Let's calculate to see exactly how stupid the remark that uranium demand will outstrip supply in 2013 is.
To repeat this is a useless exercise for people who don't have a clue what a watt is or how to do addition, multiplication, subtraction or division, but it is lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of fun.
Speaking of fun, let's have some before we demolish the "uranium will be gone in 2013 argument."
Now anti-nuclear anti-environmental anti-radiation paranoids who know no science when they're sober, never mind when they're shit faced, like to pretend that the only nuclear material that can possibly used is U-235, because well, like I said, they know zero science. To avoid the smell of burning rubber from their pathetic little brains (which will respond with the usual dopey chanting in any case), let's be real, real, real, real stupid and pretend they are right: The only nuclear resource on the planet is the isotope U-235.
Now, we recognize that because they can't do "watts." We can tell this because we see them make statements in support of their "solar only" stupidity by shouting out loud that the world wide production of PV solar cells even in magic solar "watts" is pathetic. Apparently some of these people have no idea of the magnitude of the world energy/global climate change crisis. For instance, suppose someone tried comforting us by telling us that they had a magical system to produce magical energy and that each year we were able through careful prayer, meditation, appeals to Jesus, the blessed virgin, Buddha, and the Prophet Mohamed, to provide 1250 magical "megawatts" of this power each year.
Well, because
we know how to add and subtract and multiply and divide, we can assess this magic very easily.
1250 "megawatts" = 1,250,000,000 megawatts = 1,250,000,000 J/sec.
Given that each day has 86400 seconds, (24 X 60 X 60 - don't try this at home if you can't do multiplication - it will just frustrate you) and the year has 365.25 days (yes there is a leap year day every four years and 1 divided by 4 is 0.25), we see that a year has 31,557,600 seconds. Now we can tell now calculate how much
energy 1250 megawatts represents in a year: 31,556,600 seconds * 1,2500,000,000 J/s = 3.95 X 10^16 J.
Now, what is world energy demand for
all sources and all uses? In 2001 it was about 411 exajoules (10^18J = 1 exajoule so 411 exajoulres is 4.11 X 20J). How much does 3.95 magic solar joules does 3.95 X 10 16 J represent? So what fraction of this demand would a 1250 "megawatt" manufacturing of solar cells represent? Don't do this at home if you can't do division (long or with a calculator) but the answer is" 3.95 X 10^15/4.11 X 20 = 0.0000960. Thus we can wait a trivial period of 10,420 years and IF (and only IF) nobody uses a single watt more than was used in 2001, and we only use magic "watts" that appear for about an hour a day on sunny days, and use energy only then).
http://www.undp.org/energy/docs/WEAOU_full.pdf(See the table on page 28 of the pdf file to give world energy resources.)
Of course, if our magic system is a
solar system where the capacity only runs at 15% capacity loading, we will have to wait 70,000 years, as small time to wait if we're waiting in the name of our religious faith.
Now, let's turn to fun with uranium and the claim that the world supply of uranium will be insufficient in less than 10 years.
Now I will use a unit of
energy that will probably escape the comprehension of a religious twit who hides under the television set in order to avoid being struck by rays from (gasp terror terror horror horror scare scare)
radioactive materials: The electron volt. Those of us who passed junior high school science know of course that an electron volt is just 1.602 X 10-19 joule (J).
Here is how much
energy one atom of uranium yields when it is split: 200 MeV, or 200,000,000 eV according to this link.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/fi/fi_bs/article_1173_en.htmTo avoid being as deceptive as a "solar only" twit, a "solar only" twit being a person who tries to represent 0.15 watts as 1.00 watt, I will clarify a bit, and refine this 200 MeV figure. Actually of the 200 MeV produced, about 10 MeV is in the form of neutrinos, which act very weakly with matter. Since neutrinos interact weakly they cannot be used a real energy. Thus the real energy recoverable as heat is actually 190 MeV.
How many atoms of uranium would it take
to provide the entire world energy demand in total with no other source of energy other than nuclear used? Well first let's convert 190,000,000 eV to Joules. (Don't try this at home...) 190,000,000 ev X 1.602 X 10^18 J/eV = 3.04 X 10-11 J/atom fissioned.
Now let's see how many atoms are required for 4.11 X 10^20 J:
4.11 X 10^20J/3.04 X 10^-11 J/atom = 1.35 X 10^31 atoms.
Boy Wally, that sure sounds like a lot of atoms!!!!! (It is Beaver; it is!)
Now, again we are not speaking now to the members of the
International Scientific Illiteracy Celebration Society, but a class of individuals known as
scientists actually have a convenient device for counting atoms: It's called a balance or a scale.
People who can add, subtract, multiply and divide
and who have also passed high school chemistry know that if you weigh a pure element and divide it's weight by it's atomic weight, and then multiply it by 6.02 X 10^23 (Avagodro's number) you will know how many atoms you have. Conversely, if one knows how many atoms one needs, you can find out how much weight of something is required to get that number of atoms. If one has Avogadro's number of atoms, one has a
mole.
(Oh gee Mr. Wizard, how exciting!)
So how many
moles of uranium would be required to meet one year's total, complete energy demand at the 2001 level, with
no other energy source allowed? 1.35 X 10^31 atoms/6.02 X 10^23 atoms/mole = 22,400,000 moles.
(Gee Wally, that sure sounds like a lot of them mole things...)
Now we get complicated. For the benefit of dumb solar only twits with weak minds and very, very, very poor educations, we're going to pretend that the only atoms we can fission are those already fissionable. There are many, many, many fissionable atoms that are easy to make from uranium and thorium, but again, we're addressing the claims of twits, not scientists. It turns out that the only type of
naturally occurring atom that is readily fissionable in an ordinary nuclear power plant (thermal neutrons) is U-235, which has an "atomic weight" of 235.0439231 grams per mole.
http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc11.htmlHow many grams would it take to supply all the world's energy supply at the 2001 level?
22,400,000 moles*235.04 grams per mole = 5,270,000,000 grams roughly.
(Gee wally, that's a lot of grams!
Divide by 1000 to get kilograms Beaver).
That's 5,270,000 kilograms.
(Gee Wally, that's still a lot of kilograms.
Divide by 1000 to get tons Beaver.)
That's right, to supply every damn watt on the planet at 2001 levels, no oil, no oil, no natural gas, no hydroelectric dams, no NIMBY generating wind farms, no dopey PV cells from fantasy land, it would require 5,270 metric tons of uranium-235.
How much uranium is on earth according to our best estimates? Here's one such number based on terrestrial (i.e. excluding seawater) ores obtainable at $130/kg:
http://www.inb.gov.br/english/reservasMundiais.asp4,416,000 metric tons.
Of every 1000 atoms of uranium ore on the planet, 72 of them on average are uranium-235. Thus the total amount of U-235 on the planet is 0.0072 X 4,416,000,000 = 31,000 metric tons. Thus we see, that if every single joule of energy were obtained by nuclear means, world energy demand would consume all of the U-235 in six years.
However, nuclear energy, provides only roughly 29 exajoules of the world's energy supply right now or 7%. So if in deference to the completely insufferable middle class drunks comprising the
International Scientific Illiteracy Celebration Society, we decided to build no other nuclear reactors and simply produce nuclear power at the same level, the supply
based on existing U-235 alone would be 85 years.
I guess if you're too drunk to think, read, or work a calculator, just make stuff up.
However, that is just the most pessimistic estimate of reserves possible. Just as solar only twits claim - and it's just a lie - that 0.15 watts is one watt for their solar system - i.e. the best possible case - their irrational fear of all things radioactive is expressed in panic driven stupidity about the worst case if the word word "nuclear" is used.
Here is what it says in the foot note United Nations Development World Energy Assessment table of world nuclear resources:
f. Based on once-through uranium fuel cycles excluding thorium and low-concentration uranium from seawater.The uranium resource base is theoretically 60 times larger if fast breeder reactors are used.
Gee Wally.
Once through. Excluding Thorium. Excluding seawater.
According to the table, there are 55 billion tons oil equivalent of uranium if we are dopey and insist that we can only fission U-235, recycle nothing, and if we pass laws to prevent the collection of uranium from seawater, where 3-5 billion tons are found (100 times as much as on land), constantly replenished by undersea ores and by the weathering of granite, almost all of which contains uranium. This is in spite of the fact that the Japanese have
demonstrated that using simple ion exchange, uranium can be easily recovered from this source at $200/kg.
However, if we multiply 55 billion tones oil equivalent by 60, we see that the reserves of
land based uranium
alone (not counting thorium) are 3,300 billion tons oil equivalent, or 1.38 X 10^23 J. This is 337 years of the world energy supply.
It is worth noting that the United States by the end of this decade will have accumulated about 75,000 metric tons of spent uranium fuel, which is about 95% uranium. The uranium in this fuel, completely fissioned, is enough to supply the entire world energy supply (2001 value) for 14 years.
The quantity of uranium in the sea,
ignoring thorium is roughly 800,000 years worth of energy, ignoring the fact that the sea is saturated with respect to uranium, and will constantly be replenished by the dissolution of terrestrial and marine rocks.
It is believed, from analysis of basaltic lava, analysis of meteorites, and analysis of the earth's heat output that the uranium content of the earth is around 1.1 trillion tons, enough to provide the world with 400 exajoules of energy for 20 billion years. The thorium content is about 4 times as large, accounting for yet another 80 billion years worth of energy, were it available for fission. (See Veerhoogen, Energetics of the Earth, National Academy of Sciences Press 1980, pg 23-24) Of course, not all of this uranium and thorium will ever be available to load in reactors. However the estimate for the uranium content of upper mantle rocks is roughly 15 ppb. These rocks make it to the surface continually in natural processes. The Mauna Loa volcano, for instance can put out 4 million metric tons of lava in an hour. There are 1500 active volcanoes in the world right now, all putting out uranium containing rock. Of course, uranium is continually released through the weathering of rocks deposited by volcanoes that died out billions of years ago. The estimated crustal abundance of uranium is thought to be 2.7 ppm, much lower than in mantle rock. This suggests that, with the earth's crustal mass estimated to be 2.6 X 10^22 kg, that the amount of uranium with which to recharge depletion of the ocean is represented by 70 billion tons, enough to supply 400 exajoules of energy for 13 million years. In addition, the crust is about 9.6 ppm thorium. This suggests that there is 250 billion tons of thorium in the crust, enough to supply 50 million years of energy at 400 exajoules/year.
And again, these elements are both recharged from the mantle.
http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.htmlhttp://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele090.htmlhttp://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele092.htmlThe argument could be made, one supposes, that crustal availability does not make for economic recovery. This is true, certainly for scandium, rhodium, and say, erbium. However, the energy value of thorium and uranium is so extraordinarily high that the cost of even elaborate separations still has essentially trivial effects on the cost of nuclear energy. Uranium fuel at $1000/kg is not much different than uranium fuel at $50/kg. A single kilo of uranium has the energy content of 670,000 gallons of gasoline. Thus even at $2,000/kg, uranium is the equivalent of gasoline at 0.001 dollars (a tenth of a cent) per gallon. Nuclear energy shares a characteristic with solar energy. The cost of fuel has little to do with overall cost. Like the solar power so mystically promoted by weak minded nutcases (who cannot after 40 years of hype demonstrate anything but a sustained ability to produce even more weak minded hype), nuclear energy's cost is almost wholly tied to the cost of the device used to convert it to electricity.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
