The Coming Uranium Crisis 485
tcd004 writes "MIT reports that the world is running out of fuel for our nuclear reactors due to production limitations and an aging infrastructure. Nuclear power has gained popularity as a carbon-free energy source in recent years, but Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies, warned that fuel scarcity could drive up prices and kill the industry before it gets back on its feet. Passport has pulled together some interesting numbers: there are 440 reactors currently in operation and 82 new plants under construction. The demand for fuel has driven the price of uranium up more than 40% in the last few months — 900% over the last decade. You can follow the spot price for a pound of uranium. "
Unfair price comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Another point to consider is that while current steam based nuclear power plants do burn uranium down to an unusable 'waste product', that waste is actually quite useful with reprocessing. So, while it is true that were the world only to burn low-level enriched uranium the world would run out quickly, it is not true that with a more modern burn-reclamation cycle that fuel shortages would persist.
Thorium, Plutonium... FUSION (Score:4, Informative)
But I think the point of fissile materials running out is set to be quite moot. Fusion reactor output has been increasing exponentially since its inception, and it should not be terribly long before it will be a viable alternative to fission power. Once we're set into fusion, it is basically impossible to run out of fuel. Fusion reactors run off of deuterium, which accounts for about 0.015% of all hydrogen. That is a crapload of deuterium! Consider that the oceans are 2/3 hydrogen (more or less) and heavy water is fairly easy to separate. (*actually, a tritium-deuterium reaction is more preferable for future reactors, but the tritium is refined from the deuterium--there is no natural abundance of tritium since it has a half life of ~17 years)
As a worst case scenario, we can always mine other planetary bodies. But despite the article's hype, don't expect us to run out of reactor fuel anytime this century.
Re:And all this time I was taught (Score:3, Informative)
People have measured the uranium content of the inside of the Earth by looking for neutrinos of the right energy, which are produced during radioactive decay and fly straight through the Earth, and get that the quantity of uranium is enough to produce about 40 terawatts by radioactive decay. There is a crank theory that the core of the Earth has a fission reactor in it, but there's really very limited evidence for that.
Re:Solution (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There are things scarier (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which is why India's looking at thorium... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, it's depleted, but it's prefectly servicable fuel in a breeder reactor. A potential which rather makes me wonder how smart it is to spread it around in enemy territory.
Look, a breeder reactor isn't something two mujahideen can slap together out of adobe bricks in a weekend. It's safe to assume that anyone with the resources to build a breeder reactor can probably find something to put in it locally, they don't need to comb the Iraqi desert looking for 2lb bits of DU embedded 20' in the ground.
Breeders, reprocessing, thorium, no such things (Score:4, Informative)
Folks, before you hop on a wishful bandwagon, how about making sure there is a wagon?
Re:And all this time I was taught (Score:2, Informative)
You do realize, of course, that aside from the rather strange cults that practice "targeted" home schooling, home schooled students are better educated than those who come out of the public schools. Right? For more information, refer to this site [homeschool...mation.com]. Of course, since that link may be biased, feel free to argue with other studies that prove otherwise. But keep this in mind. One of the chief complaints I see here on Slashdot about public education is that students are "forced" into an educational framework that doesn't always meet their needs. One example is the argument over homework. Home schooled students, on the other hand, are generally educated in the manner that best suits their learning ability and are able to progress at their own speed, which is almost always faster than the pace found in the public schools.
Please don't use "home schooled" as an insult again. It just comes across as completely ignorant. "Raised by a cult" might have been better.
Re:Hopefully... (Score:5, Informative)
Breeder reactors reuse spent nuclear fuel. They only need small amounts of fuel to keep the reaction going. However, what about the waste? Compared to a conventional reactor, how much radioactive waste do they produce?
Re:Cost per Joule? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Cost per Joule? (Score:5, Informative)
Uranium is not dangerous, and one pound of uranium is not very much as far as power reactors are concerned. For reference, the density of uranium metal is 18 g/cm^3, so 1 lb of uranium metal would only be 25 cm^3 in size.
A typical PWR generates around 3000 MWt, runs for ~500 full power days, and is loaded with around 70,000 kg of uranium metal. So that is [3000 MW*500 d*24 hr/d*3600 s/hr]/[70 000 kg] = 1,851,429 MJ/kg. For comparison, gasoline contains 47 MJ/kg. Keep in mind though that the uranium metal is not really consumed, it is only depleted until it builds up too much neutron-absorbing fission products, at which point it can be reprocessed and reused.
If uranium metal is $80 per lb, then it costs a mere 2 cents for 1 GJ of thermal power. Gasoline costs about $3/gallon and one gallon weighs about 6.2 lbs=$0.48/lb. So gas is about $22.51 for 1 GJ, which is more then 1000 times more expensive then uranium.
Uranium Rush (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, there is a limited suppy of ore which makes reliance on nuclear power to avoid further gloabl warming a poor proposition. Converting current power production to all nuclear runs out the recoverable fuel before the new plants end their design lifetimes so nuclear would be much more expensive than anticipated at a lower level of use.
--
Get Real! Go solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:Man! (Score:2, Informative)
Err... you mean aside from dying of radiation poisoning, right?
Re:Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, true, you need at least a teenager, an antique clock and a backyard toolshed.
Breeding aint that hard. Controlled, safe breeding is harder, but I suspect the chapter on nuclear safety may have fallen out of the brains of those with an inclination to try it.
Re:Which is why India's looking at thorium... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually that is what happens in a normal PWR uranium reactor. The reaction starts with U-235 which fission, giving off more neutrons. Some of the neutrons hit U238, which converts it into NP239, which decays into Pu239. Hit the Pu239 with another neutron, and depending on the speed and probability, you either get a fission and more neutrons, or the neutron is absorbed and you get Pu240 and Pu241. Both of these will give off a neutron at some random point in the future. The spontonous neutrons from Pu240 and Pu241 are not a problem in a reactor, but they threaten premature detonation if you put it into a bomb.
What kills the reaction before most of the uranium is used up are the waste products. The waste products absorb the neutrons and kill the reaction.
I think you're a bit off.... (Score:2, Informative)
Let's double check here... 1 lb / 18g == 25.2
If you have 25 pieces that are each 1cm^3 in size, the total size is NOT 25cm^3. (25cm^3 is huge!).
Using your density value, 1lb of Uranium is only about CubeRoot(25)*1cm^3 == 3cm^3 == 0.18in^3... If it were a cube, it would only measure about 0.5" on each side.
I'm guessing 1 pound of Uranium could be made into a large bullet...
Re:There are things scarier (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. Most "fusion" weapons in fact get the majority of their energy from fission.
For fusion to work, you need a heavy casing to channel the X-rays that compress the fusion fuel. If you happen to make the casing out of uranium 238 instead of lead, you get a 2-3X boost in power because the fast neutrons from the fusion reaction can split unenriched uranium without needing a chain reaction, which yields significant extra energy. Since this fission-based power boost comes for "free" simply for using dirt cheap unenriched uranium instead of another metal for the casing, most weapons uses it.
No he's right. (Score:3, Informative)
Yes the total 25 pieces 1cm^3 in size is 25cm^3, because that's what cm^3 means - number of 1 cm^3 pieces. Perhaps you were thinking of it as being (25 cm)^3? That would be huge, but that isn't what 25 cm^3 means. 25 cm^3 is the volume of an object that is 1cm x 1cm x 25cm. Not that big, but also much bigger than 0.18in^3.
The original density unit was given as g/cm^3. You were performing an unecessary cube root, and the result is you are off by a power of 3.
Executive Summary (Score:3, Informative)
We have 2 choices for every X number of years each Nuclear power plant runs:
(A) Store 10,000 pounds of Spent fuel for 25,000 years safely, taking into account rising sea levels, earthquakes, movement of the earths crust, etc.
(B) Store 15 pounds of Spent fuel for 300 years safely, protect/monitor/gaurd the "recycled" parts, because they could be used to make weapons.
Our government has chosen (A)
Re:Which is why India's looking at thorium... (Score:3, Informative)
It wasn't actually a law, and it wasn't Reagan... I think it was actually Carter, but I'm not sure. Here's a relevant article [washingtonpost.com] about some consideration by the current administration to change said rules, allowing the reprocessing.
Re:Breeders, reprocessing, thorium, no such things (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Which is why India's looking at thorium... (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Accelerating_
No Wonder - (Score:4, Informative)
This 'Uranium Crisis' isn't caused by the mere consumption of nuclear fuel, but rather the ridiculously wasteful manner by which we've chosen to consume it for over half a century now. Better technology is within our reach that could allow us to dramatically stretch our nuclear fuel supply, both at current and greatly heightened consumption levels. While this hardly means we should stop worrying (good ideas too often fall before bad people) it does offer a bit of hope for us until nuclear fusion power finally takes off some time toward the end of our lives, if it ever does.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.wise-uranium.org/upusa.html#SEAWATER [wise-uranium.org]
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_an