Uranium is Folly

Uranium is Folly
By Maya Abermann

Quote: Carbon dioxide is produced at every step in the nuclear fuel cycle, except fission. If nuclear energy grows, so will carbon emissions
The current unfounded hype about new nuclear energy expansion and the wonders of uranium calls for a focus on some of the less-publicised facts about this element. Supplies of uranium ore are insufficient to fuel current demand for nuclear energy.

http://free.financialmail.co.za/07/0629/opinion/bopinion.htm

The excess demand, of about 37%, is met by stockpiles accumulated before 1980. These stockpiles are derived in part from the conversion of old nuclear weapons. Within 10 years these stockpiles will be exhausted. According to information presented in parliament by Prof Eugene Cairncrosse of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, if current demand (assuming no significant increase in nuclear power capacity) is to be met, new production will have to be increased by about 50%.

Eleven uranium-producing countries have exhausted their uranium reserves. Only Canada has uranium ore deposits that have uranium content of more than 1%. The ore located in many other countries contains only 0,1% uranium. More than two-thirds of all ore deposits have less than 0,06% of the nuclear fuel.

The energy demand for uranium mining is almost directly inversely proportional to the ore grade. Thus the energy demand for mining ore of 0,05% grade is 23 times greater than for mining a 1% ore. At an ore grade of 0,01%- 0,02%, as much energy is used to produce the uranium as would be produced by converting it to electrical power.

As more and more marginal deposits of uranium ore are exploited, it is not simply the energy demand of mining that climbs, but also the energy demand for fuel fabrication, including uranium enrichment.

This reality casts further aspersions on the false claim by the nuclear lobby that it offers us a climate-change saviour. In fact carbon dioxide is produced at every step in the nuclear fuel cycle, except the actual fission in the reactor.

Fossil fuels are used in the mining and enrichment of the ore, in the fuel can preparation, station construction, handling of the spent waste and its re processing, and in digging the hole in the rock for its deposition. Uranium enrichment, in particular, is incredibly energy-intensive. If nuclear energy generation is to expand, demand for uranium will increase and lower and lower grades of this ore will be used. This will result in an increase in carbon emissions.

It is likely that in the near future (to 2020) it will be difficult to meet even existing demand for uranium. It thus seems almost impossible that we will be able to fuel the hypothesised huge nuclear expansion programme planned by our cabinet and corporations around the world. A report by the Energy Watch Group contends that: "The proved reserves and stocks will be exhausted within the next 30 years at current annual demand. Likewise, possible resources - which contain all estimated discovered resources with extraction costs of up to three time higher - will be exhausted within 70 years."

These realities about uranium imply not only that we are rapidly approaching uranium peak, but also that nuclear plant life-cycles are shorter than we may have imagined and that the fuel cost for this energy-generation technology is likely to be higher than uranium vendors ever dreamt of.

Committing SA to investment in a recently estimated R400bn nuclear energy expansion programme is foolhardy. Apart from the obvious, we also risk the opportunity cost. Putting 10%-20% of our eggs into the renewable energy basket now, rather than sighing over the broken eggs in the nuclear basket in 10 years, seems the sensible option. Managing risk should mean using mature, tried and tested, clean technologies where there is a reliable fuel source.

Aberman is campaign co-ordinator at Earthlife Africa