Skip to main content

The Net Positive of Mining Uranium

A team of Australian researchers has published a paper showing that mining uranium produces greenhouse gases. Yes, I know, it's a stop-the-presses moment:

The case for nuclear power as a low carbon energy source to replace fossil fuels has been challenged in a new report by Australian academics.

It suggests greenhouse emissions from the mining of uranium - on which nuclear power relies - are on the rise.

Consider what we might call the principle of net negatives: if getting from point A (greenhouse gas emitting plants) to point C (non-greenhouse gas emitting plants) takes you through point B (greenhouse gas emitting uranium mining), then see if the good outweighs the bad enough to accommodate it.

This sounds an awful lot like "the ends justifies the means" but no: our current reality just doesn't provide alternatives. How do you create greenhouse-free energy generators without producing greenhouse gasses? You have to use the tools you've got. (Al Gore got dinged for the energy suck of his big, electricity-guzzling house. Even though he found ways to mitigate the complaint, what did one expect: candles in the windows?)

Is the increased production of greenhouse gasses via uranium mining worth taking on if the end result replaces greenhouse producing energy sources with non-greenhouse producing energy sources? Luckily, the article, or at least one of its sources, answers this question for us:

"Even in the worst case scenario for CO2 emissions, the impact of nuclear on greenhouse emissions is still very small compared with fossil fuels," he explained.

"He" in this case is Thierry Dujardin, deputy director for science and development at the Nuclear Energy Agency. This is part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris; and France, more than any other country, finds nuclear energy incroyable.  (The OECD is intergovernmental, though, not French per se. We cannot even conclude that Monsieur Dujardin is French.)

So there you have it: a net positive. Let's ask Australian researchers to turn their minds elsewhere for awhile; on this subject, I'm just a little suspicious of their motives.

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
Uranium mining produces CO2 is new stick that the antinuclear movement is going to try and beat us up with now that most of their other lies have been exposed.

However I do not read this paper as being of much utility to the antinuclear movement as it does seem to supply reasonable base line numbers that can be applied to life-cycle greenhouse gas of nuclear issue, to show that indeed nuclear is among the lowest. To date we have missed this data, and it has prevented us from making real quantitative arguments on the subject.

Also this paper is notable for not invoking the van Leeuwen and Smith document which refreshing change for a study of the energy and greenhouse gas intensity of the nuclear fuel cycle.
robert merkel said…
It's worth reading the actual paper, which like dv8 points out, contains useful information. The two authors are known for their anti-nuclear views, but they're also academics and the journal is peer-reviewed.

The key information is the energy expenditure for mining and milling. In the worst case scenario published, assuming the assignment of the entire energy expenditure of the Olympic Dam mine to uranium production (it is mainly a copper mine), the emissions are a bit less than 400 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of uranium oxide produced.

If you need roughly 200 tonnes of ore per annum to get enough fuel for a 1 GW nuclear power station, that's 80,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum. By contrast, Hazelwood Power Station in Victoria, Australia, which has eight 200-megawatt coal-fired generating units, puts out roughly 17,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum...

Clearly, even assuming the use of low-grade ore (and Olympic Dam is very low-grade ore), the energy costs of mining will be manageable for the foreseeable future.
Ondrej Chvala said…
NEI, haven't you published some articles about that w.r.t. SLS controversy? I seem to remember energy payback time for a nuclear power plant to be about 18 months and another 18 months to pay back the energy needed for fuel fabrication etc. Within the (conservative) 40 years of the plant's life time this suggests EROEI=13 assuming 120 years lifetime EROEI=20. Is that correct?
David Bradish said…
ondrej,

Yes, we've published quite a bit on this subject. The latest was titled "Energy Payback Times for Nuclear." The data is based on this page from the World Nuclear Association and finds that the payback time for a nuclear plant including all stages is about one year.

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…