Skip to main content

Revisiting Uranium... Again

By Eric McErlain
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

J 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
June 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM
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
July 31, 2006 at 12:49 PM
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
July 31, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Eric McErlain said…
The link was broken because they changed the title of the post. I've since updated the link.
July 31, 2006 at 12:54 PM
Anonymous 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.
June 30, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap
1 comment
Read more

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

By
Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu
Post a Comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin
Post a Comment
Read more