0.1% U||1,000 ppm U|
|Very low-grade ore - 0.01% U||100 ppm U|
|Granite||4-5 ppm U|
|Sedimentary rock||2 ppm U|
|Earth's continental crust (av)||2.8 ppm U|
|Seawater||0.003 ppm U|
According to the OECD redbook, the world consumed of uranium in 2002. Of that of was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary sources, in particular stockpiles of natural and enriched uranium, decommissioned nuclear weapons, the reprocessing of natural and enriched uranium and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails.
Peak uranium refers to the peak of the entire planet's uranium production. Like other Hubbert peaks, the rate of uranium production on Earth will enter a terminal decline. According to Robert Vance of the OECD's Nuclear Energy Agency, the world production rate of uranium has already reached its peak in 1980, amounting to of U3O8 from 22 countries. However, this is not due to lack of production capacity. Historically, uranium mines and mills around the world have operated at about 76% of total production capacity, varying within a range of 57% and 89%. The fact that production has never matched capacity is largely attributable to the uranium industry having to lower output to match demand for primary supply. Slower growth of nuclear power and competition from secondary supply significantly reduced demand for freshly mined uranium, until very recently. Secondary supplies include military and commercial inventories, enriched uranium tails, reprocessed uranium and mixed oxide fuel.
The world's top uranium producers are Canada (28% of world production) and Australia (23%). Other major producers include Kazakhstan, Russia, Namibia and Niger. In 1996, the world produced of Uranium. And in 2005, the world produced a peak of of uranium, although the production continues to not meet demand. Only 62% of the requirements of power utilities are supplied by mines. The balance comes from inventories held by utilities and other fuel cycle companies, inventories held by governments, used reactor fuel that has been reprocessed, recycled materials from military nuclear programs and uranium in depleted uranium stockpiles. The plutonium from dismantled cold war nuclear weapon stockpiles is drying up and will end by 2013. The industry is trying to find and develop new uranium mines, mainly in Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. However, those under development will fill only half the current gap.
Of the ten largest uranium mines in the world (Mc Arthur River, Ranger, Rossing, Kraznokamensk, Olympic Dam, Rabbit Lake, Akouta, Arlit, Beverly, and McClean Lake), by 2020, six will be depleted, two will be in their final stages, one will be upgrading and one will be producing.
World primary mining production fell 5% in 2006 over that in 2005. The biggest producers, Canada and Australia saw falls of 15% and 20%, with only Kazakhstan showing an increase of 21%. This can be explained by two major events that recently occurred have slowed world uranium production. Canada's Cameco mine at Cigar lake is the largest, highest-grade uranium mine in the world. In 2006 it flooded. Now there is uncertainty about when and if it ever will be developed. A lot of new uranium mines to need to be developed just to replace Cigar Lake. Cameco expects to bring their mine back on line in 2010. And, in March 2007, the market endured another blow when a cyclone struck the Ranger mine in Australia, which produces of uranium a year. The mine's owner, Energy Resources of Australia, declared force majeure on deliveries and said production would be impacted into the second half of 2007. This caused some to speculate that peak uranium has arrived.
The known uranium resources represent a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up. There was very little uranium exploration between 1985 and 2005, so the significant increase in exploration effort that we are now seeing could readily double the known economic resources. On the basis of analogies with other metal minerals, a doubling of price from price levels in 2007 could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources, over time.
About 96% of the global uranium reserves are found in these ten countries: Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Namibia, Uzbekistan, USA, Niger, and Russia Out of these countries, Australia, Kazakhstan and Canada have the world's largest deposits of uranium. Australia's resources has just under 30% of the world's reasonably assured resources and inferred resources of uranium - about . Kazakhstan has about 17% of the world's reserves, or about And Canada has of uranium, representing about 12%. On the other hand several countries no longer mine uranium.
It will take a significant exploration and development effort to locate the remaining deposits and begin mining them. However, since the entire earth's geography has not been explored for uranium at this time, there is still the potential to discover exploitable resources. The OECD redbook cites quite a few areas still open to exploration throughout the world. Many countries are conducting complete aeromagnetic gradiometer radiometric surveys to get an estimate the size of their undiscovered mineral resources. When combined with a gamma-ray survey it can locate undiscovered uranium and thorium deposits. The USGS issued its last undiscovered conventional resources report in 1992.
Both the US and Russia have committed to recycle their nuclear weapons into fuel for electricity production. This program is known as the Megatons to Megawatts Program. Down blending of Russian weapons High Enriched Uranium (HEU) will result in about of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) over 20 years. This is equivalent to about of natural U, or just over twice annual world demand. Since 2000, of military HEU is displacing about of uranium oxide mine production per year which represents some 13% of world reactor requirements.
Plutonium recovered from nuclear weapons or other sources can be blended with uranium fuel to produce a mixed-oxide fuel. In June 2000, the USA and Russia agreed to dispose of each of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014. The US undertook to pursue sel-funded dual track program (immobilization and MOX). The G-7 nations provided US$ 1 billion to set up Russia's program. The latter was initially MOX specifically designed for VVER reactors, the Russian version of the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR), the high cost being because this was not part of Russia's fuel cycle policy. This MOX fuel for both countries is equivalent to about of natural uranium. The U.S. also has commitments to dispose of of non-waste HEU.
The Megatons to Megawatts program will come to an end in 2013.
Most of the spent fuel components can be recovered and recycled. About two-thirds of the U.S. spent fuel inventory is uranium. This includes residual fissile uranium-235 that can be recycled directly as fuel for heavy water reactors or enriched again for use as fuel in light water reactors.
Spent fuel can be re-enriched to recover plutonium and uranium. When used nuclear fuel is reprocessed using the de facto standard PUREX method, both plutonium and uranium are recovered separately. The spent fuel contains about 1% Plutonium. If used on fuel from commercial power reactors, plutonium extracted using PUREX typically contain too much Pu-240 to be useful in a nuclear weapon.
The spent fuel is primarily composed of uranium, the vast majority of which has not been consumed or transmuted in the nuclear reactor. At a typical concentration of around 96% by mass in the used nuclear fuel, uranium is the largest component of used nuclear fuel. The composition of reprocessed uranium depends on the time the fuel has been in the reactor, but it is mostly U-238. Typically it will have about 1% U-235 and small amounts of U-232 and U-236. However, reprocessed uranium is also a waste product because it is contaminated and undesirable for reuse in reactors. During its irradiation in a reactor, uranium is profoundly modified. The uranium that leaves the reprocessing plant contains all the isotopes of uranium between uranium-232 and uranium 238 except uranium-237, which is rapidly transformed into neptunium-237. The undesirable isotopic contaminants are:
Reprocessed uranium is chemically separated during nuclear reprocessing - it is uranium, containing several different uranium nuclides as outlined above, as well as daughter products which "in-grow" into the uranium after it is separated, due to radioactive decay of short-lived uranium nuclides. Since the uranium is chemically separated from the other materials present within the used nuclear fuel, other substances, different chemical elements such as fission products, plutonium or other actinides, which are present in the used nuclear fuel, are not present in the separated uranium.
At present, reprocessing and the use of plutonium as reactor fuel is far more expensive than using uranium fuel and disposing of the spent fuel directly—even if the fuel is only reprocessed once. However, nuclear reprocessing becomes more economically attractive, compared to mining more uranium, as uranium prices continue to increase.
Other methods of reprocessing have been developed, but they have been obsoleted by PUREX. Also, new methods of reprocessing are being developed to improve the PUREX process.
Currently, there are eleven operating reprocessing plants operating in the world. Out of those, there are only two large-scale commercially operated plants for the reprocessing of spent fuel elements from light water reactors with throughputs of more than of uranium per year. These are La Hague, France with a capacity of per year and Sellafield, England at uranium per year. The rest are small experimental plants.
The total recovery rate from reprocessing currently is only a small fraction compared to the growing gap between the rate demanded and the rate at which the primary uranium supply is providing uranium.
Worldwide, there were approximately 400 wet-process phosphoric acid plants in operation. Assuming an average recoverable content of 100 ppm of uranium, and that uranium prices do not increase so that the main use of the phosphates are for fertilizers, this scenario would result in a maximum theoretical annual output of U3O8.
Historical operating costs for the uranium recovery from phosphoric acid range from $48-119/kg U3O8. These operating costs are by far higher than uranium market prices, and most uranium recovery plants have been closed.
There are 22 million tons of U in phosphate deposits. The technology to recover the uranium from phosphates is mature; it has been utilized in Belgium and the United States, but high recovery costs limit the utilization of these resources, with estimated producation costs according to a 2003 OECD report for a new 100 tU/year project, would be in the range of USD 60-100kg/ U including capital investment.
One method of extracting uranium from seawater is using a uranium-specific nonwoven fabric as an absorbent. The total amount of uranium recovered in an experiment in 2003 from three collection boxes containing 350 kg of fabric was >1 kg of yellow cake after 240 days of submersion in the ocean. According to the OECD, uranium may be extracted from seawater using this method for about $300/KgU
In 2006 the same research group stated: "If 2g-U/kg-adsorbent is submerged for 60 days at a time and used 6 times, the uranium cost is calculated to be 88,000 yen/kg-U, including the cost of adsorbent production, uranium collection, and uranium purification. When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetitionuses. In this case, the initial investment to collect the uranium from seawater is 107.7 billion yen, which is 1/3 of the construction cost of a one million-kilowatt class nuclear power plant.
Among the other methods to recover uranium from sea water, two seem promising: algae bloom to concentrate Uranium and nanomembrane filtering.
So far, no more than a very small amount of uranium has been recovered from sea water in a laboratory.
Generation III reactors are characterized by improvements in the design over generation II nuclear reactor designs that incorporate evolutionary improvements in design which have been developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs, such as improved fuel technology, passive safety systems and standardized design.
Low-temperature nuclear plants operate at about 32% thermal efficiency. By increasing the thermal efficiency, nuclear reactors become more fuel efficient.
Most notable for increasing the thermal efficiency is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). They will have a direct-cycle gas turbine generator and thermal efficiency about 42%.
The CANDU-X is a supercritical light water coolant reactor type that can provide a 40% thermal efficiency.
There is also the US-APWR design. It will be able to produce efficiencies as high as 39%. US design certification application was in January 2008 with approval expected in 2011. The first units may be built for TXU at Comanche Peak near Dallas, Texas.
The increases in thermal efficiency are notable for reducing the operating costs of nuclear power plants but will extend uranium by only a small percentage.
Generation IV reactors are a set of theoretical nuclear reactor designs currently being researched and are not expected to be available for commercial construction before 2030.
Fast breeder reactors are expensive to build and operate, including the reprocessing, and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values in real terms. About 20 Fast Neutron Reactors have already been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supply electricity commercially. Over 300 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated. Such reactors have an advantage in that they produce less long-lived wastes. Several countries have research and development programs for improving these reactors. For instance, one scenario in France is for half of the present nuclear capacity to be replaced by fast breeder reactors by 2050. China, India, and Japan plan large scale utilization of breeder reactors during the coming decades.
The breeding of plutonium fuel in Fast Breeder Reactors (FBR), known as the plutonium economy, was for a time believed to be the future of nuclear power. The few commercial breeder reactors that have been built have been riddled with technical and budgetary problems. Some sources critical of breeder reactors have gone so far to call them the SST of the 80's.
A fast breeder, in addition to consuming U-235, converts fertile U-238 into Pu-239, a fissile fuel. Breeders may be technically feasible, but they are complex, costly and plagued with problems. Uranium turned out to be far more plentiful than anticipated, and the price of uranium declined rapidly (with an upward blip in the 1970s). This is why the US halted their use in 1977 and the UK abandoned the idea in 1994.
Fast Breeder Reactors, which use plutonium, are so-called because they have no moderator (heavy water or light water) and breed more fuel than they consume. The word 'fast' in fast breeder refers to the speed of the neutrons in the reactor's core. The higher the energy the neutrons have, the higher the breeding ratio or the more uranium that is changed into plutonium.
Significant technical and materials problems were encountered with FBRs. Geological exploration showed that scarcity was not going to be a concern for some time. By the 1980s, due to both factors, it was clear that FBRs would not be commercially competitive with existing light water reactors. The economics of FBRs still depend on the value of the plutonium fuel which is bred, relative to the cost of fresh uranium. Despite massive research efforts, attempts to increase the uranium reserves with fast breeder reactors have failed worldwide. We do not yet have the know-how to technically and commercially exploit fast breeder reactors on a large scale. Research continues in several countries with working prototypes Phénix in France, the BN-600 reactor in Russia, and the Monju scheduled to be restarted in October 2008.
On February 16, 2006 the U.S., France and Japan signed an arrangement to research and develop sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors in support of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Breeder reactors are also being studied under the Generation IV reactor program.
Early prototypes have been plagued with problems. The liquid sodium cooling agent is highly flammable, bursting into flames if it comes into contact with air and exploding if it comes into contact with water. Japan's fast breeder Monju Nuclear Power Plant has been scheduled to re-open in 2008, 13 years after a serious accident and fire involving a sodium leak. In 1997 France shut down its Superphenix reactor, while the Phenix, built earlier, is scheduled to close in 2009.
Thorium is an alternate fuel cycle to uranium. Thorium is three times more plentiful than uranium. Thorium-232 is in itself not fissionable, but fertile. It can be made into fissionable uranium-233 with a breeder reactor. In turn, the uranium-233 can be fissioned like uranium-235 with the advantage that the daughter products are less radioactive than the ones from uranium 235. Thorium is also a finite resource and shares many of the concerns of the public regarding nuclear power or uranium fuel cycles.
Despite the thorium fuel cycle having a number of attractive features, development on a large scale can run into difficulties:
The first successful commercial reactor at the Indian Point power station (Indian Point Unit 1) ran on Thorium. The first core did not live up to expectations.
Indian interest in thorium is motivated by their substantial reserves. Almost a third of the world's thorium reserves are in India India's Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) says that it will simultaneously construct four more breeder reactors of 500 MWe each including two at Kalpakkam.
|Country||Uranium required 2006-08||% of world demand||Indigenous mining production 2006||Deficit (-surplus)|
|Rest of world||24.0%|
Between 1946 and 1990, Wismut, the former East German uranium mining company, produced a total of around of uranium. During its peak, production exceeded per year. In 1990, uranium mining was discontinued as a consequence of the German unification. The company could not compete on the world market. The production cost of its uranium was three times the world price.
India, having already hit its production peak, is finding itself in making a tough choice between using its modest and dwindling uranium resources as a source to keep its weapons programs rolling or it can use them to produce electricity. Since India has abundant thorium reserves, it is switching to nuclear reactors powered by the thorium fuel cycle.
Sweden started uranium production in 1965 but was never profitable. They stopped mining uranium in 1969. Sweden then embarked on a massive project based on American light water reactors. Nowadays, Sweden imports its uranium mostly from Canada, Australia and the former Soviet Union.
The U.K.'s uranium production peaked in 1981 and the supply is running out. Yet the UK still plans to build more nuclear power plants.
In France uranium production attained a peak of in 1988. At the time, this was enough for France to meet the half of its reactor demand from domestic sources. By 1997, production was 1/5 of the 1991 levels. France markedly reduced its market share since 1997. In 2002, France ran out of uranium.
The United States was the world's leading producer of uranium from 1953 until 1980, when annual US production peaked at (U3O8) according to the OECD redbook. According to the CRB yearbook, US production the peak was at . The U.S. production hit another maximum in 1996 at of uranium oxide (U3O8), then dipped in production for a few years. Between 2003 and 2007, there has been a 125% increase in production as demand for uranium has increased. However, as of 2008, production levels have not come back to 1980 levels.
|U3O8 (Mil lb)||3.1||3.4||6.0||6.3||5.6||4.7||4.6||4.0||2.6||2.3||2.0||2.3||2.7||4.1||4.5|
Uranium mining declined with the last open pit mine shutting down in 1992 (Shirley Basin, Wyoming. United States production occurred in the following states (in descending order): New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Texas, Arizona, Florida, Washington, and South Dakota. The collapse of uranium prices caused all conventional mining to cease by 1992. "In-situ" recovery or ISR has continued primarily in Wyoming and adjacent Nebraska as well has recently restarted in Texas.
The first phase of Canadian uranium production peaked at more than in 1959. The 1970s saw renewed interest in exploration and resulted in major discoveries in northern Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin. Production peaked its uranium production a second time at in 2001. Experts believe that it will take more than ten years to open new mines.
Robert Vance, while looking back at 40 years of Uranium production through all of the Red Books, found that peak global production was achieved in 1980 at from 22 countries. In 2003, uranium production totaled from 19 countries.
Michael Meacher, the former environment minister of the UK 1997-2003, and UK Member of Parliament, reports that peak uranium happened in 1981. He also predicts a major shortage of uranium sooner than 2013 accompanied with hoarding and its value pushed up to the levels of precious metals.
The European Nuclear Society maintains that "global uranium mining has decreased since 1991, but development in the individual countries varies considerably.
Lehman Brothers Holdings analysts Rohit Ogra and Edward Moore predict uranium will hit a peak in 2009. However, they see it as a temporary peak because supplies of uranium won't exceed demand until 2012.
According to the WNA in 2005, the uranium primary production will expand for 10 years. Then many existing mines will close due to resource depletion. This is expected to result in a leveling and downward trend in production capability. The WNA projects that global primary production will peak in 2015 at of uranium per year, before declining to per year by 2019.
Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, an independent analyst with Ceedata Consulting, contends that supplies of the high-grade uranium ore required to fuel nuclear power generation will, at current levels of consumption, last to about 2034. Afterwards, the cost of energy to extract the uranium will exceed the price the electric power provided.
The Energy Watch Group has calculated that, even with steep uranium prices, uranium production will have reached its peak by 2035 and that it will only be possible to satisfy the fuel demand of nuclear plants until then.
In his 1956 landmark paper, M. King Hubbert wrote "There is promise, however, provided mankind can solve its international problems and not destroy itself with nuclear weapons, and provided world population (which is now expanding at such a rate as to double in less than a century) can somehow be brought under control, that we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs for at least the next few centuries of the "foreseeable future."" Hubbert's study assumed that breeder reactors would replace light water reactors and that uranium would be bred into plutonium (and possibly thorium would be bred into uranium). He also assumed that economic means of reprocessing would be discovered. For political, economic and nuclear proliferation reasons, the plutonium economy never materialized. Without it, uranium is used up in a once-through process and will peak and run out much sooner. However, at present, it is generally found to be cheaper to mine new uranium out of the ground than to use reprocessed uranium, and therefore the use of reprocessed uranium is limited to only a few nations.
The OECD estimates that with 2002 world nuclear electricity generating rates, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources and 270 years using known and as of yet undiscovered resources. With breeders, this is extended to 8,500 years.
If one is willing to pay $300/KgU uranium, there is a vast quantity available in the ocean.
Deffeyes estimates that if one can accept ore one tenth as rich then the supply of available uranium increased 300 times. Deffeyes' 1980 article addresses the log-normal distribution of Uranium and does not address issues like EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested), or peak uranium.
Huber and Mills believe the energy supply is infinite and the problem is merely how we go about extracting the energy. Huber and Mills do not provide an estimate when uranium demand will exceed the supply.
In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a renewable source of energy. ---> He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by naturally-replenished uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years. - whilst uranium is a finite resource mineral resource within the earth, the hydrogen in the sun is finite too - thus, if the resource of nuclear fuel can last over such time scales, as Cohen contents, then nuclear energy is every bit as sustainable as solar power or any other source of energy, in terms of sustainability over the finite realistic time scale of life surviving on this planet.
His paper assumes extraction of uranium from seawater at the rate of per year of uranium and that the cost of electricity will rise no more than 1% due to fuel costs. The current demand for uranium is already near per year. Cohen's paper does not give a date when demand of uranium exceeds the supply of uranium. However, since he calculates using breeder technology uranium would be used at least 60 times more efficiently than today.
The uranium spot price has ramped up from a low in Jan 2001 at $6.40 came to a peak in June 2007 at $135 per pound of U3O8. The uranium prices have dropped since. Currently (April 2008) the uranium spot is in the mid $60 range.
In 2007, shrinking weapons stockpiles, a large mine closure and new demand due to more reactors coming online was driving uranium prices upwards. Miners and Utilities are bitterly divided on uranium prices.
As prices go up, production responds from existing mines, and production from newer, harder to develop or lower quality uranium ores begins. Currently, much of the new production is coming from Kazakhstan. Production expansion is expected in Canada and in the United States. However, the number of projects waiting in the wings to be brought online now are far less than there were in the 1970s. There have been some encouraging signs that production from existing or planned mines is responding or will respond to higher prices. The supply of uranium has recently become very inelastic. As the demand increases, the prices respond dramatically. However, after peak uranium, the rate at which uranium is produced is decreasing. Prices are likely to soar.
Since the number of companies mining uranium is small, the number of available contracts is also small. Supplies are running short due to flooding of two of the world's largest mines and a dwindling amount of uranium salvaged from nuclear warheads being removed from service. While demand for the metal has been steady for years, the price of uranium is expected to surge as a host of new nuclear plants come online.
Mining companies are returning to abandoned uranium mines with new promises of hundreds of jobs and millions in royalties. Some locals want them back. Others say the risk is too great. They'll try to stop those companies "until there's a cure for cancer.
Uranium occurs at concentrations of 50 to 200 parts per million in phosphate-laden earth or phosphate rock. As uranium prices increase, there has been interest in some countries in extraction of uranium from phosphate rock, which is normally used as the basis of phosphate fertilizers.
According to the NEA, the nature of nuclear generating costs allows for significant increases in the costs of uranium before the costs of generating electricity significantly increase. A 100% increase in uranium costs would only result in a 5% increase in electric cost. This is because uranium has to be converted to gas, enriched, converted back to yellow cake and fabricated into fuel elements. The cost of the finished fuel assemblies are dominated by the processing costs, not the cost of the raw materials. Furthermore, the cost of electricity from a nuclear power plant is dominated by the high capital and operating costs, not the cost of the fuel. Nevertheless, any increase in the price of uranium is eventually passed on to the consumer either directly or through a fuel surcharge.
If nuclear power prices rise too quickly, or too high, power companies are likely to look for substitutes in non-renewable energy: Coal, oil, and gas:
Also renewable energy, such as hydro, bio-energy, solar thermal electricity, geothermal, wind, tidal may also be considered as substitutes: