The Oil Drum: How Uranium Depletion Affects the Economics of Nuclear Power

[bananas]

Here is a recent post on The Oil Drum about peak uranium.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2472

How Uranium Depletion Affects the Economics of Nuclear Power

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 18, 2007 - 11:02am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: nuclear, uranium, uranium depletion


This is a guest post by Miquel Torres. Miquel has a degree in Physics from the University of Valencia, he currently lives in Germany and works in secondary education and in the field of energy investment.

The main criticism made to my previous post about a paper by the Energy Watch Group, was that it is irrelevant whether current reserves are depleted because of three reasons: new discoveries will be made, increasing reserves, lower grade ores can be used, giving us many thousands of years of reserves at current or increased consumption rates and, at a high enough uranium price, reprocessing and MOX recycle would become economical, greatly increasing reserve life, and even a closed nuclear fuel cycle could be created with breeders, rendering the resource issue entirely moot. Those are fare points, and I will try to address them in this post.

<big snip with charts and diagrams>

Conclusions

In order to improve the clarity of further discussions, I will make the following claims:
1. There are enough Assured, Inferred and Undiscovered Prognosticated uranium resources with a price lower than 130$/kgU for current nuclear energy capacity to be maintained for the whole 21st century. Nuclear energy critics should better drop any such claims to the contrary (this assumes reserves estimations are reliable and 80%+ downgrades don't ever again occur as in the French and USA cases).
2. Claims that include reserves lasting thousands of years while increasing nuclear energy capacity are not true. You would need four figure uranium prices. That is clearly too expensive.
3. A 30% increase in nuclear capacity as projected in EIA's reference case is possible with a moderate increase in the price of uranium causing a mild increase in the price of nuclear electricity.
4. If nuclear energy is to become a major solution to our energy problems, the needed manifold increase in nuclear capacity could make nuclear energy too expensive too be competitive with other alternatives.
5. To properly study last point, NEA must review the whole uranium reserves structure for greater transparency and reliability. At least two new categories must be introduced: 130-500 $/kgU and 500-1000 $/kgU reserves (roughly 4 and 8 times 130$/kgU respectively). The amount of new reserves in this categories will determine the maximum capacity nuclear power for current state-of-the-art Generation III+ reactors may reasonably attain, based on uranium availability alone. Whether that maximum is 1.5 times, twice or even ten times current capacity cannot be determined without knowing how many recoverable reserves there are at different price levels in the 130-1000 $/kgU range.
6. Beyond that maximum, Generation III+ once-through reactors would become uncompetitive, and breeders are needed. Breeders are not expected to be deployable before 2030, and they wouldn't make a significant breeding contribution until decades later. Breeders would thus not be able to significantly contribute to an hypothetical aggressive 5 or 10 fold increase in nuclear capacity over the next 30 years.

I therefore adhere myself to Jerome a Paris's conclusions, slightly modified:
First, conservation and energy efficiency. "Negawatts" are the cheapest and most underexploited resource we have;
Second, renewable energies, starting with wind. They are proven technologies, are scalable and wind is already competitive, price wise. Solar thermal could soon become competitive for base load capacity;
Third, coal should be dismantled as quickly as possible from its current high levels of use - and new construction should be stopped;
Fourth, gas-fired plants. Gas is less polluting than coal, gas turbines are very flexible to use. Such plants will probably be needed (in places that do not have sufficient hydro) to manage the permanent adjustment of supply to demand that electricity requires;
Last, nuclear power can grow to maintain current production share. Any further growth has to be carefully evaluated for uranium availability, as it could become more expensive than other alternatives.

[NNadir]

1. On the other hand, we could look at the Internation Energy Agencies report:

http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/ElecCost.pdf

Of course, at more than 200 pages, discussing the economics over a range of discount rates and operating conditions, it's not as easy as a mindless link to Professor "Tell-me-what-I-want-to-hear" at the oil drum, but hey, that's fine with me.

In an exhaustive analysis, not made up by some bullshit kid, but actually looking at 130 operating plants from countries all over the world we find:

Nuclear cheaper than coal. Nuclear cheaper than gas. Nuclear (vastly) cheaper than wind. Nuclear astronomically cheaper than solar.

As it happens, the solar industry will not even be able to meet the existing (trivial) orders, because they can't get their shit together on silicon. Of course, if they ever get their shit together, it's going to play out like the ethanol game. People will see that there is an external cost and they will shit when they see it.

In the nuclear case, as figure 3 on page 115 shows, it doesn't really matter much what the cost of uranium is, since the cost of fuel is trivial under all circumstances.

And, of course, that's not including external costs, which are essentially zero in the nuclear case and huge in all other cases (except hydro).

The world is going nuclear and it's doing so for environmental and economic reasons.

Tough shit, baby. All the whining and crying in the world is not going to cancel one nuclear plant, any more than a single gas plant has been stopped anywhere on this planet by solar economics.

The fact is at this point we're either going to burn coal, or we're going to fission actinides. The choice is about to become crystalline clear, and basically the Greenpeace game is over

Amory Lovins is rapidly sinking to the level of a creationist, which is, more or less, where he belongs.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. You do realize that this is a pro-nuclear analysis, right?

I know you oppose nuclear energy; I could be wrong about that, so please let me know if I am. Miquel Torres is pro-nuclear, but (seems to) advocate sustainability, much like M. King Hubbert did.

The article is mainly about the price mechanisms in nuclear power. While its limits are discussed, the probable technological improvements are not factored in, which makes sense, but probable technological improvements are a selling point for PV and tidal power and the mass employment of any new technology. The general points could be applied to any resource. The "anti-nuclear" argument he makes seems to me to be an anti-perpetual-growth argument. This idea -- that growth can continue at geometric rates indefinitely -- is our overriding problem. We're getting close to too many natural and economic limits.

The conclusions are sensible, but I would encourage much more energy R&D, and a long-distance view toward developing industry and agriculture in space habitats over the next century.

Of course, a collapse back into a preindustrial or even neolithic stage would make most of this moot.

--p!

[bananas]

20. He puts nuclear power last

"Last, nuclear power can grow to maintain current production share. Any further growth has to be carefully evaluated for uranium availability, as it could become more expensive than other alternatives."

In other words, don't expect nuclear power to have much more of a share than it does now.
Al Gore said the same thing, and I was personally attacked for pointing that out.
This is now the pro-nuclear position?
When did it change from a massive increase to just maintaining the current share?
When did it change from thousands of nukes to hundreds of nukes?


I know you oppose nuclear energy; I could be wrong about that, so please let me know if I am. Miquel Torres is pro-nuclear, but (seems to) advocate sustainability, much like M. King Hubbert did.

I wouldn't say that I'm opposed to nuclear energy per se; for example some are advocating thorium, I don't know enough about that to have an opinion; also I support R&D into Gen 4 reactors even though the projections I've seen are that fusion and orbital solar will be cheaper and won't have the problems of waste and proliferation.

[Dogmudgeon]

21. I don't expect much of anything, period

There is a tremendous amount of inertia built into our current ways of doing things. 5000 nuclear reactors could go a long way toward replacing fossil fuel use, but I would be surprised if we get another 500, and not from NIMBY considerations, either. (There is another acronym, BANANA -- I kid you not -- "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".)

Similarly, ten million planned wind generators will turn into 100,000; solar PV will probably be bungled as badly as ethanol is now being bungled; tidal will remain a niche power source; etc. We will then do what we have always done, which is to react rather than to first plan carefully and then commit fully.

Concerning nuclear fuel stocks, there is plenty of uranium (and thorium) in both seawater and shale, but it only becomes economically viable at about three times its present market value. That would be circa $150/kg uranium oxide (if you know otherwise, please correct that number). By the time that happens, the market values of all forms of energy will be "in skyrocket mode". The same thing applies to shale-based oil and most of the "green" technologies. The biggest part of the developing crisis is the speed with which the changes will happen. When you see it as a dry mathematical function, it is perfectly natural, but when the market confronts it, panic ensues.

Sadly, it is probably most accurate to say that there is nothing that will save us from a nasty transition period. But it's worth arguing for.

--p!

[papau]

3. Agree Nuke is only interim (next 20 to 40) year solution - but it is an economic sink where

upfront capital investment must wait years for a return - so inflation coming.

Also nothing on weaning transport off of liquid fuel and onto plug-in hybrid as another major part of the interim solution.

And the third major part of the interim solution is cellulose alcohol for the non-electric engine in those hybrids - E85 where the world grows algae to convert to fuel.

Minor parts of the interim solution are of course wind, wave, geothermal, and solar - with solar being the ultimate replacement for nuke in our power plant structure.

At least IMO.

[GliderGuider]

4. Of course, none of this will happen in the time frame required

We have 10 to 15 years to get our shit in one bag. After that oil depletion is going to make large capital-intensive, civilization-saving projects impossible.

There will be some new nukes but not enough.
There will be no commercial cellulosic ethanol in that time.
There will be no commercial algal biodiesel in that time.
There will not be enough BEVs or PHEVs in that time.
There will be some wind, but not enough.
There will be some geothermal and tidal, but not enough.
There will be no significant PV in that time.
There will be lots and lots of coal-fired electricity.

The key point here is that we are out of time. We have been on an oil production plateau for the last two years, and we're about to fall off (by the middle of 2008). Over the next ten to fifteen years the world will probably lose 25% (and maybe more) of its oil production. We would need at least ten years of crash program to even partially mitigate this decline, and we won't be able to muster the international political will to do it. The deeper we go into oil depletion the more difficult it will be to build the ladders we'll need to climb back out of the hole.

By all means lets keep working at anything that allows us to avoid coal. In the meantime, we need to conserve like we were already paupers, and get ready for big-time global demand destruction.

[NNadir]

5. Nevertheless, we must try to do what we can.

If we build 500 nukes in 15 years, this will represent about 50 exajoules of primary energy. (This is close to the amount we built in the 15 year period between 1970 and 1985.

If we build 1000 nukes in that same period, it's 100 exajoules primary.

These numbers are not unrealistic at all. The investment would represent about 2 trillion dollars, and would in passing produce considerable infrastructure that would last for at least a half a century, not more.

I know of no other form of energy that could be scaled by 100 exajoules in 15 years. But such a program will take vast commitment.

[jpak]

6. Some points

Spain to Open World's First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=10986

Central City, Neb. - Opening of the world's first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant is slated for this fall in northern Spain, even though costs of producing alcohol fuel via the emerging technology are still estimated to be about 50%-100% higher than that for plants which use grain as a feedstock.

The Ontario-based SunOpta BioProcess Group (formerly Stake Technology), a division of SunOpta Inc. (STKL), announced last week that plans for start-up of a wheat straw-to-ethanol plant near Salamanca, Spain, are proceeding on schedule.

The facility, which represents the first commercial cellulosic ethanol production plant on the planet, is being supplied to Abener Energia S.A. of Seville, Spain, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Abengoa S.A. (ABG.MC). Abengoa is the largest ethanol producer in Europe, the second largest in the world, and operator of a research and development division in St. Louis.

The Spanish facility, which is scheduled to be operational in the fall of 2006, is located adjacent to a cereal grain-to-ethanol plant operated by Abengoa, which is currently coming on-line. Manufacturing of major equipment for the cellulosic module is currently being completed and will be shipped to site in coming weeks.

<more>

First Commercial Cellulosic Ethanol Plant Announced for Iowa Location

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/first_commercia.php

According to the Des Moines Register, Emmetsburg Iowa, USA will be the site of first commercial-scale, US cellulosic ethanol plant. "The Voyager Ethanol plant in Emmetsburg will be converted from a 50 million-gallon-a-year conventional corn dry mill facility into a 125 million-gallon-a-year commercial-scale biorefinery producing ethanol from not only corn but also the stalk, leaves and cobs of the corn plant..." "The $200 million plant expansion is scheduled to begin in February and take about 30 months to complete".

<more>

PetroSun: Algae Biofuels Reaches Final Stage

PetroSun, Inc.'s field testing of the cultivation of algae for biodiesel production has progressed to the final stage prior to the construction of a commercial cultivation facility.

This final stage will consist of producing adequate algae paste to test the output and economics of several biodiesel refinery manufacturers now under consideration by Algae Biofuels, a wholly owned subsidiary of PetroSun, which will own and operate the production and refinery facilities.

Algae BioFuels is considering sites in Arizona, New Mexico, California, Louisiana and Michigan for its initial commercial cultivation of algae feedstock in the U.S. In the foreign market, Australia and China are the leading candidates for production and refinery operations.

"Should the cultivation process prove to be successful outside of the U.S. Sunbelt, Algae BioFuels' model is to locate production and refinery sites near major cities and truck routes to reduce the cost of biodiesel in those areas," said cccc

<more>

Electric and hydrogen fuel cell buses are far moe efficient to build and operate than PEV and HEV and can transport far more people and goods than PEV and HEV - and can be produced in significant numbers within 10-15 years.

Global wind power capacity (currently 74 GWp) will triple to 225 GWp by 2014 - that's equivalent to 78 1000 MW power plants. That could double (or more) by 2022. That's a bit more than "some".

A large (500-1500 MW/yr) PV module plant takes less than 2(3) years to build - the same is true for large poly-Si plants. Utility scale (5-100 MWp) PV *and solar thermal-electric* farms take (much) less 2(3) years to deploy. There are no technical reasons why global PV module production and installation cannot be ramped up to 20 GWp per year (or more) 10 years time.

For landlocked countries, tidal power is not an option - but for littoral countries, tidal turbines can be deployed on the current scale of wind turbine installations and produce a significant fraction 5-25% of their electrical demand. Same with wave power.

With existing technology, electrical demand in the developed world could be reduced by 50-75% within 10-15 years - without sacrificing lighting, refrigeration, TV, AC etc. There is no need to build more coal-fired power plants...

But if the naysayers have anything to do with it - none of this will be done...

[GliderGuider]

7. None of these are in operation yet.

Any commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol or algal biodiesel plant should be considered a pilot operation. I wonder what the production road maps look like over the next 10 to 15 years? I also wonder if the road maps were drawn up by engineers or marketing/investment executives.

Electricity will replace some, but not much, liquid transportation fuel in the time we have left.

I'm saying we should and will do everything we can to provide alternatives to petroleum. I just think they won't be able to provide much help in the 15 year window we have left before the economic consequences of oil depletion become so dire they hamper our ability to put new systems in place. But we will need to be able to power lifeboats. Carry on.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. You're insufficiently enthusiastic about biofuels

I have been finding out that it's not enough to support biofuels -- you have to be a balls-to-the-wall cheerleader. Otherwise you're just a corporate shill working for Dick Cheney who loves to club cute baby seals.

And heaven forfend that any criticism be leveled at the terrible way biofuel energy is being brought to market by big business. In fact, the mention of biofuel being big business is likewise verboten.

A number of biofuel fans actually believe that the oil companies are opposed to ethanol and vegetable-oil-derived diesel fuels. They opposed it in 1923, therefore they must oppose it today.

Similarly, supporting nuclear energy generation means that you must oppose all other energy development.

They may keep a complete list of these things somewhere, but I have yet to find it.

Meanwhile, we still have a crisis of Titanic proportions, even to a similar expected ratio of survivors to the dead.

--p!

[GliderGuider]

11. To top it all off

I'm a Nuclear Agnostic who doesn't even get upset about the seal hunt. Greenpeace is going to send out a hit team any day now. The only things the greenies and I seem to agree on is that local agriculture is better than coal fired power plants...

I will admit that having to make my own mind up on every single issue gets kind of tiring. The only cure for that is a double shot of ethanol over ice with a splash of branch water.

[papau]

16. I'll have a double shot also :-) (green tea - but diluted :-) ) n/t

N/T

[jpak]

9. Look at the time/dates of the cellulose ethanol links - they're from 2006.

Those plants are in commercial operation today and they are not "pilot" plants.

also - the DOE is currently funding the construction of 6 new cellulose ethanol plants that will be on-line by 2010.

Just wanted to point out that there *is* commercial cellulosic ethanol production on-line today and a lot more in the pipeline in the next few years.

[GliderGuider]

10. Hang on there, Vern. "Those plants are in commercial operation today"?

According to http://www.investincellulosicethanol.com regarding the Abengoa plant "Commissioning is expected to start in the summer of 2007."

According to your own quote about the Voyager Ethanol plant in Emmetsburg, "The $200 million plant expansion is scheduled to begin in February and take about 30 months to complete".

Again according to your quote, "PetroSun, Inc.'s field testing of the cultivation of algae for biodiesel production has progressed to the final stage prior to the construction of a commercial cultivation facility." And according to the June 25, 2006 article at http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/06/petrsun_enters_.html, "PetroSun Drilling Inc. (PSUD.PK), formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Algae BioFuels Inc., which will be engaged in the research and development of algae cultivation as an energy source in the production of biodiesel."

Which of those plants is in commercial operation today? You wouldn't be trying to blow sunshine up my skirts would you?

[jpak]

12. But...but..but...there will be no commercial celluslosic ethanol in 10-15 years

:evilgrin:

The Salamanca plant opening was delayed from its original launch date in December 2006.

my bad...(not)

[GliderGuider]

13. How about the other two?

You implied that they were all in commercial operation, when in fact none of them are. You extra bad.

I'll give you this: there will indeed be commercial cellulosic ethanol plants operating within the next ten to 15 years. Volumes will be trivial, and costs will be too high to make significant market penetration possible.

[jpak]

14. more bad news

Range Fuels to Build First Wood Cellulosic Ethanol Plant in Georgia

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/02/range_fuels_to_.html

Range Fuels, Inc., formerly Kergy, a company that uses biomass gasification to produce ethanol, will build its first wood cellulosic ethanol plant in Treutlen County, Georgia. The company, founded by Khosla Ventures, estimates that this plant—combined with others to follow—will have the capacity to produce more than 1 billion gallons of ethanol per year.

Wood waste from Georgia’s millions of acres of indigenous Georgia Pine will be the main source of biomass for the ethanol production.

The Range system, which it calls K2, uses a two-step thermochemical conversion process. It first gasifies biomass waste such as wood chips, agricultural wastes, grasses, cornstalks, hog manure, municipal garbage, sawdust and paper pulp to create a syngas that it then converts catalytically to ethanol.

In addition to supporting a broad range of biomass for feedstock, the K2 system is also modular. Depending upon the quantity and availability of feedstock, the K2 system can scale from entry level systems to large configurations. This range of system performance will allow the K2 to be placed near the biomass location reducing transportation costs, and will allow the most economical size system to be deployed.

<more>

[GliderGuider]

15. No, you have it wrong. This is good news.

Biomass gasification is a well understood technology, whose only real shortcoming is the cost of transporting the feedstock. As they are addressing that though modularization, this is a good thing. It's going to allow for very efficient local conversion of residual biomass (aka topsoil) to fuel. Oh wait. Is that good news or bad news? It's so hard to tell.

[hunter]

22. Why make ethanol then, and not gasoline or diesel or DME?

Hmmmm. Subsidies.

That's about as pointless and pork barrel as a thing can get.

[papau]

17. Why the high cost/trivial volume prediction? - the algae diesel seems to scale

easily.

The cellulosic ethanol cost problem waits for some bio-engineering - indeed the algae diesel could use some. And what volume is this algae diesel plant expected to produce?

Indeed I am curious as to what is the point of the cellulosic ethanol plants as I thought current costs did not make them anywhere near commercial (the http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=10986
about a Spanish plant using staw at a cost twice that of corn alcohol - Ontario-based SunOpta BioProcess Group, a division of SunOpta Inc., building the plant for Abener Energia S.A. of Seville, Spain, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Abengoa S.A.), and twice the cost of alternatives using corn seems to mean it is too early to called anything "commercial".

And the algae biodiesel test of the cost to producing algae paste and conversion by PetroSun for its sub Algae Biofuels is nice - but that does not sound like a commercial production announcement.

A massive required by law switchover to electric transport seems most likely to me, and that along with massive conservation and nuke power plant building is the future in my crystal ball - of course is solar ever gets its act together and agrees on a best of approach to an actual 24/7/365 design for a power plant, we can toss the nukes.

Meanwhile Bush - and Iowa - want to raise the price of meat and destroy the land with a corn everywhere approach that tries to get a few percent more of liquid fuel for our cars.

[GliderGuider]

18. We don't yet know about the scalability of algal biodiesel

There are still technical hurdles to overcome in growth, collection and processing. Issues of temperature, nutrient supply and sunlight may pose limits to productivity. In addition there are problems with invasive algae strains in open ponds that may restrict production to closed bioreactors, with an associated increase in cost and decrease in maximum productivity.

The devil is in the details with large scale biological systems, and we won't be able to shake out the details until we have some of the R&D basics taken care of. I don't expect the basics to be sorted within the next five to ten years, and it will take another five to ten to solve the problems of scalability, and another five to ramp up production to whatever level the technology proves capable of sustaining.

[papau]

19. I was thinking better bio-engineered algae in closed bioreactors -nearer to 10 than 25 yrs away.

But I am an optimist :-)

In 2020 we open a very large commercial biodiesel plant that feeds an electric power plant next door!

Invasive algae strains in open ponds seems - to me- to kill that approach.

[NNadir]

23. Bingo.

I'll add that the trucking to ship the stuff around and all the websites celebrating the wonderful new technology will eat up any energy profits.