Lack of fuel may limit US nuclear power expansion

[jpak]

http://www.physorg.com/news93631246.html

Limited supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants may thwart the renewed and growing interest in nuclear energy in the United States and other nations, says an MIT expert on the industry.
Over the past 20 years, safety concerns dampened all aspects of development of nuclear energy: No new reactors were ordered and there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in building facilities to produce fuel for existing reactors. Instead, the industry lived off commercial and government inventories, which are now nearly gone. Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements.

That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies.

"Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them. There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Neff said. For example, only a few years ago uranium inventories were being sold at $10 per pound; the current price is $85 per pound.

<snip>

Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia, and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies for half its fuel on Russia under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States.

<more>

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. "...they didn't take a long-term view..."

Isn't that the problem the nuclear industry has had all along?

When they started building the plants they made no provision for storing, treating, or re-processing the waste. They made no plans for dealing with decommissioning aging plants. They made no plans for dealing with disaster - warnings, evacuation routes, stocks of iodine pills for treating radiation poisoning.

And they wonder why people are leery of nuclear power.

Only morons believe that a plant can explode like a nuclear bomb - but only morons would not prepare for a Chernobyl - you know, plan for the future, take a long-tem view.

[jpak]

2. Don't worry - seawater uranium extraction will save us...

:evilgrin:

[phantom power]

3. Well, here is the nut of it:

"there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in building facilities to produce fuel for existing reactors."

Now there will be investment:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=88970&mesg_id=88970

[jpak]

4. The current global uranium production/demand gap is 35%

New Australian production will not close that gap and most of that yellowcake will be sold to China and Japan - not the US.

The US produces <5% of the uranium it consumes reactor fuel each year - and the way things are shaking out - we will be last in line for imported uranium in the future.