Skip to main content

On MIT's Uranium Study

Yesterday, MIT released a study that the Globe and Mail described this way:
Growing global competition for scarce enriched uranium threatens to derail a much-heralded nuclear renaissance in the United States and around the world, says an industry researcher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In a report released yesterday, MIT researcher Thomas Neff said there has been 20 years of under-investment in uranium production and enrichment, resulting in a tightening of supply that has driven prices up eightfold.

The shortfall leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy -- which is particularly strong in Asia -- and the ability to supply fuel for it.

"There has been a nuclear-industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Mr. Neff said in his report.
Others have since picked up the story. This is an issue we've looked at before, so I though I'd check in with Felix Killar, one of our internal experts on the nuclear fuel cycle.

The following graph [above] was produced by IAEA. It is based on international data which provides the ability of uranium to meet the demand between now and 2050. It assumes that the production of electricity from nuclear power plants will triple by 2050 from today. Reasonably Assured Reserves is the uranium which has already been identified as being recoverable at reasonable costs. The Inferred Reserves are quantities of uranium which the industry has good data to support its existence, however, the data is not sufficient to put the reserves in the Reasonably Assured list. Note this table was generated prior to the price the industry is experiencing today on the uranium spot market.
In short we do not have a uranium problem. The industry does have a tight uranium market because uranium mining was in the decline due to low uranium prices and inventory liquidations. This was enhanced by the lost of 8 million pounds of annual production from Cigar Lake has been deferred for a time period due to the cave in at that mine. The industry is also short about 4 million pounds of uranium from the Ranger mine due to rains which stopped production and will require time to return the mine to full production.
Don’t equate tight market conditions to an inability to have sufficient uranium to meet demand.
Thanks to Felix for answering so promptly. NIOF has more.

Comments

Paul Studier said…
I guess everyone has forgotten the article "World Uranium Resources", by Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor, ''Scientific American'', January, 1980. In this article, it estimates that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times. So there is an awful lot of it available. Deffeyes is the author of Hubbert's Peak where he concludes that the oil is running out.
Flagg707 said…
In addition to the Deffeyes-MacGregor study above, there is another isotope available for the fuel cycle - thorium (breeding up U-233), which is far more abundant than even uranium.

The Kurchatov Institute has recently finished studies on fuel elements designed for their VVER reactors. Were some sort of hybrid thorium cycle adopted, nuclear fuel would not be an issue at all. Granted it would probably take 10 years to design, fabricate and test fuel rods for PWRs and BWRs currently in service or coming online, but that would arrive just in time for the coming (we hope) buildout.

More info here:

http://tinyurl.com/36sksf
Anonymous said…
Has anyone seen Neff's report? All I can find on the MIT website is a March 21 press release on Neff's position. Unlike the Globe and Mail story, the MIT PR makes no mention of a report.

A link would be helpful, thanks.
Jeff said…
Terrifc chart from IAEA to put Neff's commnets in perspective; however I cannot locate this chart on the IAEA WEB site? and also curious why the demand line, shown to be ~ 40,000 t U does not reconcile with the annual demand of 180,000 lbs. ???
Jeff said…
Great IAEA chart; however cannot find on the IAEA WEB site, and why does it show demand at 40,000 t U or 88 million lbs when the actual demand is ~ 180 million lbs. ???

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…