Skip to main content

Revisiting Uranium... Again

As many of our long-time readers know, we spend a lot of time debunking anti-nuke rhetoric here at NEI Nuclear Notes. The feeling seems to be if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it -- and that's whether or not it has any basis in fact.

Case in point, yesterday's op-ed that appeared in the Guardian by former U.K. Environment Minister Michael Meacher claiming that global uranium production peaked in 1981 and...
As a result, about a quarter of nuclear power plants could be forced to shut down within a decade because of a lack of fuel.
Rather than launch into a detailed debunking, I'll just point you to a post put together by Ian Hore-Lacy at the World Nuclear Association. Once you pile through that, be sure to check out Clifton Farrell's take from our archives. And don't forget that joint IAEA/OECD study we posted about a couple of days back.

I'd like to think this is the last time I'm going to have to do this, but I don't think so.

UPDATE: More from Tom Benson.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

John Wheeler said…
Unfortunately you are right, Eric. You will have to repeat yourself time and time again. The palybook for the antinuclear crowd hasn't changed since Ralph Nader penned it almost two decades ago, adng they keep rehashing the same old arguements.

The Australian Green and Labor parties are doing the same thing in claiming that nuclear energy is "too unsafe, too expensive, and too dangerous." I took on their arguements point by point in episode 21 of "This Week in Nuclear".

It's available at my new URL http://thisweekinnuclear.com

Keep up the good work!

John
Rowan said…
Could you please fix your link to the "World Nuclear Association" which seems to point to blogger and not an international agency link
Rowan said…
Could you please fix your link to the "World Nuclear Association" which seems to point to blogger and not an international agency link
Eric McErlain said…
The link was broken because they changed the title of the post. I've since updated the link.
scott said…
Wow, I was totally pro-nuclear until I read some of these links. If the Earth only has enough known reserves of Uranium to fuel 85 years worth electricity at 2004 levels, the cost/benefit of building complex power plants with expensive fuel processing options is not so rosy. Even if unknown reserves may be nine times greater than known, as mentioned, how many decades of additional energy will be achievable, if all power plants are converted to the nuclear option. I thought we had thousands of years of fuel, not decades, or perhaps a century or two. That's a drop in the bucket when considering our time already spent here on Earth.

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.

Huh?

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.

Lohud.com, 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…