The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The upside being that climate change will be a far smaller issue than for example the gentlemen at the IPCC thinks. I for one don't worry that much about it anymore.
I wouldn't worry much about uranium either. The new prospecting increased reserves by 50 % in 2003-2005. If we could do that with oil and coal no one would be talking about peak oil or peak coal.
But I definitely think we must look very closely at the demand side. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
On uranium, I found this graph: But from what I read on wikipedia, it's really not so bad. "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
Then we have lots of more or less working technologies to massively extend the resource base (increased enrichment, reprocessing, breeding, sea water extraction, thorium etc).
According to peak oil guru Kenneth Deffeyes ("World Uranium Resources", by Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor, Scientific American, January, 1980), an increase in the price of uranium by ten times will increase the supply of uranium that can be economically mined by 300 times.
The nuclear industry can pretty easily afford such prices as fuel is such a small part of total costs. In 1980 the inflation-adjusted uranium price was about $40 current per pound (and I guess this is the price Deffeyes reers too) compared to $135 today after the recent massive run-up in prices, from about $6-7 per pound at the turn of the century. To realise the 300 times potential of Deffeyes, prices must triple from current levels. Not that we really need 300 times larger reserves of uranium. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Still, the extreme lack of price elasticity of uranium makes oil look like a joke.
The only short term (less than 5-10 years) substitute for uranium ore is more SWU's (more intense enrichment). But I think enrichment capacity is pretty much running full bore, which is why they are building Geroges Besse II, USEC's American Centrifuge and Urenco's US centrifuge (and either AREVA is part of that or planning it's own US enrichment facility).
On top of that, the old gasseous diffusion facilities are horribly energy inefficient. Tricastin use something like 2700 MW while the replacement is going to be about 5 % of that. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Defined as
(Price elasticity of demand) = (price / demand) * [(change in demand) / (change in price)] Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
In both cases, the spot exhibits near zero elasticity. But in the case of oil, it tells much of the true story, where as in the case of U, it may not be significant on the long term. Pierre
They are on the same side as the hedge funds and the U exploration company, to fuck the newcomers. And it puts Areva in a strong selling position in Europe: buy my EPR, my price, cos' if you buy Toshiba, I won't procure you rods, and I'm the only guy in town with rods. Screw you. Pierre
Buy Areva EPR= get fuel and we'll take your waste, either permanently or put in int the reprocessing backlog, effectively storing it at La Hague for decades. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Strange thing an oil guru says such blind things.
Think of peak oil, think of oil sands specifically. Even if the recoverable supply increases dramatically, what matters is the level of production -- and that can't be run up as fast for the lower-grade supplies. (Note that even today, recovery focuses on the very highest grades among what is characterised as recoverable.)
Another point is that once you go for lower grades, the amount of Easrth moved and the CO2 emissions associated will blow up, too.
Realistically, I think nuclear will continue stuck with modest growth, thus use the highest grades for a little longer, while industry advocates will continue to argue for their technology with the opposed claims of little environmental impact and potential expansion. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Migeru - Jun 15 73 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17 20 comments
by Katrin - Jun 12 88 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 19
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 9 68 comments
by DoDo - Jun 9 22 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 11 64 comments
by Metatone - Jun 8 4 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1720 comments
by Migeru - Jun 1573 comments
by Katrin - Jun 1288 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1126 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 1164 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 968 comments
by DoDo - Jun 922 comments
by Metatone - Jun 84 comments
by DoDo - Jun 671 comments
by DoDo - Jun 418 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 31 comment
by gmoke - Jun 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 3113 comments
by A swedish kind of death - May 3113 comments
by ceebs - May 2927 comments
by ARGeezer - May 2915 comments
by Zwackus - May 271 comment
by DoDo - May 2631 comments
by DoDo - May 2346 comments