Skip to main content

Uranium Notes

Mineweb recently interviewed Sprott Asset Management Research Analyst Kevin Bambrough and asked him what he thought about the future of the uranium market:
Bambrough believes "we have just started a long term uranium bull market that will end in a "uranium mania" as utilities and countries drive uranium prices to unbelievable highs as they compete to secure supplies." Many nations and utility companies are already competing for low supplies of above ground-inventories and newly-mined uranium. In an article published a year ago, Sprott asserted that "the fundamentals for uranium going forward are superlative both on the demand and supply sides of the equation. ...It has become apparent to us that we are in the nascent stage of a nuclear renaissance."


The dearth of uranium exploration and of new discoveries has left only a handful of deposits internationally "that show real promise at current prices," according to Sprott analysts. The good news is that uranium is more abundant on this planet than hydrocarbons. "The world is very unlikely ever to run out of uranium, as it will oil, natural gas, and even coal," declared Sprott, adding that some predict the looming uranium shortage may be so severe that the price of uranium could reach $110 within the next five years.
Back in June, my colleague Clifton Farrell wrote:
Forecasts of new nuclear generation expect approximately 40-60 new reactors worldwide by 2020. This will increase uranium demand to approximately 195 million pounds in 2010 and 240 million pounds by 2020. For an assumed price of $30/lb U3O8, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimated world uranium resources in 2003 to be 3,537,000 metric tons, an amount adequate to fuel conventional reactors for approximately 50 years. The IAEA further estimated all conventional uranium resources to be 14.4 million metric tons, an amount which would cover over 200 years'’ supply at current rates of consumption.

Importantly, these forecasts do not include non-conventional sources of uranium, such as those contained in phosphates or in seawater, which are currently not economic to extract but represent a near limitless supply of uranium to meet increased demand. Clearly, there are very adequate uranium (and thorium) resources to fuel the world's expanding nuclear fleet.
And that doesn't even begin to address the issue of reprocessing of used nuclear fuel -- something that's already done overseas, but that the U.S. has eschewed so far for economic reasons. Here's Joseph Somsel:
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is an established technology, dating back to the Manhattan Project. France, Russia, Japan, and Great Britain all do it. In the classic process, one chops up the fuel rods, dissolves them in nitric acid and separates the uranium/plutonium in one liquid stream, the fission products in another, and the actinides in a third (the zirconium cladding “husks” don’t dissolve.) The uranium is still relatively enriched in uranium-235 compared to natural, so is “blended up” to reactor fuel standards. The plutonium is mixed with uranium to become what’s known as “mixed oxide fuel” or MOX. MOX is every bit as good as reactor fuel as what our plants run on today, albeit a bit more hassle for the utilities to handle.
Duke Power is already using MOX fuel at the Catawba Nuclear Power Plant. For more on recycling, check out The Energy Blog. And thanks to Peak Oil Optimist for a pointer.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,


ben said…
I think that pretty soon North America will have to make a choice: bury the nuclear waste so that it's never found again or make it accessible to future generations for reporcessing.

Anybody know how much reprocessed uranium would cost?
Joseph Somsel said…
The referenced article only tried to estimate the capital cost differences between Yucca Mountain and the hardware to reprocess the spent fuel and burn the worst of it - the actinides. I came up with about $80 billion less for recycle but that's back-of-the-envelope.

The as-delvered cost differences between once-thru fuel and recycled MOX are non-trivial just looking at the fuel bills but insignificant compared to the overall cost of nuclear electricity at the bus bar. That $80 billion will cover a lot of reprocessing!

As a technical note, the MOX that Catawba is burning is weapons-grade plutonium I believe. Recycled reactor-grade uranium is a bit less desirable for diversion but a bit more hassle for the operators and fabricators.

One of the footnoted links in the article points to a study by Professor Peterson of UC Berkeley pointing out that in a few hundred years, digging out the spent fuel at Yucca Mountain would be cheap and easy, using today's tools.

A waggish friend of mine has proposed we rename Yucca Mountain Project as the "Jimmy Carter Memorial Money Hole."
Joseph Somsel said…
Sorry, that should read "recycled reactor-grade plutonium (MOX)" in the third paragaph above.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…