Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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 ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series