Difference between revisions of "Peak uranium"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 659957 by Tweenk (Talk) So you rewrite the entire article with your first edit here? Perhaps discuss on talk page?)
m (Undo revision 659962 by Human (Talk) I see no reason why this edit shouldn't be kosher. Are newbs now not allowed to improve articles?)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Peak uranium''' is a problem that will occur eventually with nuclear fission based power, just as with the current discussion of the problem of [[peak oil]]. Indeed, this problem occurs with any fuel, regardless of its apparent availability - even with nuclear fusion, there is only a finite amount of tritium and deuterium available for it.
+
'''Peak uranium''' is a future problem of the world production of uranium reaching a peak and then entering a terminal decline, causing a dramatic increase in the price of fuel for [[nuclear power]] plants. The concept is promoted by pessimistic [[peak oil]] proponents, with an implicit assumption that it is imminent, or will happen shortly if nuclear power electricity generation is significantly expanded. It also has some following among the [[anti-nuclear movement]].
  
A time will come when the supply of economically viable reserves of fissionable material will drop below the demand, driving the price sky-high, and creating yet another piece in the [[energy crisis]] puzzle.
+
==Possible origin==
  
==Unintended side-effects==
+
The concept was probably invented during a speculation bubble on the uranium market that happened in 2007, which caused some people to believe that uranium was running out. The prices have since dropped to a level slightly higher than pre-bubble levels.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007 Uranium bubble of 2007] - Wikipedia article</ref>
  
As peak uranium approaches, the price of uranium for both nuclear and thermonuclear weapons will also increase.  While this could be offset by other fissionable materials, the eventual peak will still occur, causing nations to choose between weapons of mass destruction and energy for their people (and/or military).
+
Uncertainty around the future of the joint US-Russia "Megatons to Megawatts" program might have been a factor, because decommissioned Russian warheads are a major source of fuel for American nuclear reactors (roughly 50%).<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons]</ref>
  
==External links==
+
==Reception==
  
*[http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm PeakOil.org - Is there enough Uranium to run a nuclear industry big enough to take over from fossil fuels?]
+
The term is rarely used outside of the peak oil community, mainly because this event is considered by mainstream experts to be very far into the future, even if no advances in reactor technology are made in the next century.<ref>[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html WNA: Supply of Uranium]</ref> Credible future advances, such as fast breeder reactors, thorium-fueled reactors and seawater uranium extraction, would put off a shortage of fissile materials for many thousands of years.
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons]
+
 
*[http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html WNA: Supply of Uranium]
+
A MIT nuclear fuel cycle report claims that the development of fast breeder reactors and the thorium cycle is not necessary right now, because available reserves of uranium are sufficient for many decades, even if thousands of new reactors were built around the world.<ref>[http://web.mit.edu/mitei/docs/spotlights/nuclear-fuel-cycle.pdf MIT Nuclear Fuel Cycle report] (PDF)</ref>
 +
 
 +
==References==
 +
 
 +
<references/>
 +
*[http://www.peakoil.org.au/peakuranium.htm Example peak oil site describing the concept]
  
 
[[category:energy]]
 
[[category:energy]]
 
{{stub}}
 

Revision as of 05:07, 25 September 2010

Peak uranium is a future problem of the world production of uranium reaching a peak and then entering a terminal decline, causing a dramatic increase in the price of fuel for nuclear power plants. The concept is promoted by pessimistic peak oil proponents, with an implicit assumption that it is imminent, or will happen shortly if nuclear power electricity generation is significantly expanded. It also has some following among the anti-nuclear movement.

Possible origin

The concept was probably invented during a speculation bubble on the uranium market that happened in 2007, which caused some people to believe that uranium was running out. The prices have since dropped to a level slightly higher than pre-bubble levels.[1]

Uncertainty around the future of the joint US-Russia "Megatons to Megawatts" program might have been a factor, because decommissioned Russian warheads are a major source of fuel for American nuclear reactors (roughly 50%).[2]

Reception

The term is rarely used outside of the peak oil community, mainly because this event is considered by mainstream experts to be very far into the future, even if no advances in reactor technology are made in the next century.[3] Credible future advances, such as fast breeder reactors, thorium-fueled reactors and seawater uranium extraction, would put off a shortage of fissile materials for many thousands of years.

A MIT nuclear fuel cycle report claims that the development of fast breeder reactors and the thorium cycle is not necessary right now, because available reserves of uranium are sufficient for many decades, even if thousands of new reactors were built around the world.[4]

References