Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German nuclear controversy) | 97 comments (97 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (none / 1)

Coal will play a huge role in the 21st century
I was thinking more of the German coal lobby's waning grip on the SPD than the global role of coal. If you consider China, it sure looks different.

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

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 12:54:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (4.00 / 2)

Well, peak uranium is not relevant for a number of reasons, the most obvious that new prospecting is massively increasing reserves.

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.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 03:55:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (4.00 / 4)

Yes, but on the very short term (next two years), we now have a scarcity of uranium: during 1Q07, there has been catastrophic flooding in two separate U mines (cigar lake in canada, and one in australia). In my view, and at a time when a huge inventory of above-ground U is in the hands of hedge funds, this is not a coincidence. Basically, some new plant will delay start-up simply because they cannot secure the fuel, being auctioned out of the market (initial loading is the biggest ones, and new players don't have the long-term contracts already signed).

Pierre

by Pierre on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 04:01:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (none / 1)

Sure, but in the long run...

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.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 06:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (none / 1)

Something kcurie and I were wondering about: what is the price elasticity of oil, and (while we're at it) of uranium?

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?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 06:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Elasticity of oil and U (4.00 / 2)

You can't compare because the oil market is spot and liquid, whereas the U market is mostly legacy multi-decade contracts, the spot is new and marginal.

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

by Pierre on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 07:07:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

More SWU (4.00 / 4)

I think GBII will give a lot of room for tail reprocessing in Europe. But the market remains cornered: who owns basically all the tails in Europe, close to half the tails in the world ? Areva...

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

by Pierre on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 07:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More SWU (none / 1)

By the way, are there any French legal obstacles to accepting foreign spent fuel? That would make nuclear power far more attractive from a political point of view for small nations who don't feel the political cost of a small nuclear program can be justified.

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.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 07:44:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More SWU (4.00 / 6)

This is precisely forbidden. Reprocessed fuel (either into MOX or long term storage containers) must be sent back to its producer. There is even a treaty against it (I think its Basel).

Pierre

by Pierre on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 08:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More SWU (none / 1)

It's illegal here too, but I didn't know there was a treaty.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Jul 13th, 2007 at 08:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German... (4.00 / 2)

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 DoDo on Sat Jul 14th, 2007 at 12:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Brunsbüttel, Krümmel (German nuclear controversy) | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

More Status Quo please - for now

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

The Irish general election draws near

Basic Electricity for the Bottom Billion

Recent Diaries

#WeAreNATO v Rest of the World

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

US Syrian Quagmire - A Second Life

More Status Quo please - for now

The Arab States Are Faced with Virulent Zionism in Israel

December 2024

Next Step An Integrated, Sovereign Europe

Making the Europe and BreXit Trump Proof ...

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

Not A Permanent Ceasefire Lebanon-Israel

Clash of Empires - Crossroads @ Middle East

City Agriculture - November 26, 2024

Harry Truman: 'The Buck Stops Here'

German Election False Promises, Lack of Vision

EU Patriots, Hudson, VDL: ICC Arrest Warrants

Wilderism Hate Mongering, Now ICC Troublemaker

P3+1 Threaten Iran After Ditching JCPOA Deal

Israel's Hasbara: Equates Protest to Hamas Support

The Irish general election draws near

$$ Bonds Offing of Petro Yuan KSA-China Relations

Occasional Series