Speaking here is Cameco CEO Jerry Grandey:
“In my view, uranium is not going to be a constraint, it's just a question of getting deposits that have been identified through the pipeline of permitting and licensing.”
Uranium is not a infinite resource and will one day be exhausted. When that will happen has been a topic of discussion, but I’d never really seen a clearer explanation that concern about it might be overstated than is offered by Grandey:
However, while some critics point to the production shortfall and say that the nuclear industry is just not sustainable, “the reality is that uranium is quite an abundant element”, he added.
Exploration ground to a halt because of oversupply left over from the sixties and seventies, which means that no-one has been looking seriously for uranium until about five years ago.
However, since exploration started up again, a number of additional deposits have been discovered, and studies show the world has at least 160 years' worth of uranium supply, Grandey said.
And that’s based on what’s known now. As the universe of nuclear energy expands, so will companies like Cameco be motivated to see how much uranium is out there. Which is what Cameco and others are doing.
The whole article, about Grandey’s appearance at the Canada India forum – speaking of where Canadian-mined uranium might find some new customers (most of India’s current fleet is based on Candu designs) – is very interesting. Take a read.
Looking at various campaigns around the country, I sometimes see an attack that goes something like this:
As governor/Senator/Representative, I will work toward energy independence from foreign oil with the expansion of nuclear power, the use of alternative fuels and ensure that we can drill for oil safely.
This is usually said against a candidate who goes all in for renewable energy, but it seems a false opposition. It’s really not an either/or proposition and the way energy policy works, it will most certainly prove out as false. The New York candidates spotlighted in the post below get this about right. Any energy source that helps with climate change and energy security is welcome. Pretending there is a superior stance to be found in choosing between them is the problem. There just isn’t.