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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …