EXPENSIVE POWER AND THE URANIUM PINCH
Nuclear power is now one of the most capital-intensive, highest cost types
of electricity generation which exists, around 5 8 times more expensive
on a cost-per-kilowatt of capacity basis, than key alternatives like gas-fired
power plants, windpower and solar photovoltaic plants. Uranium is far
from abundant and only the near-zero rate of nuclear power capacity growth
prevents a supply pinch from driving up prices with uranium fuel costs
presently making up about 12%-17% of typical operating costs for nuclear
power plants.
THE
URANIUM FLAG : NAMIBIA
Electron configuration 2-8-18-32-21-9-2
Atomic number 92 Atomic weight 238.02891
SOURCE/ MINING WEEKLY
In 2010, after two lost decades of low activity, with zero orders some
years starting long before the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986, and spanning
the 1990s and start of the 2000s, the nuclear renaissance was in full
flood. Just months before the Fukushima catastrophe struck Japan.
In July 2010, the WNA-World Nuclear Association (previously named the
Uranium Institute) hailed the fact that over 50 reactors were under construction
in 13 countries. Nuclear power capacity added through 2010-2020 was forecast
by the WNA in 2010 as at least 75 GW (75 000 MW). Other estimates went
beyond 100 GW.
Some country plans and proposals, especially as outlined by India's NPCIL,
claimed that India alone could develop 400 GW of nuclear capacity by around
2040. World total operating capacity of all 440 civil reactors operating
in 29 countries in 2010 was about 340 GW.
New entrant and possible "new nuclear" countries in the 2010-2030 period
were outlined by the WNA as possibly including Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Venezuela,
South Africa, Nigeria, Ghana, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Vietnam, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Bangladesh, Indonesia, Poland and several others - such as Libya - whose
civil nuclear intentions are rather likely on hold, right now.
BATTLE OF THE BULGE
The chart below shows what expansion of uranium output would be needed
if the Nuclear Renaissance was to happen:
Taking only 2010-forecasts and projections for nuclear power growth in
the period 2010-2020 this would raise world total civil power capacity
by over 400 GW in more than 45 countries by 2020, in other words at least
a doubling of total capacity from today's level around 340 GW.
Under this scenario, world uranium requirements could rise to 120 000
tons a year by 2020, from their 2010 level of about 65 000 tons, further
driven by increasing demand per “tranche”, that is bigger-sized power
plant unit sizes, due to the trend for reactor sizes of around 1000-1200
MW each, compared with the present industry standard of 900 MW per tranche.
The massive uranium mining shortage is explained by the figure for world
total mine output in 2010: about 53 000 tons. The balance of 12 000 tons
was supplied from uranium stocks held by miners, power plant builders
and plant operators, as well as government stockpiles.
The nuclear industry's claim is that uranium prices are not important.
Taking an industry standard 900 MW LWR, this typically needs around 350
tons of low enriched uranium fuel on start-up, and about 150 - 160 tons
per year after that. At the most recent peak price for uranium, in 2007
at over US $ 130 per pound ($ 285 per kg or $ 285 000 per ton), compared
with present prices (Dec 2013) reported by UxC at around $40 per pound,
fuel costs of nuclear plants are relatively easy to figure. However the
extreme problem of forecasting reactor fuel costs is underlined by the
most recent-historic low price of uranium, in year 2000, at around $ 8
per pound. Uranium prices have swung from $8 to $130 and back to $40 in
the space of 13 years.
The nuclear lobby and its industry spokespersons often counter this clear
problem of forecast shortage or surplus of uranium playing havoc with
prices with a smokescreen of technical, industrial and economic rationales
which downplay the role and importance of uranium fuel and its prices
for nuclear power. One favoured rationale is the “coming generation of
fast reactors”.
THE PLUTONIUM SOLUTION
This “high tech rationale” is that an average industry standard 900 MW
LWR produces around 0.225 grams of plutonium per day, and the world's
present 440-strong reactor fleet produces about 36 tons of plutonium per
year. This could palliate or avoid potential future uranium shortage
and is also enough plutonium to produce about 3600 Hiroshima-size bombs
of 1945, or 4900 Abdul Qdr "Bombs R Us" Khan nuclear device of 1987 with
the same explosive and radiological fallout potential, per year.
Recycling this plutonium, using firstly MOX fuel in which low grade uranium
is “cut” with plutonium oxide to produce reactor-capable fuel, and then
moving to the use of plutonium to power Fast Breeder Reactors, which produce
more plutonium that they consume, are favoured solutions to uranium shortage
and high or unpredictable prices. Apart from the fast reactor route being
a technological fantasy with stupefying human health risks, environment
impacts and national security implications, this claimed-as-feasible shift
is advanced by the nuclear lobby only because uranium shortage remains
a dark shadow hanging over the industry. Welcome to the plutonium
economy.
Uranium prices, often with a delay, faithfully track oil prices
and are not under control. When they soar, they add more negative weight
to the economics of atomic energy. Possibly unknown to the most eager
shills for nuclear power such as the Global Warming Boomers, Jim Lovelock
and Al Gore, uranium mines operate diesel fuelled heavy machines on a
24/7 basis. After oil-majority fuelled uranium processing into “yellowcake”,
it is exported in oil-fueled container ships to the “carbon conscious
consumers” of the mature democracies, for energy-intensive fuel fabrication
before final use in reactors, then transported using oil-fueled transport
to reprocessing and disposal sites.
In the case of European countries using nuclear power, over 97% of their
uranium fuel needs are imported.
The sheer physical shortage of uranium makes its production, stocks, supply
and prices of key importance to the minds of political and corporate deciders,
exactly like oil. The reasons are mainly simple ones, notably that supply
is far behind demand and competition for supplies is now global, since
the majority of consumer countries are heavily dependent on imported uranium
- exactly like oil.
Exactly like the world oil industry, the uranium industry must resolve
mine ownership and revenue disputes with host governments. In some cases
- such as Niger - they must also handle geopolitical and national security
issues, including hostage taking and world terrorism.
URANIUM MINING AT HOME ?
The world shortfall in uranium supplies can be related to the constantly
shrinking, often completely abandoned uranium mining activity in the 'old
nuclear' countries, and China and India, for a net combined total of nearly
99% of world uranium consumption being imported. The 2010 net shortfall
of supply, about 12 000 tons, was around 7 times the USA's total mine
output, more than 14 times China's total mine output, and close to 17
times India's uranium mining output. It was also several hundred times
French, German or British domestic uranium mine output.
Reasons why uranium mining “at home” was abandoned making a mockery
of claims for “national energy security” from nuclear power - include
uranium depletion and the simple fact that uranium mining is dirty, generates
huge spill and waste zones covering hundreds of square kilometres. Mining
wastes also cause cancer through low level radiation and chemical toxins
in affected water bodies. Impacts on agriculture, water resources and
land values are all negative so the problem is exported “over the horizon”
to low income countries.
The uranium shortfall can also be understood by comparing the shortfall
(12 000 tons in 2010) with Kazakhstan's status of N°1 world uranium miner
and exporter. In 2009, its record total production, which it equalled
in 2010 and 2011 was about 13 500 14 500 tons. This only just exceeded
the net 2010 shortfall of "fresh mined" uranium relative to world uranium
fuel demand.
The uranium pinch will not go away.
POST FUKUSHIMA
The world uranium mining industry, following the 3/11 Fukushima disaster
for nuclear power, now faces low and probably declining prices, certain
to cause a shakeout of producers in which only low-cost miners can survive
comparable in fact to outlooks for gold mining! In other words, uranium
prices, like gold prices have to rebound at some stage due to falling
mine capacity and output, but also have to fall like gold prices for as
long as miners dump their finished stocks on the market to try maintaining
revenues. In addition, also like gold, the uranium market is very small
in absolute size (about 55 000 tons a years, gold about 2 600 tons a year),
easy to rig and heavily manipulated.
The world nuclear industry and its lobby, in classic style continues to
argue that the world needs nuclear power and no uranium shortage exists
for example citing the US-Russian “Megatons to Megawatts” program of
dismantling and recycling the radioactive materials from surplus nuclear
weapons, to produce MOX-type fuels. At best this is a small stopgap and
does not change the real outlook of uranium shortage even with no expansion
of the world's current civil reactor fleet.
World accumulation of presently unusable plutonium from civil reactors
(about 36 tons a year) is called “reactor grade plutonium” to distinguish
it from bomb-grade plutonium, but its radiological health hazards are
as extreme as bomb-grade material. Its capability for utilization in nuclear
weapons devices is very high.
The mega-shift of the industry, from uranium fuel to plutonium fuel, is
still considered both feasible and desirable by nuclear lobby stalwarts.
Other “silver bullet solutions” touted by the lobby feature thorium fuels,
but shifting the current reactor fleet to this supposed “alternate fuel”
would take decades of extreme-high investment spending. Only one other
semi-feasible alternative to uranium fuels would be the development of
nuclear fusion reactors, but in this case a major limiting factor will
be world mine supply of lithium for reactor blankets also needed for
rapid growing li-ion battery production.
The nuclear lobby and its related uranium mining lobby can be credited
with continuing to play a spoiler role in world energy transition. By
denying nuclear power plants are extremely capital-intensive and extremely
high cost relative to alternatives either fossil or other and by denying
there is any existing or future uranium fuel shortage, some political
deciders continue to “believe in nuclear”. This can only increase the
real and existing problems for rational energy transition, hinder its
progress, and increase energy security problems.
|