But who seriously believes there will be enough U-235 around in 2085, considering the vast expansion of nuclear power that will likely happen during the 21th century?
Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Furthermore, one of the advantages of nuclear power is that the cost of fuel is a relatively small part of the overall cost of the system, so a doubling of the price of fuel doesn't double the cost of the electricity.
Here are some comments from an admittedly biased source, but one that summarizes the situation well.
"...enough to last for some 70 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. ...a doubling of price from present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in measured resources. ...the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium sixty-fold or more." http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
The only point I was trying to make is that in the case of nuclear power, the problem isn't the fuel supply, it's in other areas. So if you want to make the anti-nuke argument, then the discussion should concentrate on those other areas, not the fuel supply.
Ore grades will never degrade below 4ppm uranium and 12ppm thorium. That's the concentration in granite, and there's plenty of that. A 1GW fast breeder[1] will need about 3 tonnes of fuel per year, which at the above concentration amounts to about 500 tonnes of granite per day. Let's say 1000, allowing for inefficient extraction and some losses.
A coal plant of the same size requires 10 times that amount of coal, leaving a hole in the ground 10 times as large. This environmental impact is not considered larger than that of radwaste, so the same should go for mining rocks.
"He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." -- John McCarthy
[1] Yes, a breeder is needed. An LMFBR would work, a molten fluoride or molten chloride reactor might, too. It is completely clear that nobody would burn such low grade ore in a light water reactor.
Also, we're talking about mining common rocks. Rock isn't dangerous, unless thrown at high velocity! Bad Stuff is constantly leached out by rain, because... well, because rocks lie everywhere! Noble gases are emitted when tilling a field, because, you guessed it, because a field is just a lot of tiny rocks.
So what about them, huh?
The three million tonnes coal burned each year in a coal plant contain about 5 tonnes uranium. All the radon associated with that uranium is emitted (and some of the uranium, too). 5 tonnes uranium would fuel a nuclear power plant for two years, and when mining uranium, most radon is contained until it decays. Therefore, nuclear plants emit much less than half as much radon as coal plants, no matter what ore is used. The same applies to soluble radioactive substances, which are easily leached from coal ashes.
If coal plants don't kill all life on earth, uranium mining will do it even less.
And when they do in situ leeching, here is what the IEA has to say about it:
BTW, i know very little about all of this. I'm guessing in situ leeching produces less tailings.
Lastly, I don't get the comparison with coal-fuelled plants. I don't think it makes sense to compare the two alternatives on a step to step basis. The overall picture has to be taken into account. Arguing which alternative pollutes the less says little on which option is better for electricity generation. Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine
Listen, the whole point is, no matter how poor the uranium ore is going to get, it will never be as dirty as burning coal! Those kooks with their constant "but all the damage done by uranium mining!" should get a grip on reality and rally against coal plants, because of "all the damage done by coal mining".
Right now half of American nuclear fuel comes from enriched uranium purchased from Russia. The equivalent of hundreds of nuclear warheads is being turned into electricity. Eventually the US is supposed to start using up its stockpile too--turning weapons into light and power. So for the next decade or so the US does not particularly need to worry about touching its domestic uranium reserves.
What goes down in the bedrock will likely stay there. I think it will be a lot easier politically to breed depleted uranium than reprocess waste. Or thorium for that matter, even though the waste recycling technology is already proved. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
