I can hardly believe that Newsweek has come out with a sensible article about nuclear energy and some of the alternative forms of energy. I say this in comparison to Newsweek's article about global warming, climate change and the "deniers". The man being interviewed here, Patrick Moore, I think has his facts and his perceptions correct. This represents a refreshing change from much of what we read in the mainstream media. It is in direct contrast to what we hear from the Environmental Industry alarmists.
Peter
A Renegade Against Greenpeace
Why he says they're wrong to view nuclear energy as 'evil'
Fareed Zakaria
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 2:39 PM ET Apr 12, 2008
Patrick Moore is a critic of the environmental movement—an unlikely one at that. He was one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, and sailed into the Aleutian Islands on the organization's inaugural mission in 1971, to protest U.S. nuclear tests taking place there. After leading the group for 15 years he left abruptly, and, in a controversial reversal, has become an outspoken advocate of some of the environmental movement's most detested causes, chief among them nuclear energy. NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria spoke to Moore about his sparring with the green movement, and why he thinks nuclear power is the energy of the future.
Excerpts:
ZAKARIA: At Greenpeace, you fought against nuclear energy. What changed?
MOORE: My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And indeed today, Greenpeace still uses the word "evil" to describe nuclear energy. I think that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine uses radioactive isotopes to successfully treat millions of people every year, and those isotopes are all produced in nuclear reactors. That's why I left Greenpeace: I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level.
Why do you favor nuclear energy over other non-carbon-based sources of energy?
Other than hydroelectric energy—which I also strongly support—nuclear is the only technology besides fossil fuels available as a large-scale continuous power source, and I mean one you can rely on to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind and solar energy are intermittent and thus unreliable. How can you run hospitals and factories and schools and even a house on an electricity supply that disappears for three or four days at a time? Wind can play a minor role in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, because you can turn the fossil fuels off when the wind is blowing. And solar is completely ridiculous. The cost is so high—California's $3.2 billion in solar subsidies is all just going into Silicon Valley companies and consultants. It's ridiculous.
A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it.
That's simply not true. Where the massive government subsidies are is in wind and solar. I know that France, which produces 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear, does not have high energy costs. Sweden, which produces 50 percent of its energy with nuclear and 50 percent with hydro, has very reasonable energy costs. I know that the cost of production of electricity among the 104 nuclear plants operating in the United States is 1.68 cents per kilowatt-hour. That's not including the capital costs, but the cost of production of electricity from nuclear is very low, and competitive with dirty coal. Gas costs three times as much as nuclear, at least. Wind costs five times as much, and solar costs 10 times as much.
What about the issue of nuclear waste?
As is now planned, I'd establish a recycling industry for nuclear fuel, which reduces the amount of waste to less than 10 percent of what it would be without recycling. How many Americans know that 50 percent of the nuclear energy being produced in the U.S. is now coming from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads? The environmental movement is going on about how terrible it will be if someone does something destructive with these materials. Well, actually the opposite is occurring: all over the world, people are using former nuclear-weapons material for peaceful purposes—swords into plowshares. This constant propaganda about the cost of nuclear energy—that's just activists looking for the right buttons to push, and one of the key buttons to push is to make consumers afraid that their electricity prices will go up if nuclear energy is built. In fact, it's natural gas that is causing [energy] prices to go up.
Don't you worry about proliferation?
You do not need a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear weapon. With centrifuge technology, it is far easier, quicker and cheaper to make a nuclear weapon by enriching uranium directly. No nuclear reactor was involved in making the Hiroshima bomb. You'll never change the fact that there are evil people in the world. The most deaths in combat in the last 20 years have not been caused by nuclear weapons or car bombs or rifles or land mines or any of the usual suspects, but the machete. And yet the machete is the most important tool for farmers in the developing world. Hundreds of millions of people use it to clear their land, to cut their firewood and harvest their crops. Banning the machete is not an option.
Are you optimistic that there will be an aggressive move toward nuclear power in the industrial world, and in particular in the United States?
There are 32 nuclear plants on the drawing boards right now. Last year four applied for their licenses and this year we expect 10 or 11 more. That's just in the United States. There are hundreds of nuclear plants on the drawing boards around the world. This is a completely new thing: the term "'nuclear renaissance" didn't exist three years ago, and now it's a widely known term. Unfortunately, the environmental movement now is the primary obstacle here. If it weren't for their opposition to nuclear energy, there would be a lot fewer coal-fired power plants in the United States and other parts of the world today.
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Nuclear Power: Is It The Answer?
Here is a good summary article about the nuclear power industry in the United States. I discusses the history of nuclear power, compares the US with other countries, and sources of energy, and it weighs some of the costs. The conclusion is there are no easy answers.
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070925b.html
Nuclear Power Can Help Solve U.S. Energy Concerns, Say Experts
By Kevin Mooney and Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writers September 25, 2007 (CNSNews.com) -
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recent remark that the "Iraq war is largely about oil" sparked a political nerve and made headlines. It also highlighted a problem with America's energy supply, which some analysts and policy-makers think could be solved cleanly and abundantly through nuclear power. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of America's electricity, with 100 nuclear plants located at 65 sites in 31 states, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. By contrast, 80 percent of France's energy needs are supplied by nuclear power. Other examples include Belgium, 54 percent; Sweden, 46 percent; Switzerland, 41 percent; and Japan, 34 percent.
While the U.S. emerged as the world leader in nuclear power, research, design and construction in the latter half of the 20th century, the industry has been at a near-standstill since the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Penn., in 1979. There has not been a new nuclear plant built in America since then, largely because of environmental, political and financial considerations, according to energy policy analysts.
Both France and Japan, however, improved upon U.S. nuclear power technology and are way ahead of this country now in terms of providing energy for their citizens, former Virginia Sen. George Allen told Cybercast News Service. America can do better, he said, particularly as more of the public learns about nuclear power's benefits and discards unnecessary regulations that are impeding America's movement towards greater energy independence. 'Straight Line from Maryland to Texas'New nuclear power plants would offer a mix of environmental and financial benefits in the form of clean energy and lower property taxes, said Allen. Additional plants could be located, for instance, in Louisa County, Va., and Surry County, Va., where existing facilities already have yielded tangible dividends for residents, said Allen.
The demand for power that nuclear is expected to address will be in the American Southeast, where the population is expected to grow by about 100 million over the next 20 years, Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant development at the National Energy Institute, said in an interview. "If you could draw a straight line from Maryland to Texas, this is where most of the new plants would be," he observed. The federal government now has licensing applications for about 30 new nuclear reactors that would be built between 2015 and 2025, Heymer said.
The new, streamlined licensing process Congress has authorized will remove a number of pre-existing hurdles for the 17 companies that are now considering additional plants, said Heymer. Under the old system, energy companies had to make their way through about two-thirds of construction before they could apply for an operating license. But now that all safety concerns must be addressed up front, the construction permit and operating license are approved simultaneously, said Heymer.
As the U.S. seeks to pull back from its dependence on foreign energy sources in unstable regions, the appeal of nuclear energy is beginning to resonate and has even "attracted the eye of Wall Street" in a way that was not conceivable until recently, Heymer argued. Going back to the late 1990s, only a handful of financial analysts expressed interest in pending nuclear reactor projects, he said. By comparison, more than100 analysts from financial institutions were present this year when industry officials made their case, Heymer noted.
Climate change 'new boogeyman'
The U.S. Department of Energy reported that nuclear power accounted for 54 percent of voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. The industry claims it kept 681.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the air in 2005 -- that's the equivalent of taking 96 percent of passenger cars off the road. Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said energy demand will increase by 40 percent by 2030. Whitman is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which advocates for more nuclear power. "With an increase in awareness of climate change and an increased demand in energy -- everyone has a new IPOD or blackberry -- we can't continue mountaintop mining for coal," Whitman told Cybercast News Service.
Whitman added that increasing the use of nuclear energy should be done alongside increasing wind and solar energy production. But nuclear power generates electricity, and doesn't power automobiles, one of the biggest causes of global warming, said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "The new boogeyman into frightening the public to accept this 1950s technology is climate change," Riccio told Cybercast News Service. An independent report released in June by The Keystone Center, a diverse group of energy and environmental experts, determined that a larger growth rate of nuclear plants - greater than that currently planned by industry and government - would be needed to mitigate global warming.
'Bad terror targets'
The Keystone report also delved into safety concerns that surround the nuclear debate and which have only increased since 9/11. The potential theft of material from bulk-fuel-handling facilities to develop nuclear weapons is a major concern, stated the report, adding that the "expansion of nuclear power in ways that substantially increases the likelihood of the spread of nuclear weapons is unacceptable." "Reactors in the country are in violation" of general safety and environmental regulations and "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just goes its merry way," said Greenpeace's Riccio. "To my mind it is unconscionable to build more terror targets in our midst. The 9/11 Report said Mohammed Atta was taking test flights over Indian Point." (Indian Point nuclear plant is in Buchanan, New York.)
Whitman believes the safety concerns are overstated. "People who fly airplanes every single day are exposed to more radiation" than from nuclear plants, she said. "They don't pose a threat to human health. It's minimum radiation." A person would have to live next door to a nuclear power plant for more than 2,000 years to get the amount of radiation exposure someone gets from a single X-ray, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.Also, "nuclear plants are bad targets for terrorists," said Whitman. "It's the most highly regulated power in the country and they are deemed to be one of the safest places to work because they are prepared for an attack.
If a plane flew into the facility, it would not cause a mushroom cloud."Power plants have numerous built-in sensors to watch temperature, pressure, water level and other safety indicators. The sensors are designed to shut down the plant immediately and automatically, if problems occur. Because of these precautions, nuclear plants are safer work places than most other manufacturing plants, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Also, American technology and equipment is far superior to that which was used in Russia, said William Meyer, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri. He points out there were about 5,000 cases of cancer in Russia after the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. But there were no such cases resulting from the Three Mile Island incident.
'Massive federal subsidies'
As long as cheaper energy alternatives are available to investors, nuclear power will remain stagnant, Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute told Cybercast News Service. "The entire industry is propped up by the most massive set of federal subsidies ever unleashed in the energy market, with the possible exception of ethanol," he said. "Without government preference and subsidy the nuclear industry would not exist today.
I believe in letting investors decide what to build and what not to build. I don't believe the government should rig the market to favor nuclear investments over other investments." Nuclear energy has failed to gain traction not so much because of environmental opposition but because it remains a poor investment, said Taylor. A University of Chicago study from 2004 on the economics of nuclear energy found many positive aspects, but affirmed Taylor's view on subsidies. "Without federal financial policy assistance," for "new nuclear plants to have a levelized cost of electricity" consumer rates for nuclear energy would be between $47 and $71 per megawatt-hour, compared to gas and coal powered electric that costs between $33 and $45 per megawatt hour, the report stated, adding that nuclear costs could be reduced to between $32 and $50 per megawatt hour with assistance from loan guarantees and tax credits.
But recognizing the move toward lower carbon emissions, the same report said, "A successful transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the long run, increase demand for nuclear energy as a non-polluting way to produce hydrogen."Nuclear power is hardly the only industry to be buttressed by taxpayer dollars, advocates said. "We subsidize all energy," said William H. Miller, professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri, told Cybercast News Service. "Nuclear is not unique.
The same people who are against subsidizing nuclear power want to give tax credits for hybrid cars. "Even if nuclear energy can prove itself in the marketplace, one should use caution in viewing nuclear as a "silver bullet" that would resolve America's energy challenges, said NEI's Heymer. Instead, he envisions a "balanced and diverse energy portfolio" that includes renewables, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear energy sources that can be applied to meeting rising demands.
The whole notion of energy independence peddled by politicians in both parties is a myth anyway, said Taylor. Even if nuclear power were to assume a larger percentage of electricity generation, the uranium comes from abroad, he noted."We import energy because it's cheaper than getting alternative sources here at home," he said. "Free trade is a good thing. Unfortunately, most Americans don't know much about economics."
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200709/NAT20070925b.html
Nuclear Power Can Help Solve U.S. Energy Concerns, Say Experts
By Kevin Mooney and Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writers September 25, 2007 (CNSNews.com) -
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recent remark that the "Iraq war is largely about oil" sparked a political nerve and made headlines. It also highlighted a problem with America's energy supply, which some analysts and policy-makers think could be solved cleanly and abundantly through nuclear power. Nuclear energy currently provides about 20 percent of America's electricity, with 100 nuclear plants located at 65 sites in 31 states, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. By contrast, 80 percent of France's energy needs are supplied by nuclear power. Other examples include Belgium, 54 percent; Sweden, 46 percent; Switzerland, 41 percent; and Japan, 34 percent.
While the U.S. emerged as the world leader in nuclear power, research, design and construction in the latter half of the 20th century, the industry has been at a near-standstill since the Three Mile Island accident near Harrisburg, Penn., in 1979. There has not been a new nuclear plant built in America since then, largely because of environmental, political and financial considerations, according to energy policy analysts.
Both France and Japan, however, improved upon U.S. nuclear power technology and are way ahead of this country now in terms of providing energy for their citizens, former Virginia Sen. George Allen told Cybercast News Service. America can do better, he said, particularly as more of the public learns about nuclear power's benefits and discards unnecessary regulations that are impeding America's movement towards greater energy independence. 'Straight Line from Maryland to Texas'New nuclear power plants would offer a mix of environmental and financial benefits in the form of clean energy and lower property taxes, said Allen. Additional plants could be located, for instance, in Louisa County, Va., and Surry County, Va., where existing facilities already have yielded tangible dividends for residents, said Allen.
The demand for power that nuclear is expected to address will be in the American Southeast, where the population is expected to grow by about 100 million over the next 20 years, Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant development at the National Energy Institute, said in an interview. "If you could draw a straight line from Maryland to Texas, this is where most of the new plants would be," he observed. The federal government now has licensing applications for about 30 new nuclear reactors that would be built between 2015 and 2025, Heymer said.
The new, streamlined licensing process Congress has authorized will remove a number of pre-existing hurdles for the 17 companies that are now considering additional plants, said Heymer. Under the old system, energy companies had to make their way through about two-thirds of construction before they could apply for an operating license. But now that all safety concerns must be addressed up front, the construction permit and operating license are approved simultaneously, said Heymer.
As the U.S. seeks to pull back from its dependence on foreign energy sources in unstable regions, the appeal of nuclear energy is beginning to resonate and has even "attracted the eye of Wall Street" in a way that was not conceivable until recently, Heymer argued. Going back to the late 1990s, only a handful of financial analysts expressed interest in pending nuclear reactor projects, he said. By comparison, more than100 analysts from financial institutions were present this year when industry officials made their case, Heymer noted.
Climate change 'new boogeyman'
The U.S. Department of Energy reported that nuclear power accounted for 54 percent of voluntary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in 2004. The industry claims it kept 681.9 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions from entering the air in 2005 -- that's the equivalent of taking 96 percent of passenger cars off the road. Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said energy demand will increase by 40 percent by 2030. Whitman is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which advocates for more nuclear power. "With an increase in awareness of climate change and an increased demand in energy -- everyone has a new IPOD or blackberry -- we can't continue mountaintop mining for coal," Whitman told Cybercast News Service.
Whitman added that increasing the use of nuclear energy should be done alongside increasing wind and solar energy production. But nuclear power generates electricity, and doesn't power automobiles, one of the biggest causes of global warming, said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "The new boogeyman into frightening the public to accept this 1950s technology is climate change," Riccio told Cybercast News Service. An independent report released in June by The Keystone Center, a diverse group of energy and environmental experts, determined that a larger growth rate of nuclear plants - greater than that currently planned by industry and government - would be needed to mitigate global warming.
'Bad terror targets'
The Keystone report also delved into safety concerns that surround the nuclear debate and which have only increased since 9/11. The potential theft of material from bulk-fuel-handling facilities to develop nuclear weapons is a major concern, stated the report, adding that the "expansion of nuclear power in ways that substantially increases the likelihood of the spread of nuclear weapons is unacceptable." "Reactors in the country are in violation" of general safety and environmental regulations and "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission just goes its merry way," said Greenpeace's Riccio. "To my mind it is unconscionable to build more terror targets in our midst. The 9/11 Report said Mohammed Atta was taking test flights over Indian Point." (Indian Point nuclear plant is in Buchanan, New York.)
Whitman believes the safety concerns are overstated. "People who fly airplanes every single day are exposed to more radiation" than from nuclear plants, she said. "They don't pose a threat to human health. It's minimum radiation." A person would have to live next door to a nuclear power plant for more than 2,000 years to get the amount of radiation exposure someone gets from a single X-ray, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.Also, "nuclear plants are bad targets for terrorists," said Whitman. "It's the most highly regulated power in the country and they are deemed to be one of the safest places to work because they are prepared for an attack.
If a plane flew into the facility, it would not cause a mushroom cloud."Power plants have numerous built-in sensors to watch temperature, pressure, water level and other safety indicators. The sensors are designed to shut down the plant immediately and automatically, if problems occur. Because of these precautions, nuclear plants are safer work places than most other manufacturing plants, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Also, American technology and equipment is far superior to that which was used in Russia, said William Meyer, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri. He points out there were about 5,000 cases of cancer in Russia after the Chernobyl explosion in 1986. But there were no such cases resulting from the Three Mile Island incident.
'Massive federal subsidies'
As long as cheaper energy alternatives are available to investors, nuclear power will remain stagnant, Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow with the libertarian Cato Institute told Cybercast News Service. "The entire industry is propped up by the most massive set of federal subsidies ever unleashed in the energy market, with the possible exception of ethanol," he said. "Without government preference and subsidy the nuclear industry would not exist today.
I believe in letting investors decide what to build and what not to build. I don't believe the government should rig the market to favor nuclear investments over other investments." Nuclear energy has failed to gain traction not so much because of environmental opposition but because it remains a poor investment, said Taylor. A University of Chicago study from 2004 on the economics of nuclear energy found many positive aspects, but affirmed Taylor's view on subsidies. "Without federal financial policy assistance," for "new nuclear plants to have a levelized cost of electricity" consumer rates for nuclear energy would be between $47 and $71 per megawatt-hour, compared to gas and coal powered electric that costs between $33 and $45 per megawatt hour, the report stated, adding that nuclear costs could be reduced to between $32 and $50 per megawatt hour with assistance from loan guarantees and tax credits.
But recognizing the move toward lower carbon emissions, the same report said, "A successful transition from oil-based to hydrogen-based transportation could, in the long run, increase demand for nuclear energy as a non-polluting way to produce hydrogen."Nuclear power is hardly the only industry to be buttressed by taxpayer dollars, advocates said. "We subsidize all energy," said William H. Miller, professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri, told Cybercast News Service. "Nuclear is not unique.
The same people who are against subsidizing nuclear power want to give tax credits for hybrid cars. "Even if nuclear energy can prove itself in the marketplace, one should use caution in viewing nuclear as a "silver bullet" that would resolve America's energy challenges, said NEI's Heymer. Instead, he envisions a "balanced and diverse energy portfolio" that includes renewables, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear energy sources that can be applied to meeting rising demands.
The whole notion of energy independence peddled by politicians in both parties is a myth anyway, said Taylor. Even if nuclear power were to assume a larger percentage of electricity generation, the uranium comes from abroad, he noted."We import energy because it's cheaper than getting alternative sources here at home," he said. "Free trade is a good thing. Unfortunately, most Americans don't know much about economics."
Monday, August 27, 2007
Information On Uranium Mining, Resources and Nuclear Engergy
My first job out of college was with the USGS in their Uranium Resources Division, and I did field work in South Texas related to uranium exploration. It seems we may be coming full circle. Isn't life ironic?
Peter
from: http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/uranium.cfm
Nuclear Power: Winds of Change
byThe Uranium Committee*Energy Minerals Division, AAPG • March 31, 2007 • PDF (14 pages) Version 1.9
Since our last report published in early 2005, the winds of change (otherwise known in society as changes in a paradyme) are upon us and have affected the general public as well as geoscientists in the U.S. and around the world. Not only has evidence of global warming stimulated renewed concerns for climate change over the next 50 years and beyond, it has underscored the urgency of reducing the burning of carbon-based fuels worldwide (see the United Nation’s IPCC Report, 2007).
The debate over climate change has been intense because the stakes are very high. A common view advanced by many climate scientists is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. Hansen, et al., (2000) argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide, not by the products of fossil-fuel burning, CO2 or aerosols. Then there are the naysayers who are convinced that global warming is part of a natural cycle and not related to human activities to any significant extent (Lewis, 2006), and that the public debate is based on a hoax driven by political interests (Dunn, 2007).
In any event, regardless of the cause and rate of these changes to the Earth’s environment, the necessity of transition to alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and nuclear power, has become clear. The role that each of these sources of energy and the technologies that support them can play in the global energy picture of the future has begun to come into focus.
Alternative Sources of Energy
Solar arrays and wind farms appear to have applications in isolated areas, both onshore and offshore, where visual and ecological effects or security issues are not of overwhelming concern. However, because solar panels and windmills for individuals and/or small groups are capital intensive, only the financially well-off will be able to afford the new technology over the next 20 years.
Electric cars and trucks that incorporate new technology using improved electrical batteries were proven in California in the 1990s. Now they are suspiciously absent from the marketplace, although hybrid automobiles are now available and gaining in popularity. The development of hydrogen fuel-cell technology for automobiles is mired down in research controlled by the U.S. auto manufacturers and the oil and gas industry. Prices for these kinds of vehicles are still high because, as with any new technology, the research costs are loaded into the prices of new technologies and are borne by those who can afford them – e.g., the financially well-off and the U.S. armed services.
There is little doubt that the high prices now paid for the new technologies will decline as they gain market share over the next 20 years, guiding a transition away from the old, environmentally unfriendly technologies that burn fuel oil and gasoline, natural gas, ethanol, and coal-derived products that may appear on the market. Because the oil and gas industry maintains large investments in economic reserves of oil and gas, coal and lignite, coal-bed methane, oil shale and oil sands, the transition away from the present energy policy is not likely to be rapid and probably will need to extend over the next 20 years. This transition period will only be reduced if the U.S. market place demands it, and, if reduced, will improve our climate and also the overall efficiency of how we use our natural resources.
Other Emission Sources
In addition to the contribution that developed countries make to climate problems through CO2 emissions, the role of other sources of carbon, CO2, and CO contributed by remote regions on the Earth is now clear. Satellites in orbit monitor many environmental conditions, one of which is clear-cut burning (Herring, 2007). Just how these sources of habitat-burning and destruction can be controlled in the future is uncertain, but governments are now turning their attention to the problem. For example, the Brazilian government has recently begun a major effort to control the clear-cutting and burning of their forests. These efforts must be supported in addition to efforts to modify industrial and individual patterns of energy consumption, in order to have any significant effect on the overall conditions on the Earth 20 years from now. The time for choices has run out. In fact, we may have waited too long to slow down the climate-change machine without suffering a severe economic and social backlash in the years to come.
New Alliances
As the reality of global warming has gained acceptance over the past two years, discussions and reports have flooded the news media opposing the burning of carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas and focusing on the need for cleaner sources of energy. This has brought about a resurgence in consideration of nuclear power based on its reputation over the past 25 years of being a “clean” energy source. An unusual alliance has developed between the nuclear-power industry and many of the national environmental advocacy groups based on the long safety history and relative environmental friendliness of nuclear power, initiating a reversal of unfortunate decisions from the 1970s. The only major area of concern centers around nuclear waste issues.
In the late 1970s, the United States decided not to recycle (reprocess) spent fuel for fear of weapons proliferation but, instead, to dispose of it in a deep geologic repository that had a 50-year retrievability (in case we changed our minds). This led directly to the Yucca Mountain “problem”. But this early decision has been overtaken by events elsewhere in the world, where recycling of spent fuel, as well as U-enrichment, has proceeded forward, making the earlier decision irrelevant but costly (Conca, 2007).
The Department of Energy has recently initiated a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) that addresses recycling, proliferation and the developing world's growing need for energy. Under GNEP, a consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technologies would provide fuel and reactors sized to meet the grid and industry needs of other countries. By participating in GNEP, developing countries would enjoy the benefits of clean, safe nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns and eliminating the need to invest in the complete fuel cycle, e.g., recycling and enrichment (Figure 1). In cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, participating nations would develop international agreements to ensure reliable access to nuclear fuel. Therefore, the U.S. or France would supply the fuel to countries like Iran or Indonesia, retrieve it for recycling when it is used, and provide them with new fuel, eliminating their need to develop enrichment programs that could be used to produce weapons-grade material. The development of standardized modular reactors and recycling technologies is the technical challenge of the next ten years.
Figure 1 – Click to enlarge
In the meantime, reactors are still being built around the world (130 are planned in the next 5 years). It is estimated that nuclear energy will account for as much as 10 trillion kWhrs/year by 2040 necessitating the construction of over 400 new reactors. Because recycling facilities are far behind the need for fuel, demand for yellowcake will continue to climb, as will the price, for many years to come.
Increases in Yellow Cake Price Drives Uranium Exploration
The resurgence of the nuclear-power industry has stimulated a significant rise in the spot market price of yellowcake (U3O8) well beyond that of $50/pound considered likely in 2005 (Campbell, et al., 2005). By the end of 2006, the yellowcake spot-market prices rose above $72/pound, more than doubling over the previous 12 months. Although the average price involved in long-term contracts for deliveries in 2005 was less than $15/pound, as the contracts with the nuclear utilities mature, major price re-adjustments upward will certainly occur. See UxC for the spot and other uranium prices (UxC, 2007). The U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Agency tracks the important facts on yellowcake usage and consumption (see additional references PDF).
Figure 2 - Click to enlarge
New mineral exploration companies are appearing and drilling activities in South Texas have already reached levels exceeding those of the late 1970s. A shortage of drilling rigs is driving up prices and causing delays in production schedules. Discovery of new uranium deposits is resulting from following extensions of previously known, shallow deposits that were mined by open-cut methods (see Figure 3). The oxidized tongue shown in Figure 3 is of orange and grayish orange hues. The ore zone is medium gray surrounding the oxidized zone. Prior to mining, the direction of ground-water flow would have been to the right in Figure 3. The red zone shown at the bottom of the figure is the selenium zone and the bluish zone just above is the molybdenum (and vanadium) zone that is common in some Tertiary roll fronts in Texas (see Dickinson and Duval, 1977; and Campbell and Biddle, 1977). In many South Texas deposits, methane and perhaps hydrogen sulfide are the likely reducing agents, while in other areas, lignite and other carbonaceous materials are important constituents in forming the bio-geochemical cell that produces uranium mineralization in Tertiary sediments in Wyoming and elsewhere.
Figure 3 – Click to enlarge
Using the geologic methods developed in the 1960s and 70s by Rubin (1970), illustrated in Figure 4, and by Rackley and others (1968, 1971, 1975, and 1976), the success rates are going up for uranium mining companies on the American, Canadian, and foreign stock exchanges that employ well-educated, professional geoscientists. Claim-staking activities on Federal and private lands in the U.S. are running at record levels with a disturbing amount of prospective land under control by major Canadian mining companies. These companies may have little interest in committing to production in order to protect their Canadian-based mining activities and associated yellowcake pricing.
Figure 4 – Click to enlarge
Need for Well-Trained Professionals
In the 1970s and 1980s,approximately 2,000 professional geoscientists were working on uranium projects in the U.S. A generation of uranium geologists and engineers has been lost. Presently, only 400 to 500 geologists and only a few qualified hydrogeologists are working in the field. State geoscience licensing in Texas, Wyoming, Washington, and elsewhere has reinforced the upward trend in professional competency and responsibility to the general public in the analysis of uranium reserves and environmental compliance for private mining companies as well as for those on the stock markets. To staff up, it will take some time to train new geologists and hydrogeologists and this will inhibit exploration and yellowcake production schedules as well.
Out with the Old Mining Technology – In with ISL
In the production of uranium, mining no longer requires open-cut surface mines as in the past. New, environmentally friendly, methods have developed substantially since the late 1970s. Mining uranium in Tertiary sandstone deposits in South Texas, Wyoming, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere now incorporates in-situ leaching (ISL) methods that involve water-well drilling technology and common industrial ion-exchange technology similar to household water-softening methods. Because the uranium ore has formed naturally in aquifers often used for drinking-water supplies elsewhere along the trend, the part of the aquifer being mined by ISL methods is prohibited by the State to be used as a source of drinking water. In addition, the area of influence of nearby large-capacity water wells needs to be carefully monitored (by the owners) to avoid drawing the naturally contaminated ground water away from the uranium production area. The leaching agents used in ISL are typically special forms of O2, and CO2 and, in some cases, other fluids as well, all of which are non-toxic and are easily recovered by pumping.
It is the responsibility of the mining company (and required by state regulatory agencies) to install strategically located ground-water monitoring wells to periodically sample for fluids that may have escaped the hydraulic cycle. The cycle entails injection and recovery of uranium-saturated fluids for making yellowcake from ion exchange resins in the plant on the surface. The typical cycle is illustrated in Figure 5, below.
To a large extent, in-situ mining of uranium is both a natural resource development project and a natural, contaminant-remediation project. Although uranium ore is a natural energy resource, it is also a bacterial waste product that was formed within the bio-geochemical cell of the roll front. Both rely heavily on, and are driven by, hydrogeological processes including: hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, sediment and ore-zone porosity, and hydrochemistry of natural and injection fluids (both within the ore zone and at proximal and distal parts of the aquifer). Protecting upper and lower aquifers from incursions of the production fluids requires understanding the hydrogeological conditions in and around the production site.
Figure 5 – Click to enlarge
The mine’s hydrogeological staff is responsible for monitoring the behavior of the fluids and associated hydrochemistry during the in-situ leaching of the uranium ore zones and for monitoring the data generated from sampling the surrounding monitoring wells. Regulatory personnel work with the mine’s staff to ensure that the mine meets the regulations written to protect the aquifers outside the production areas.
Energy-Source Competition: The Environment vs. The Oil & Gas Industry
As long-term plans continue to expand the use of nuclear power for the generation of electrical power in the U.S., the price of yellowcake will continue to rise. At this writing, the spot price passed through $91/pound of yellowcake. It is widely suspected that the price of uranium will continue to rise for the next few years until the perspective of a uranium shortfall is realized. This will occur when new production comes on line and current operations are expanded to increase production, likely within the next 5 to 10 years. If the world greatly expands the use of nuclear power by building many more plants than have been announced to date, the pressure on production and price will be tremendous beyond 2020. However, recent efforts by the international community in recycling and enrichment of nuclear wastes may play significant roles in stabilizing production and fuel prices in the future.
It is interesting to note that the major oil and gas companies, who in the 1970s held major stakes in uranium exploration and production, are sitting it out so far this cycle. Perhaps just as the majors likely encouraged the U.S. automotive industry to sit out on the development of the electric car. Therefore, one might presume that we can expect competition between nuclear power and 1) natural gas, 2) coal and lignite, 3) oil shales, 4) oil sands, and 5) other oil- and gas-based fuels that might be burned to generate power for the electrical grid in the U.S.
Because Texas has abundant coal-lignite resources, The Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) is pressing hard for coal (lignite) development and use in electrical power generation in Texas (see CEED reference below). If the pressure continues on limiting the development of the so-called ”dirty” energy sources, they will soon fade into obscurity within 20 years because their time of usefulness may have passed even before some of them could be brought into production. Standard energy resources, such as natural gas, will serve to back-up energy needs for decades to come.
Furthermore, there is a growing sentiment that if the major oil and gas companies wish to remain leaders of the global energy field, they will have to re-enter the nuclear-power industry – bothat the plant level to play a strong role in hydrogen production and distribution and at the exploration level to influence the availability of reactor fuel and associated yellowcake prices (Lea, 2007).
This economic and environmental competition between energy resources can only be good for the American people and for the industries that support it. However, as the winds of change in our way of using energy impacts society as well as industry and the specter of climate change continues to rise on the horizon, nuclear power used to generate electricity will play a greater role in energy usage for many years to come.
Peter
from: http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/uranium.cfm
Nuclear Power: Winds of Change
byThe Uranium Committee*Energy Minerals Division, AAPG • March 31, 2007 • PDF (14 pages) Version 1.9
Since our last report published in early 2005, the winds of change (otherwise known in society as changes in a paradyme) are upon us and have affected the general public as well as geoscientists in the U.S. and around the world. Not only has evidence of global warming stimulated renewed concerns for climate change over the next 50 years and beyond, it has underscored the urgency of reducing the burning of carbon-based fuels worldwide (see the United Nation’s IPCC Report, 2007).
The debate over climate change has been intense because the stakes are very high. A common view advanced by many climate scientists is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. Hansen, et al., (2000) argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases, such as chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide, not by the products of fossil-fuel burning, CO2 or aerosols. Then there are the naysayers who are convinced that global warming is part of a natural cycle and not related to human activities to any significant extent (Lewis, 2006), and that the public debate is based on a hoax driven by political interests (Dunn, 2007).
In any event, regardless of the cause and rate of these changes to the Earth’s environment, the necessity of transition to alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind, and nuclear power, has become clear. The role that each of these sources of energy and the technologies that support them can play in the global energy picture of the future has begun to come into focus.
Alternative Sources of Energy
Solar arrays and wind farms appear to have applications in isolated areas, both onshore and offshore, where visual and ecological effects or security issues are not of overwhelming concern. However, because solar panels and windmills for individuals and/or small groups are capital intensive, only the financially well-off will be able to afford the new technology over the next 20 years.
Electric cars and trucks that incorporate new technology using improved electrical batteries were proven in California in the 1990s. Now they are suspiciously absent from the marketplace, although hybrid automobiles are now available and gaining in popularity. The development of hydrogen fuel-cell technology for automobiles is mired down in research controlled by the U.S. auto manufacturers and the oil and gas industry. Prices for these kinds of vehicles are still high because, as with any new technology, the research costs are loaded into the prices of new technologies and are borne by those who can afford them – e.g., the financially well-off and the U.S. armed services.
There is little doubt that the high prices now paid for the new technologies will decline as they gain market share over the next 20 years, guiding a transition away from the old, environmentally unfriendly technologies that burn fuel oil and gasoline, natural gas, ethanol, and coal-derived products that may appear on the market. Because the oil and gas industry maintains large investments in economic reserves of oil and gas, coal and lignite, coal-bed methane, oil shale and oil sands, the transition away from the present energy policy is not likely to be rapid and probably will need to extend over the next 20 years. This transition period will only be reduced if the U.S. market place demands it, and, if reduced, will improve our climate and also the overall efficiency of how we use our natural resources.
Other Emission Sources
In addition to the contribution that developed countries make to climate problems through CO2 emissions, the role of other sources of carbon, CO2, and CO contributed by remote regions on the Earth is now clear. Satellites in orbit monitor many environmental conditions, one of which is clear-cut burning (Herring, 2007). Just how these sources of habitat-burning and destruction can be controlled in the future is uncertain, but governments are now turning their attention to the problem. For example, the Brazilian government has recently begun a major effort to control the clear-cutting and burning of their forests. These efforts must be supported in addition to efforts to modify industrial and individual patterns of energy consumption, in order to have any significant effect on the overall conditions on the Earth 20 years from now. The time for choices has run out. In fact, we may have waited too long to slow down the climate-change machine without suffering a severe economic and social backlash in the years to come.
New Alliances
As the reality of global warming has gained acceptance over the past two years, discussions and reports have flooded the news media opposing the burning of carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas and focusing on the need for cleaner sources of energy. This has brought about a resurgence in consideration of nuclear power based on its reputation over the past 25 years of being a “clean” energy source. An unusual alliance has developed between the nuclear-power industry and many of the national environmental advocacy groups based on the long safety history and relative environmental friendliness of nuclear power, initiating a reversal of unfortunate decisions from the 1970s. The only major area of concern centers around nuclear waste issues.
In the late 1970s, the United States decided not to recycle (reprocess) spent fuel for fear of weapons proliferation but, instead, to dispose of it in a deep geologic repository that had a 50-year retrievability (in case we changed our minds). This led directly to the Yucca Mountain “problem”. But this early decision has been overtaken by events elsewhere in the world, where recycling of spent fuel, as well as U-enrichment, has proceeded forward, making the earlier decision irrelevant but costly (Conca, 2007).
The Department of Energy has recently initiated a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) that addresses recycling, proliferation and the developing world's growing need for energy. Under GNEP, a consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technologies would provide fuel and reactors sized to meet the grid and industry needs of other countries. By participating in GNEP, developing countries would enjoy the benefits of clean, safe nuclear power while minimizing proliferation concerns and eliminating the need to invest in the complete fuel cycle, e.g., recycling and enrichment (Figure 1). In cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, participating nations would develop international agreements to ensure reliable access to nuclear fuel. Therefore, the U.S. or France would supply the fuel to countries like Iran or Indonesia, retrieve it for recycling when it is used, and provide them with new fuel, eliminating their need to develop enrichment programs that could be used to produce weapons-grade material. The development of standardized modular reactors and recycling technologies is the technical challenge of the next ten years.
Figure 1 – Click to enlarge
In the meantime, reactors are still being built around the world (130 are planned in the next 5 years). It is estimated that nuclear energy will account for as much as 10 trillion kWhrs/year by 2040 necessitating the construction of over 400 new reactors. Because recycling facilities are far behind the need for fuel, demand for yellowcake will continue to climb, as will the price, for many years to come.
Increases in Yellow Cake Price Drives Uranium Exploration
The resurgence of the nuclear-power industry has stimulated a significant rise in the spot market price of yellowcake (U3O8) well beyond that of $50/pound considered likely in 2005 (Campbell, et al., 2005). By the end of 2006, the yellowcake spot-market prices rose above $72/pound, more than doubling over the previous 12 months. Although the average price involved in long-term contracts for deliveries in 2005 was less than $15/pound, as the contracts with the nuclear utilities mature, major price re-adjustments upward will certainly occur. See UxC for the spot and other uranium prices (UxC, 2007). The U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Agency tracks the important facts on yellowcake usage and consumption (see additional references PDF).
Figure 2 - Click to enlarge
New mineral exploration companies are appearing and drilling activities in South Texas have already reached levels exceeding those of the late 1970s. A shortage of drilling rigs is driving up prices and causing delays in production schedules. Discovery of new uranium deposits is resulting from following extensions of previously known, shallow deposits that were mined by open-cut methods (see Figure 3). The oxidized tongue shown in Figure 3 is of orange and grayish orange hues. The ore zone is medium gray surrounding the oxidized zone. Prior to mining, the direction of ground-water flow would have been to the right in Figure 3. The red zone shown at the bottom of the figure is the selenium zone and the bluish zone just above is the molybdenum (and vanadium) zone that is common in some Tertiary roll fronts in Texas (see Dickinson and Duval, 1977; and Campbell and Biddle, 1977). In many South Texas deposits, methane and perhaps hydrogen sulfide are the likely reducing agents, while in other areas, lignite and other carbonaceous materials are important constituents in forming the bio-geochemical cell that produces uranium mineralization in Tertiary sediments in Wyoming and elsewhere.
Figure 3 – Click to enlarge
Using the geologic methods developed in the 1960s and 70s by Rubin (1970), illustrated in Figure 4, and by Rackley and others (1968, 1971, 1975, and 1976), the success rates are going up for uranium mining companies on the American, Canadian, and foreign stock exchanges that employ well-educated, professional geoscientists. Claim-staking activities on Federal and private lands in the U.S. are running at record levels with a disturbing amount of prospective land under control by major Canadian mining companies. These companies may have little interest in committing to production in order to protect their Canadian-based mining activities and associated yellowcake pricing.
Figure 4 – Click to enlarge
Need for Well-Trained Professionals
In the 1970s and 1980s,approximately 2,000 professional geoscientists were working on uranium projects in the U.S. A generation of uranium geologists and engineers has been lost. Presently, only 400 to 500 geologists and only a few qualified hydrogeologists are working in the field. State geoscience licensing in Texas, Wyoming, Washington, and elsewhere has reinforced the upward trend in professional competency and responsibility to the general public in the analysis of uranium reserves and environmental compliance for private mining companies as well as for those on the stock markets. To staff up, it will take some time to train new geologists and hydrogeologists and this will inhibit exploration and yellowcake production schedules as well.
Out with the Old Mining Technology – In with ISL
In the production of uranium, mining no longer requires open-cut surface mines as in the past. New, environmentally friendly, methods have developed substantially since the late 1970s. Mining uranium in Tertiary sandstone deposits in South Texas, Wyoming, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere now incorporates in-situ leaching (ISL) methods that involve water-well drilling technology and common industrial ion-exchange technology similar to household water-softening methods. Because the uranium ore has formed naturally in aquifers often used for drinking-water supplies elsewhere along the trend, the part of the aquifer being mined by ISL methods is prohibited by the State to be used as a source of drinking water. In addition, the area of influence of nearby large-capacity water wells needs to be carefully monitored (by the owners) to avoid drawing the naturally contaminated ground water away from the uranium production area. The leaching agents used in ISL are typically special forms of O2, and CO2 and, in some cases, other fluids as well, all of which are non-toxic and are easily recovered by pumping.
It is the responsibility of the mining company (and required by state regulatory agencies) to install strategically located ground-water monitoring wells to periodically sample for fluids that may have escaped the hydraulic cycle. The cycle entails injection and recovery of uranium-saturated fluids for making yellowcake from ion exchange resins in the plant on the surface. The typical cycle is illustrated in Figure 5, below.
To a large extent, in-situ mining of uranium is both a natural resource development project and a natural, contaminant-remediation project. Although uranium ore is a natural energy resource, it is also a bacterial waste product that was formed within the bio-geochemical cell of the roll front. Both rely heavily on, and are driven by, hydrogeological processes including: hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, sediment and ore-zone porosity, and hydrochemistry of natural and injection fluids (both within the ore zone and at proximal and distal parts of the aquifer). Protecting upper and lower aquifers from incursions of the production fluids requires understanding the hydrogeological conditions in and around the production site.
Figure 5 – Click to enlarge
The mine’s hydrogeological staff is responsible for monitoring the behavior of the fluids and associated hydrochemistry during the in-situ leaching of the uranium ore zones and for monitoring the data generated from sampling the surrounding monitoring wells. Regulatory personnel work with the mine’s staff to ensure that the mine meets the regulations written to protect the aquifers outside the production areas.
Energy-Source Competition: The Environment vs. The Oil & Gas Industry
As long-term plans continue to expand the use of nuclear power for the generation of electrical power in the U.S., the price of yellowcake will continue to rise. At this writing, the spot price passed through $91/pound of yellowcake. It is widely suspected that the price of uranium will continue to rise for the next few years until the perspective of a uranium shortfall is realized. This will occur when new production comes on line and current operations are expanded to increase production, likely within the next 5 to 10 years. If the world greatly expands the use of nuclear power by building many more plants than have been announced to date, the pressure on production and price will be tremendous beyond 2020. However, recent efforts by the international community in recycling and enrichment of nuclear wastes may play significant roles in stabilizing production and fuel prices in the future.
It is interesting to note that the major oil and gas companies, who in the 1970s held major stakes in uranium exploration and production, are sitting it out so far this cycle. Perhaps just as the majors likely encouraged the U.S. automotive industry to sit out on the development of the electric car. Therefore, one might presume that we can expect competition between nuclear power and 1) natural gas, 2) coal and lignite, 3) oil shales, 4) oil sands, and 5) other oil- and gas-based fuels that might be burned to generate power for the electrical grid in the U.S.
Because Texas has abundant coal-lignite resources, The Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) is pressing hard for coal (lignite) development and use in electrical power generation in Texas (see CEED reference below). If the pressure continues on limiting the development of the so-called ”dirty” energy sources, they will soon fade into obscurity within 20 years because their time of usefulness may have passed even before some of them could be brought into production. Standard energy resources, such as natural gas, will serve to back-up energy needs for decades to come.
Furthermore, there is a growing sentiment that if the major oil and gas companies wish to remain leaders of the global energy field, they will have to re-enter the nuclear-power industry – bothat the plant level to play a strong role in hydrogen production and distribution and at the exploration level to influence the availability of reactor fuel and associated yellowcake prices (Lea, 2007).
This economic and environmental competition between energy resources can only be good for the American people and for the industries that support it. However, as the winds of change in our way of using energy impacts society as well as industry and the specter of climate change continues to rise on the horizon, nuclear power used to generate electricity will play a greater role in energy usage for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)