That quite phantastic projection (even less likely than broad reduction of consumption, yet commonly repeated in nuke-boosterist cafee klatch) relies on illusory levels of investment and the use of reserves to such a low grade that the environmental destruction from uranium mining would outstrip that from coal. (I once made a calculation on that.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
For 2004, I find total global coal production was 5.524 billion tons, of which three-quarters, around 4.1 billion tons went for the production of 39.8% of a global electricity generation of just under 15,000 TWh, that is around 6,000 TWh. This gives an average of 0.68 kilograms of coal for 1 kWh. The figure is closer to the German brown coal power plant's figure I gave not because of the dominance of low-grade borwn coal (it is less than a fourth) but that of old inefficient plants. If we expect increasing efficiency for nuclear (EPR and all), we can also safely predict increased efficiency for coal, say to 0.55 kg giving 0 kWh.
For Uranium grades, current production (which is insufficient for current needs once material from decommissioned weapons runs out 5-7 years from now) seems to go rarely below 0.1%. (The current maximum is a staggering 18% at a Canadian mine, the minimum 0.035% at a Namibian mine.) But IAEA considers recoverable proven reserves those below $135/kgU, while most production is below $50/kgU. For a greatly broadened share of nuclear, these (and probably even more expensive) reserves have to be tapped. Unfortunately, in my current search I haven't found numbers on the grade of proven reserves close to $135/kgU, only found single examples that trend to above 0.01%.
At any rate, the figures for mined tonnage for coal and greatly increased non-breeder, non-thorium nuclear are in the same range. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
