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

Display:

Occasional Series