Nuclear power CO2 emissions said to be same as natgas within "a few decades"

[kristopher]

Conclusion

As uranium continues to be mined, its ore-grade will continue to decrease and therefore fossil fuel inputs and CO2 emissions from the mining and milling of uranium will increase. On the basis of existing studies, it is likely that within a few decades total CO2 emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle will become comparable with those of an equivalent combined-cycle gas-fired power station. Therefore, with existing technology, nuclear power cannot be part of a long-term solution to global warming.

For at least the next two decades and possibly much longer, neither fast breeders nor thorium reactors nor nuclear fusion will be commercially available to overcome this limitation. With substantial infrastructure requirements and long construction times, nuclear power is also not a short-term solution to global warming.

The suitability of nuclear energy as a means of reducing CO2 emissions could be re-examined if and when new nuclear technologies are introduced that are lower in life-cycle CO2 emissions, safer and less expensive.

This article is based on part of Chapter 12 of the author’s new book12.



Is nuclear energy a possible solution to global warming?
Dr Mark Diesendorf

Institute of Environmental Studies
University of New South Wales
Sydney NSW 2052
Email: [email protected]

Revised 10 July 2007

[Nederland]

1. I wonder

Since he is calculating the CO2 emissions for the entire nuclear fuel cycle, I wonder if he is doing the same for NG? I wonder how much CO2 is emitted during the process of drilling and getting NG out of the ground...

[Statistical]

2. It is bogus. It isn't his research he quotes Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

From his study:

"The energy inputs of several of these steps of the nuclear fuel ‘cycle’ have been investigated
by authors who are independent of the nuclear industry: e.g. in 1991 by Nigel Mortimer, now
Head of the Resources Research Unit at Sheffield Hallam University, UK; and independently
in 2003 by Jan Willem Storm Van Leeuwin, a senior consultant in energy systems, together
with Philip Smith, a nuclear physicist, both of whom are based in Holland."

The problem is Jan Leeuwen "study" is pure junk.

He is best known for the comprehensive, yet controversial paper Nuclear power the energy balance that he wrote with Philip Smith, where they analyzed the energy payback from the entire nuclear power system. The energy inputs were calculated based on various assumptions and guesses about the technologies used in uranium production, rather than actually measuring them. They concluded that the major parameter determining the energy balance was the grade of the uranium ore, and ore grades lower than 180 ppm do not yield an energy gain when used in the nuclear fuel cycle.<2>

This study has been criticised. For example, using assumptions from this study, the Rössing Uranium Mine, processing 125 ppm ore, would require 69 PJ/year to operate - seven times more than total electricity consumption and 1.1 times more than total energy consumption of Namibia. The measured energy usage at this mine is 1 PJ/year. Similar gross overestimations occur when applying the study's methodology for other low grade mines, like Olympic Dam, South Australia.<3> Other less severe overestimations of energy usage and CO2 emissions are also found in the study.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Willem_Storm_van_Leeuwen

Just to make sure it is perfectly clear. Leewen study estimated energy required to extract Uranium ore based on yield. If you take the numbers from his "study" and apply it to real world mines (where we are mining uranium) the numbers do not work. For example. Rossing Mine would require 69PJ. Only problem with that is it is more energy than that entire country uses in a year and 70x what the mine really uses.

Garbage in -> Garbage out.

This author is simply uses energy calculations from Leeuwen. Using those energy calculations he determines the CO2 emitted for each yield of ore. CO2 release is directly related to energy required for the life cycle.

Here is link to the direct study:
http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Nukes&CO2.pdf

Junk science compounded by junk science. The author has 7 peer reviewed studies. This isn't one of them (neither is Leeuwen study). Anyone wonder why? Of course it is controversial and that would sell a lot of books.

Hey wait ....

This article is based on part of Chapter 12 of the author’s new book12.

[joshcryer]

6. Wow, that is some seriously bad methodology, tell me that didn't make it through peer review.

[Statistical]

17. No it didn't. The author has (at least) 8 peer reviewed papers/studies.

This one is not. Wonder why?

Also the "study" he used to determine energy requirements has not been peer-reviewed and has been totally debunked.

[bananas]

7. No, you're looking at an older study

The study you linked to is dated 2005, the one in the OP is 2007.

There is seperate work by Gavin Mudd which doesn't reference Leeuwen and comes to the same conclusion,
see the 2007 paper by Mudd at http://www.nzsses.auckland.ac.nz/conference%20./2007/papers/MUDD-Uranium-Mining.pdf
and a 2008 paper by Mudd and Diesendorf http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1955/nuclear-energy-becoming-less-sustainable
which is free in html and pdf format at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702249v
Also some comments by Mudd and others at http://www.livescience.com/technology/080422-uranium-supply.html

Edit to add: the problem of declining ore grade is very real.

[joshcryer]

13. The OP is looking at an older study, the newer study does not cast nearly as bad a light.

[Statistical]

16. Mudd study doesn't show/support the bogus conclusions in the OP.

He doesn't reach the conclusion that nuclear power will end up with same CO2 emissions as natural gas.

His conclusion is that as of today average CO2 release from mining & milling (the only components affected by ore yield) is about 50 tons of CO2 per ton of U3O8. The amount of energy is slowly rising as yield declines (although two super yields 28% vs 0.01% global average were found in Canada). The energy rise is partially offset by efficiency increases thus CO2 per ton is rising even slower.

So what does that mean in terms of power:
Well it takes about 7 tons of U3O8 to make 1 ton of LEU (5%) fuel. Today reactors get between 40 to 60 GWd/ton of fuel.
Lets go with the low end of efficiency. So 7 tons of U3O8 is 350 tons of CO2 and that is enough uranium to make 1 ton of LEU (5%) for modern reactor designs. 1 ton of reactor fuel will produce 40GWd of energy. Gigagwatt days is simply 24 Gigawatt hours. 40GWd = 960GWh Reactor is about 35% efficient (thermal -> electrical) so that is 336GWh of electricity.

350 tons of CO2 per 336Gwh of electricity produce = 350/336 = 1.04 tons per Gwh
There are a million kWh per GWh. There are also a million grams per metric ton.
Thus mining & milling (at 50 tons CO2 / ton U3O8 ) produces about 1.04 grams per kWh once we covert units.
Now that isn't the total lifecycle CO2 costs but it is the mining/milling portion of CO2 costs.
Now CO2 cost of mining can (and likely will increase). However doubling, or even tripling mining/milling CO2 cost won't materially affect lifecycle CO2 because mining is a small % of lifecycle CO2.

Nuclear energy (total life cycle) is roughly 40 grams per kWh with only 1-2 grams of that coming from mining & milling.
The vast majority of lifecycle nuclear CO2 comes from construction (mainly steel production and concrete which are massive sources of CO2). Combined cycle natural gas is about 430 grams per kWh.

So if we accept Mudd data as valid, 50 tons of CO2 per ton of U3O8. That means mining energy/CO2 would need to increase by a factor of 360x for nuclear energy to have same CO2 footprint as natural gas.

360x! Forget the CO2 "costs" for a second. If uranium mining energy requirements increase by a factor 360x (36,000% increase) what do you think would happen to the price of uranium? Nobody would mine uranium if the energy required increased 36,000%. Imagine if the cost to power your car increases 36,000% ($3 * $360 =$1000 per gallon of gasoline).

The only way the OP study reaches the "conclusion" is because it overestimates CURRENT energy requirements per ton by a factor of 70x. Not 10%, or 20%, or even 100% but 7000%.

Thanks for linking to Mudd studdy. I bookmarked it.
Provides very good peer reviewed study showing low (although slightly increasing) CO2 per ton of uranium.
Even if mining/milling CO2 increase by 1000% over next 3-4 decades that would mean total lifecycle CO2 for nuclear will increase from 40 grams per kWh to maybe 50 grams per kWh.

Of course we could always switch to Thorium fuel cycle (even lower CO2 costs) in a couple decades. :)

[joshcryer]

20. I did similar numbers when I concluded the "new" study did not support the disinfo in the OP.

But it was presented that way. Funny that.

[kristopher]

28. There is no comparison between your self-serving internet hogwash and Leeuwen.

Or any of the other analysis. For example you are using Mudd's analysis of the mining and milling costs to say that it "doesn't show/support the bogus conclusions in the OP"

Since the OP deals with total lifecycle emissions, it is absurd to think that it would confirm the conclusion of the OP.

[Statistical]

36. Critical thinking doesn't come easy to you does it.

The OP deals with total lifecycle but makes the claim that YIELD will raise that total lifecycle to higher than natural gas.

Uranium lifecycle
1) Mining/Extraction
2) Milling
3) Conversion
4) Enrichment
5) Fuel Fabrication
6) Reactor construction & decommissioning
7) Fission in reactor (power generation)
8) Spent fuel storage

The OP deals with uranium yields falling. The only CO2 costs that falling uranium yields affect are #1 & #2.

The output of step #2 is "yellowcake" which is 100% uranium oxide.

So falling yields will increase energy/CO2 costs of steps #1 & #2.

However falling uranium yields won't make fuel fabrication require more energy nor will it make reactor construction require more energy.

Mudd numbers show the CO2/energy costs for uranium to be a tiny fraction of those claimed by the OP.

[kristopher]

8. Storm Van Leeuwin doesn't accept the criticism you offer from the nuclear industry

First, let's point out that you are reciting the figures of a self interested industry and claiming that those industry provided numbers are more valid than well respected researchers without a conflict of interest who are performing in their area of expertise.

Storm Van Leeuwin etal* have responded to the World Nuclear Association's claims and apparently they do not accept the arguments offered since they have a 2007 version of the paper online and they are making the direct claim:

Global warming is without doubt humanity’s greatest challenge. In responding to this challenge, we need to accept that radical action is needed. Nuclear power has been put forward as part of a sensible energy policy for reducing CO2emissions, sometimes by unexpected people including Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace.38 Given the way this claim is reported it is understandable that many people assume that it is correct. This assumption can and should be questioned.

“The Energy Challenge” asserts that nuclear energy would help the UK to meet our CO2 emissions targets (in conjunction with other measures) because:
• CO2generated per kilowatt hour is comparable to wind power, and
• there is plenty of high-grade ore available for uranium fuel production.

This chapter presents the evidence from a comprehensive energy analysis of the nuclear system,39which found that:
• if world nuclear generating capacity remains at today’s level, then by 2070 uranium fuelled nuclear power would produce as much CO2as a gas-fired power station; and
• if world nuclear generating share remains at today’s level, then nuclear power would generate as much CO2as a gas-fired power station by approximately 2050. The claim of the nuclear industry that nuclear power emits low levels of CO2and other greenhouse gases is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence. Emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, often with Global Warming Potentials many thousands of times larger than carbon dioxide, by nuclear power never have been investigated and/or published.
Absence of data definitely does not mean absence of greenhouse gas emissions.

Reducing CO2 emissions?
Recovering uranium from the earth’s crust involves a sequence of physical and chemical processes that use energy and produce CO2,40both of which can be calculated reasonably accurately. Today, the average ore grade used to fuel nuclear reactors is 0.15% U3O8 (1.5 g uraniumoxide from 1 kg rock), the specific energy needs and CO2emissions of the nuclear cycle using this grade natural uranium can be calculated too.41 To work out how nuclear power might help tackle global warming, we have to calculate the quantity of CO2the nuclear system as a whole emits, compared to other energy sources. It is true that the operation of a nuclear reactor emits virtually no CO2, but this is not true of the nuclear power system as a whole. In fact, nuclear power emits a lot more CO2than is commonly believed and, more importantly, CO2emissions from nuclear power will increase over time.

Our calculations indicate that within 45 to 70 years (depending on the scenario)nuclear power will emit as much CO2emissions as a gas-fired power plant (see below for details).
Two main variables determine CO2emissions from nuclear power:
• the operational lifetime of the nuclear plant; and
• the quality of the uranium bearing ore from which uranium is extracted.

Operational lifetime
The operational lifetime is important because the nuclear system consumes a large fixed amount of energy, and therefore emits a fixed quantity of CO2. If we assume an average operating lifetime of 35 years at a lifetime average load factor of 85% using uranium ore grade of 0.15%, then lifetime CO2emissions per kilowatt hour electricity (g CO2/kWh) are between 84 and 122. Official nuclear institutes cite much lower values: 3 - 40 gCO2-equivalents/kWh, including greenhouse gases other than CO2. These numbers are based on unpublished, and so unverifiable, analyses....

Download their paper from this page:
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/secure_energy_civil_nuclear_power_security_and_global_warming


About the authors
Dr. Frank Barnaby is Nuclear Issues Consultant to Oxford Research Group (ORG). He is a nuclear
physicist by training and worked at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston
between1951-57. He was Executive Secretary of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and
World Affaires in the late 1960s and Director of the Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI) from 1971-81.

Professor Keith Barnhamis Professor of Physics at Imperial College (London). A former
experimental particle physicist at CERN and Berkeley. He founded the Quantum Photovoltaic Group
at Imperial College which has pioneered the application of nanaostructures to solar cells.

James Kempis ORG’s Research & Fundraising Officer responsible for the Nuclear Issues Programme.
Since joining ORG in 2001, James has undertaken research and published on nuclear terrorism,
MoD spending in the UK, government subsidies to UK arms exporters, and funding for conflict
prevention. James has a BSc. (Hons.) in Politics & Anthropology and an MA in Human Rights.

Professor Paul Rogersis Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford, and
Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group. Professor Rogers has worked in the field
of international security, arms control and political violence for over 30 years. He lectures
at universities and defence colleges in several countries and has written 20 books, including
“Losing Control: Global Security in the Early 21st Century” (Pluto Press, 2000; 2nd Edition, 2002)
and most recently “A War Too Far: Iraq, Iran and the New American Century” (Pluto Press, 2006).

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc, physical chemistry, Technical University Eindhoven) is senior
scientist at Ceedata Consultancy. He works for the Open University at Heerlen, developing courses
for chemistry teachers. He is secretary of the Dutch Association of the Club of Rome. He is one
of the international group of expert reviewers of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and has published numerous reports and articles
on topics related to energy and environment.

[Nederland]

9. Your linked paper doesn't describe the calculations

Your link is to a report that simply summarizes the Storm Van Leeuwin paper. The author claims that mining and refining uranium creates 56 gCO2/kWh, but doesn't explain how those numbers were calculated. I suppose we are supposed to just take it on faith...

[kristopher]

10. And your criticism of the WNA for that is where?

[Nederland]

11. Problem is, Storm Van Leeuwen was lying about that

He claims that industry calculations for CO2 are not explained in detail. That is a lie. The ISA report that completely fisks the Van Leeuwen paper includes a list of 145 references to papers that were used to come up with the industry numbers. The report is here: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/66043/20061201-0000/www.dpmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/commissioned/ISA_report.pdf

You can see the list of references on pages 69-77.

I also find it extremely interesting that while Van Leeuwen refuses to accept the nuclear industry's numbers for how much CO2 it produces, he is perfectly content to use the numbers that the fossil fuel industry provides when it comes time to make a comparison. Apparently Van Leeuwen believes the fossil fuel industry to be comprised of saints that would never mislead the public about their product...

:rofl:

[kristopher]

14. Here is the thing with that...

We KNOW beyond any conceivable shadow of a doubt that the nuclear industry lies. And we know that van Leeuwen is a person to whom personal credibility is a central part of his life.

So on the face of it when you accuse him of "lying" about a nebulous statement I made that was drawn from my own observations and not his, you don't have much of a point. I was talking about the fact that the WNA site has nothing but numbers that they assert to be true and are suspect - such as claiming a 60 year life cycle as the norm.

What he DID say that I think you are referring to is the point that the data they gave for the observed energy used at the actual mining site lacks any sort of substantiation - just as the 60 claim lacks substantiation. Just because they make a claim and have some basis for the claim, doesn't mean it will be proven out over time.

Now if you really WANT to see the method and data that van Leeuwen used it is out there if you want to find it - it isn't hidden.

Finally, the ISA report was a reviewer of the original report and their review helped shape the final version now published (including the use of a 25-40 year life span range for reactors). Yet, you think that their collaboration is the equivalent of a Nuclear Energy Institute blogger's rebuttal...

Interesting.

[Statistical]

18. The point is his error rate wasn't 10%, or 20%, or even 100% but 7000%.

While the exact energy use for the mine may be difficult to calculate his "science" is junk science.

Van Leeuwen study determined that a mine with 125ppm uranium yield would need about 10TJ (5TJ for mining, another 5.3TJ for milling) of energy per ton of U308. Well the Rossing mine in Namibia has a yield of about 125ppm. It produces about 6500 tons of U2O6 per year. By Leeuwen "calculations" that would require roughly 69PJ of energy.

The "problem" with that THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF NAMIBIA consumes only 64PJ of energy (in all forms). The actual mine energy requirements are 1 PJ. :rofl: This isn't theoretical yield. This is an actual mine that has been extracting uranium for 30+ years. It is "low yield". It annually removes about 19 million tons of rock to extract 3000 tons of of U3O8.

The energy & thus CO2 requirements are incorrect by a factor of 7000%.

Hell if Leeuwen calculations were right Namibia couldn't even mine Uranium. The fuel costs alone would be something like $824175.82 (assuming it is 50/50 split of diesel and electricity) per ton of U308 extracted. The spot price of Uranium is $42 per kg ($42,000 per metric ton). I doubt Namibia is spending $824,175.82 on energy for to produce 1 ton of U2O6 and then sell that for $42,000 for a 94% loss. If they were taking a 94% annual loss on their investment I think they might have caught on at some point in the last 30 years.

:rofl:

If I miscalculated the amount of steel (which is CO2 intensive) used in wind turbines by 7000% it likely would be comparable to coal power.

[joshcryer]

21. The person you are responding to has no problem with junk science...

...Nordell.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

27. So you're now ignoring the ISA (which was authoritative when you thought they "fisked" SVL)?

They performed peer review on his paper, so how do you now ignore the paper that resulted by appealing to an undocumented bit of doggerel from "NUCLEAR SALESFORCE 1" aka the World Nuclear Association?

So you are willing to accept a facile, unsubstantiated anecdotal claim by the nuclear industry yet ignore all of the independent analysis:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x241771#241796

Absolutely amazing. I hope you understand that, as evidenced by your flipflop on the ISA review, your objections go so far beyond reason that those you are dialoging with find great difficulty envisioning a non-profit, sane motive for your behavior?

[kristopher]

29. What makes you think that the claim you quote is a comprehensive lifecycle analysis?

Again you quote a claim from an entity with vested financial interest in contradicting van Leeuwen. Can you produce the lifecycle analysis that accounts for the energy use that the World Nuclear Association claims? They say "we used this much" but there is no rigorous accounting that they can point to as support for their claim. It simply doesn't exist; all rebuttals to van Leeuwen use the industry provided numbers to make the claim you point to.

Let's look as how such a misprepresentation BY A SALES FORCE INTENT ON NEGATING BAD INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PRODUCT *could* be accomplished.

here is the data the WNA provides:

Information from this source shows that using data from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith one gets

annual energy costs of 69 PJ for Rossing in Namibia.
The mine reports energy use as 1 PJ
Rossing mines very low-grade ores,
but its energy cost is overestimated sixty-fold or more by Storm van Leeuwen & Smith and the figure they predict is more than that for the whole country (c 50 PJ).

Where is the data on the precise quality of the ore?

Energy demand for

1% ore = Esub0
0.10% ore = 11X Esub0
0.05% ore = 23X Esub0
0.03% ore = 41X Esub0
0.015% ore = 90X Esub0
0.010% ore = 143X Esub0

The characterization of the rebuttal to van Leeuwen as being "overestimated" is therefore subject to a great deal of manipulation in the assumptions and the applications of van Leeuwen's methods.
Since the primary data is not available there are any number of ways the rebuttal could be fudging and trimming data to achieve a desired outcome that has no relationship to the truth. it could range from cherry picked data on ore concentrations to inappropriate classifications of processes to negligent accounting of the actual inputs at the mines.


What you and the World Nuclear Association (global lobbying organization for nuclear invested industries) are engaged is typical of propaganda, not rigorous analysis. It does little more than give those who fervently believe in the object of a perceived "attack" by science a plausible excuse to reject the offending information. it says absolutely nothing about the quality of the original analysis.

[Statistical]

30. While the mine *may* use more than 1 PJ it certainly doesn't use the 69PJ claimed.

How do we know that?

Because the entire FUCKING COUNTRY (all people, all residences, all business, all industry) didn't even use that much power.

[kristopher]

32. van Leeuwen DIDN'T make that claim - it is a strawman by the nuclear sales force.

They claim they are properly applying the principles and methods of van Leeuwen, but there is no documentation on that end either.

For example, how do you know that the number they use for ore concentration is an accurate reflection of the ore that was mined during the period of energy consumption they report? It isn't documented it is just a claim. For all you know the actual ore refined during the specific period they are reporting is of a much higher quality than the concentration they based their rebuttal on. There is no substance behind the claim you are making.

The World Nuclear Association has an AGENDA.

Storm van Leeuwen doesn't.

The World Nuclear Association claims have not been independently verified.

Storm van Leeuwen work has gone through two different panels of experts for review.




The rebuttal of the WNA contain flat out lies regarding the content of van Leeuwen's paper, yet you still take their unsupported assertions at face value. I'll bet the last guy that sold you a car ate steak every day for a month on that commission.

[Statistical]

35. Once again the nuclear industry claim on power usage may not be accurate however...

that doesn't change the fact that the yield and annual output of Rosing mine is well known. It had been exporting uranium for decades before the study came out.

While we may not know the EXACT amount of energy required for extraction & milling at Rossing we do know Leeuwen math is JUNK SCIENCE.

Using his formulas (nothing from "nuke industry") and the known yield & exports from Rossing his calculations yield 69PJ.

THE ENTIRE FUCKING COUNTRY ONLY USED 61PJ OF ENERGY IN ALL FORMS.

Pure junk science.

[kristopher]

49. Leeuwen didn't calculate 61PJ - the nuclear sales force did.

You have decided to take the word of salesmen working for the nuclear industry and you are using THEIR *blackbox numbers* as way to try and slander van Leeuwen's paper because it has implications the NUCELAR INDUSTRY doesn't want to part of the discussion.

Without fail the nuclear industry uses the same smear and slime tactics on ANY researcher that DARES to confront them with unpleasant information.

You do their work very diligently.

[Statistical]

50. IT ISN'T THEIR CALCULATIONS

Namibia is a poor country. It has a low energy intensity. All international bodies (CIA factbook, UN, IEA) shows Namibia annual energy consumption to be ~561PJ.

The nuclear industry didn't calculate it. They simply looked up publicly available data.

I mean the energy consumption of a country isn't exact a secret.

Per Leeuwen's "study" a mine with 125ppm uranium in hard rock requires 69PJ to extract 6500 tons.

Rosing has yield of 125ppm, and export rate of 125ppm thus Rosing uses 69PJ.

The energy consumption of the entire country is roughly 61PJ (varies from 61 to 64 depending on source) annually.

So the mine used more energy than the entire country. The entire rest of the country (the 99.99999% that isn't the mine) used NEGATIVE energy for the year to bring total down to 61PJ. :rofl:

I got a car that can run on water dude. The oil companies have been supressing it for years. $99.99 in money order and the plans are yours. I sweat.

JUNK SCIENCE

[kristopher]

51. Again you are using the nuclear salesman's numbers to prove the salesman's numbers

It is clear that I didn't question the amount of energy used in Namibia, I question the data from the mine regarding ore quality and energy used.

The analysis is nothing of the sort. You claim it is a "hard rock" mine as defined by van Leeuwen and that the ore processed during the time referenced by the WNA was of a specific quality.

Prove it.

Generalized numbers are not acceptable since the grade of ore from a single mine can vary widely.

While you are at it show us where the theoretical basis of van Leeuwen's work is wrong. Don't just point to a half-assed, back-of-the-envelope used car sales pitch, show where the theory is wrong.

Lacking either an extremely rigorous field study that disproves van Leeuwen, or a clear refutation of the theoretical basis of the method, then you are shooting blanks.

[Nederland]

19. Let's look at the quote from your link

The claim of the nuclear industry that nuclear power emits low levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is not based on scientifically verifiable evidence. Emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, often with Global Warming Potentials many thousands of times larger than carbon dioxide, by nuclear power never have been investigated and/or published. Absence of data definitely does not mean absence of greenhouse gas emissions.

This paragraph is an outright lie. As I pointed out in my previous link, the methodology and data used by the nuclear industry to produce its CO2 emission numbers has been published and is readily available. I found it in under 10 minutes of web searching. You can disagree with the conclusions of course, but to say that the numbers and data have never been published or investigated is an outright fabrication.

[kristopher]

25. Kick

[Statistical]

3. Other thing is by byproduct mining.

Many low yield uranium mines are just uranium mines.

Low yield uranium often occurs inside seams of other metals. Thus uranium is waste from copper, silver, palladium, gold, and other mines. Even if there was no purpose for uranium it would still be mined. It would simply be discarded (like waste rock). Since uranium (and other semi precious metals) have value they are separated from waste rock to add to the revenue for the mine.

[NNadir]

4. Only someone who doesn't know doodly squat about nuclear chemistry could believe this.

One would need to be as uninformed and as uneducated as an anti-nuke.

Basically, one would need to be a dolt, and dangerous natural gas apologist, and a wishful thinker to believe this.

To know that this is pathetic anti-science garbage...

One would need to know something about reactor physics or something about the Indian nuclear program, which intends to phase out uranium entirely.

One would need to know statistical mechanics, and neutron diffusion theory, which leaves out the anti-science sect entirely.

One would need to know chemistry.

In fact, the matter left over from the place where 100% of anti-nukes got 100% of their educations, that would be TV, left behind enough radioactive thorium to fuel the entire planet for centuries.

There are 3.5 billion tons of uranium in the oceans alone, and it is recoverable at a very low thermodynamic penalty, as has been shown in a series of a good many papers in the scientific literature, many in Japanese, but a large series of them in English, mainly in the ACS journal Ind. Chem. Eng. Res.

However the real problem is that uranium is cheap, the equivalent of 600,000 gallons of the dangerous oil anti-nukes couldn't care less about, in one kg.

Since all of the internal heat of the earth derives from the decay of potassium-40, the thorium decay series, and the uranium decay series, there is obviously - given the low return in energy - vast uranium sources recoverable by diffusion, which in fact, makes uranium, in contrast to the so called "renewable" schemes represented by the failed solar and wind industries, the only truly renewable form of energy, largely a function of extreme energy density, the motions of the earth's crust, and ironically, solar drive ocean currents to overcome the Gibbs free energy of mixing.

If one of course is a paranoid, one objects to the conversion of uranium-238 into plutonium, although the same assholes who raise this objection have no problem whatsoever with the conversion of petroleum into jet fuel, although the weapons diversion of jet fuel is well know.

Neglecting this sad bit of stupid mysticism, and recovering the thorium dumped by the television industry - responsible for the regrettable lack of education of car CULTist anti-nukes everywhere - we need not operate any mines of any kind for centuries.

But one would need to know science to understand this. The entire anti-nuke conceit, wholly and totally a function of mysticism, usually expressed as soothsaying, is based on wishful thinking and gambling earth's atmosphere on risky and stupid daydreams.

Have a nice "my crystal ball says" oblivious fantasy evening.

[joshcryer]

12. The Japenese method is extremely novel, but until it's actually producing fuel to use in reactors...

...it doesn't count, and shouldn't count. Scale it up and actually get fuel that way, though, and it will make the emissions from mining argument moot.

[Statistical]

15. Well industry rarely works that way.

Saltwater extraction DOES work however cost is about $300 per kg. The "problem" with uranium is it is cheap. This is why reprocessing is not economical (there are non-economic reasons to reprocess though).

Spot uranium prices are about $40 but that is partially depressed because we are turning bombs into electricity. Without megatons to megawatts program uranium likely would be about $60 per kg.

We won't move to seawater extraction until one of three things happen:
a) Amount of high yield uranium is consumed thus driving pricing of uranium > $300 per kg
b) Uranium becomes scare enough that Japan (or other uranium poor country) decided the security is worth more than economic premium
c) Carbon Tax raises the economic cost of extraction.

Funny how many places Carbon Tax fits into aligning economic goals with climate goals. It is the giant answer to hundreds of diverse problems all over the planet.

It is unlikely we will ever make any meaningful reductions to carbon emissions without a carbon tax.

Still the "study" is bogus. I would like to re-iterate that the author has 8 peer reviewed studies. This one is NOT peer reviewed but instead included in a book he is trying to sell.

[joshcryer]

22. Yeah, a carbon tax does change things big time.

Which is why it is mind boggling that we have so called environmentalists arguing against it.

[joshcryer]

23. BTW, I saw figures as low as $150 / kg, from start to finish.

Ahh, I found it: http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/4_5.html

[Statistical]

24. Even better. Maybe the paper I saw was earlier study.

Of course that $150/kg depends on a lot of factors.
Getting 6g per kg of absorbant material and the material lasting for at least 60 uses.
It will take more studying to see if those trends can hold (or hopefully improve).

Still as long as conventional uranium is cheaper it will be used. A carbon tax would help raise cost of raw uranium. A combination of lower yields and rising carbon tax means we may use ocean water for 100% of uranium in 2 or 3 decades.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Nice thing is that raw uranium is about half the cost of uranium fuel and total fuel costs are only about 0.4 cents per kWh. So fuel costs on GenIII+ reactors (60MWd/MTU, 35% efficiency, $60 per kg) are about 0.4 cents per kWh.

Using ocean water extraction say the cost for large scale production is $200 per kg. That translates to 0.66 cents per kWh.
Even $300 per kg would be only 0.83 cents per kWh.

[jpak]

26. What a stupid post - the US alone would have to process 7000+ cubic kilometers of seawater each year

to extract enough uranium at a *chemically impossible* 100% extraction efficiency to satisfy its current reactor uranium requirements.

or 14,000 cubic kilometers each year at a very high realistic 50% extraction efficiency.

Clue for pronuclear dimwits- the volume of Chesapeake Bay is only 71 cubic kilometers.

So the US would have to process the seawater volume of Chesapeake Bay EVERY 2 days to achieve this.

Talk about your stupid ambien-induced pseudoscience delusion!!!!1111

:rofl:

[Statistical]

31. Maybe you should read how the process works before you make yourself look like an idiot.

There is no "processing" as in billions gallons flow through some plant.
The system uses absorbent material that binds with uranium in seawater.
By your logic fishing is impossible the fish on my dinner plate must have come from magic.
Because to deliver the amount of fish eaten by Americans would require "processing" hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of seaswater. Something we "know" is impossible.

The only problem with the Japanese seawater method are:
a) nobody has developed a production scale plant yet
b) it really isn't needed for decades (at the earliest) as there is substantial convention uranium reserves.
c) it has a price that is much higher than conventional uranium ($60/kg vs $150-$300/kg)

[jpak]

33. The ignorance is appalling. Ocean engineering much? (nope)

The concentration of uranium in seawater is 3.3 micrograms per liter - do the math.

To process the amount of seawater needed to supply one year's worth of uranium for US nuclear reactors would require enormous energy inputs, pumping (sorry - passive adsorption won't cut it) and a *hugh* ocean engineering infrastructure.

It would seriously disrupt marine ecosystems - seriously - and require mass quantities of petroleum to manufacture the resins.

or maybe they just appear magically in the ocean?

Seawater uranium extraction = Pie-in-the-Sky

:rofl:

[Statistical]

34. Why would you pump it?

The Japanese plan to is to advantage of the giant massive pump called ocean currents. The currents move millions of gallons of water past the same point every year.

Specific absorbent material that bonds with heavy metals in cages.
Cages on a chain.
Chain anchored (anchor at bottom, float at top) in ocean current.
Wait a year.

Why would you try to build a pump when you could never build a pump that has a minuscule fraction of the "pumping" capacity of ocean currents.

The peer reviewed actual experiment (not just theory) but experiments shows you are wrong. The only disadvantage is the higher cost and the reality that conventional uranium will last a century. It is entirely possible this will never be used because we could switch to Thorium based fuel before we exhausted economical uranium reserves.

Once again how much "pumping" is involved in commercial fishing? By your "logic" commercial fishing is impossible.

[jpak]

37. Again, the ocean engineering ignorance is appalling

Only magical thinking can produce an array of resin capable of withstanding real world physical ocean conditions.

Cost effective open-ocean passive adsorption structures cannot be built to withstand ocean conditions AND achieve efficient extraction of uranium form seawater at the rates required to supply the US with uranium.

Furthermore, passive open ocean resin structures would be rapidly colonized by fouling micro- and macro-marine organisms (unless they wee protected by highly toxic anti-fouling chemicals!) that would physically isolate the resins from seawater - eliminating their ability to sequester uranium.

Japanese cartoons of these systems are just that - cartoons. They have no basis in reality.

What a silly joke...

:rofl:

[Statistical]

38. The japanese system DID survive 240 days in the ocean with negligble wear.

They did extract uranium from seawater. The amount they extracted was consistent with their theory.

Current absorbent captured about 2grams/kg.

This isn't a theory. This is an actual experiment conducted over the course of a year (with 240 days spent immersed in seawater off the cost of Japan).

Not sure where this "magical thinking" is coming from.

The real metric is how many times the same absorbant can be used. Their estimates for cost are directly affected by both "reusabilty" of absorbent material and the rate of capture (2grams/kg vs 4-6 grams/kg).

Even the worst case scenario has a cost estimate of $300/kg.

[jpak]

39. Ultra small scale and irrelevant to real world uranium requirements

How many grams of uranium at 2-4% 235-U are required each year by a 1000 MW nuke?

lots

Ion exchange resins rapidly lose their function when exposed to seawater and cannot be economically recycled - but these magical uranium resins that resist bio-fouling can!

....only if one invokes magical thinking....

yup

:rofl:

[Statistical]

40. So you now admit that the system did survive both ocean water and bio-fouling.

"Ion exchange resins rapidly lose their function"
How rapidly?

The experiment conducted by Tamada involved 4 60 day immersions in sea water and the amount of uranium collected in each immersion was linear (no raid drop off between 1st and 2nd or 3rd and 4th).
So while the absorbant material won't last forever it at least last 4 times and likely last much more. They are planning a larger longer experiment to answer questions just like that.

The membrane doesn't need to last forever. The estimated cost at 18 immersions & 4 gram/kg is about $300 per kg. While that is more expensive that conventional uranium the raw uranium in reactor lifecycle is only about 5% of total power cost (quarter of a penny per kWh). Even doubling or quadrupling uranium cost wouldn't materially change lifecycle cost of nuclear energy.


The system is parallel in nature.

If a single absorbent cage can generate 20 grams that 100 cages on a line would generate 2kg.
If a single line can generate 2kg that a thousand cages could generate 2,000kg.

Kinda like a single turbine produces a negligible amount of the worlds power but a 100 turbines in a farm can produce a moderate amount of power.
A couple thousand farms combined can produce a substantial amount of power.

Both are very parallel technologies. If it works for a single unit then you can build 10 units, 100 units, 1000 units, 1,000,000 units and it will still work.

[jpak]

41. Yes - this experiment has been repeated by other independent scientists to verify these claims

ooops!

It hasn't.

Let's hope the Iranian Revolutionary Guard doesn't start *easily* extracting mass quantities of "peaceful" uranium from the Arabia sea with this magical oh-so-simple technology.

(clue: no one is!)

Enjoy you magical fantasies!

:rofl:

[Statistical]

42. Well actually it has.

Why would Republican Guard extract uranium from seawater $300/kg when they can simply mine it for $60/kg?

You are aware Iran has substantial uranium reserves right?
You are also aware they have been mining uranium for over a decade now right?

[jpak]

43. Oil producing Iran doesn't have enough uranium to sustain its power reactor program

nope

and the current price of yellowcake is ~$40 per pound - $660 is no bargain.

The cost of fuel accounts for 17% per kwh of nuclear electricity production and the cost of yellow cake is 8.7% of the cost per kwh at current uranium prices....$115 per kg.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

The (supposed) cost of seawater uranium (that no one has extracted in anything close to the amounts required by ANY nuclear power state) will be $300/kg.

Tripling the cost of uranium would increase the cost of fuel from 17% to 35% of the cost of producing nuclear electricity.

Given that the cost of building nuclear plants is skyrocketing, and the cost of disposing of spent fuel will exceed $100 billion (most of which the taxpayers will pony up), seawater uranium will be another reason why nuclear power will...

FAIL

miserably & epically

yup

:rofl:

[Statistical]

44. Your ability to do math is rather weak.

One:
I pointed out the largest "problem" for seawater extraction is that uranium is insanely cheap. Seawater extraction won't be viable as long as mining has lower cost of production. Just like we didn't see hybrids when a gallon of gasoline was $0.80 we won't see commercial seawater extraction until price of Uranium is higher.

Two:
Current uranium prices are not $115 per kg. WNO simply uses $115 per kg because that is the all time peak for uranium prices.



Thee:
Even at $115 per kg (which is more than double current spot uranium prices) raw uranium (not to be confused with complete fuel costs) is a minor component of nuclear lifecycle. The oldest most obsolete reactors are now burning 45,000 MWd/MTU. Newer reactors (and all reactors under construction) are pushing burnup to 60,000 MWd/MTU. Megawatt Day is simply 24 Megawatt hours.

$115 per kg * 8.9kg per 1 kg of fuel * 1000 kg per ton = $1.02 million per ton.

45,000 MWd = 1,080,000 MWh. $1.02 million / (1,080,000 * 35% efficiency) = 0.27 cents per kWh. quarter penny per kWh. Now fuel (processing, enrichment, fabrication) are about 2.5x higher but they aren't dependent on price of uranium. If uranium is $10 per kg or $1000 per kg fuel fabrication costs don't change.

At newer 60,000 MWd/MTU:
45,000 MWd = 1,080,000 MWh. $1.02 million / (1,080,000 * 35% efficiency) = 0.20 cents per kWh.

Reactors are far more dependent on capital costs which include overnight cost, financing rate, and construction time than they are on price of uranium.

Even tripling price of uranium would add only 0.4 to 0.6 cents per kWh to the price of nuclear power.

[jpak]

45. not according to the world nuclear organization! Nice try though

so sorry

:rofl:

[Statistical]

46. Actually that is exactly what they said.

Your inability to read doesn't change the facts.
None of your claims are supported by WNO.

[jpak]

47. They said - again - that total fuel costs were 17% of the cost of nuclear electricity

yes they did.

and they said that the cost of uranium ore was 51% of that cost = 8.7% of the total cost of nuclear electricity @ $115/kg

yes - that is what they said.

a tripling that uranium cost due the *low cost* :rofl: of seawater uranium to $300/kg would raise the cost of uranium in that total fuel cost to...

...wait for it....

23% of the cost of nuclear electricity alone.

if the rest of the cost of nuclear fuel didn't change :rofl: - the 49% of the 17% of total cost of fuel to nuclear electricity is 8.3% of the total cost.

8.3 + 23 = 32% of the total cost of nuclear electricity.

if the current cost of nuclear electricity is 5.1 cents/kwh - according to the world nuclear organization - yes they did say that

then

seawater uranium would double the cost of fuel to 1.6 cents/kwh

mathematics!

yup

yup

yup

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

48. failed wind and solar industuries?

Funny.
Wind and solar are growing by leaps and bounds. Tens of thousands of MW are added yearly. Yet, no one can build a new nuke plant without billions in government subsidies. You have a unique definition of failure.

[FBaggins]

5. "Said"... sure. But "said" dishonestly.

It's a ridiculously false claim.