Can Nuclear Power Make the U.S. More Energy Independent?

My friend Russell Lowes, a regular at Tucson's Drinking Liberally, has started a blog, Safe Energy Analyst, in which he's going to be writing regularly about issues surrounding the energy economy, emerging energy technologies and energy policy. I will be cross-posting many of his posts here at Blog For Arizona. I hope you'll check out his blog and give him the same great support you've given this site. I know he's looking forward to your comments and questions. He is structuring some of his work around a question and answer format, much like the current post, so send him your questions! ~Mike

The Conundrum of Energy Independence 

by Russell Lowes

Question:

I was wondering, shouldn't we reduce our oil consumption because so much of it is imported, and wouldn’t nuclear power be a good source to depend on?

Answer:

The nuclear energy industry answer usually goes something like this: America needs nuclear power to reduce its foreign dependency on oil. France became more energy independent because of its nuclear energy program. America needs to use all energy options, including nuclear, to make us more self-reliant.

I get a chuckle from this, because I too like self-reliance. I like the concept of relative energy independence. I think it would be wise to quickly wean ourselves off of foreign oil – and domestic oil. However, these statements are erroneous.

Number 1: The United States only has about 7-10% of the global supply (.pdf file, p. 29 of 48) of what’s left of uranium (See report titled Nuclear Power: Energy Security and Global Warming). I say “of what’s left,” because we are past the half-way point of consumption of the world’s currently mined level of high-grade uranium. We import over nine tenths of our uranium, compared to about two thirds of our oil. Does that sound like greater energy independence to you?

Number 2: France imports all of its uranium; hence France did not become more energy independent by going with more nuclear energy. As stated, the U.S. imports over 90% of its uranium. To give you a sense of how much material that is, I will explain:

One typical reactor in the U.S., at 1000 megawatts each, running for one year at full capacity requires about 200 tonnes of processed uranium (called yellowcake due to its texture and color. A tonne, also referred to as a metric tonne, is a measurement of mass equal to 1000 kilograms). This comes out to somewhere around 0.023 grams of yellowcake per kilowatt-hour. Sounds like a very tiny amount, doesn't it? The nuclear industry likes to promote such images of efficiency.

However, the ore which that yellowcake came from is currently mined is at a very small percentage of uranium. In the 1970s the common percentage, or assay level, was at .3% or 3000 parts per million (ppm). That means for every kilogram (1000 grams) of uranium produced, only an amount of only 3 grams of uranium was contained in the rock. Today the assay level has gone down to an average of 1500 ppm, or .015%. Soon, when uranium content goes down even further, the amount of ore mining will exceed the amount of coal extracted to produce the same amount of energy.

So, for one reactor to run for one year at full capacity, it takes about 1.3 million tonnes of ore. (It is actually more than this because they do not extract all the uranium.) This compares with a coal plant of the same capacity at 2.0 million tonnes of coal.  There are much greater reserves of coal, with energy content staying very similar over the years. On the other hand, uranium is going down in assay level very quickly.

There are forecasters that say that the current assay level of uranium will be depleted within the next ten years. Assay levels will go down and down throughout the next 70 years or so (at current nuclear power levels), when the practically mine-able uranium is depleted. These analyses are well reasoned and rely on the nuclear industry's own data. 

Again, the nuclear industry will tell you, while focusing on the smaller numbers, that it only takes a couple hundred tonnes per year of nuclear fuel to operate a commercial reactor. This is much less than it takes of coal or oil to produce the same amount of energy. BUT WAIT A MINUTE! Remember, they are talking about the finished product, not the raw product. Right now, when you look at the forty-year life cycle of a nuclear reactor, it takes more mining of uranium ore, by weight, than it takes of coal by weight, per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.

Ponder that for a moment. The uranium has reduced in quality over the last few decades and is now so low in percentage of uranium that it will take more earthmoving for nuclear power than it takes for coal. And compared to oil or natural gas, nuclear power's raw form of energy comes from ore that will far exceed the raw form of energy obtained from oil and gas. There are no open pit mines or mountain top removal for oil and natural gas!

Number 3: We need to use all of our options? That’s like a poor family trying to get out of the poor house by regularly eating at the most expensive place in town along with all the other food options. We’re in a pickle here. We need to use the most cost-effective solutions that are the least damaging to the environment, and best for people.

Number 4: The reality regarding nuclear power is that it has much less energy potential under our current nuclear power program technology, and that there is less energy to produce from the remaining uranium than from the oil, coal or natural gas.

So who really believes that nuclear power is good for energy independence? People who have not looked into the issue very deeply, that’s who. Or, people who have bought the nuclear industry’s claims hook, line and sinker. That hook is there for a reason.

Comments

[Tasha Nelson]

Hi Russell!

[JohnRose]

Wow! This was a very enlightening post! But it seems that there are lot of variables not being considered here- mining assay levels would seem to depend a lot on the cost of uranium, as well, wouldn't they? With higher prices of uranium, wouldn't more mines/land open up for development? And although mining would probably contribute to CO2 emissions, I would imagine nuclear power still emits far fewer greenhouse gases overall. The number we should be looking at is overall cost/expected future cost per kilowatt/hour, including environmental costs, right? Who cares about the amount of mining it takes? Also- hasn't there been an underinvestment in uranium mine development the past 20 years or so, leading to some of the shortfalls we are seeing now?

[Dwight D. Leister:Chair]

On my web-site I advocate for HYDROGEN POWER PLANTS, DESALTATION PLANTS IN THE GULF OF CALIFORNIA and MAGNETIC LEVITAION TRAINS from TUCSON to PHOENIX and smaller magnetic movers inside the City of Tucson.

Hydrogen is being used and developed in Dubai for power plants in a new "Green City" under construction.

If that desert city can use Hydrogen Power that makes water as a production result plus giving power why not in Southern Arizona?

[azw88]

Dwight, you need to do more research on the costs of those technologies you advocate. Mag-Lev requires a significant amount of electricity and is expensive and not financially viable for a short distance like 110 miles. Desalinization is expensive, extremely expensive. That is why you see few such plants around the world. They are also extremely vulnerable to contamination.

Hydrogen power on a large scale?? years into the future I suspect, and that is why a very cash rich nation like Dubai is looking into it, they have the $$$.

JohnRose, Uranium mining is far from clean and has serious long term effects. Just ask the folks on the Navajo Reservation that live near the mines. My wife lived literally in the shadow of a VCA mine in Monument Valley. The feds had had to pay out megabucks to the miners from the 40's to 60's. They health problems they still face (if they are still alive) are devastating.

Say no to Uranium.

[Dwight D. Leister:Chair]

azw88:

I realize that Hydrogen IS thinking "Out of The Box!"

General Motors has a Hydrogen car ready NOW but there are NO Hydrogen Plans for storage or making Hydrogen to fuel the cars!

Having Hydrogen Power Plants IS the way to go as it produces energy and expells water.

Iam glad you were NOT envolved in The Central Arizona Project as you would have said; "Its too expensive to build lets just let Phoenix and Tucson go it alone , and return to the Desert where it came from!

Take a look at what is being built for 22 billion dollars or ONE MONTH IN IRAQ!!
http://www.masdaruae.com/text/spl-free-zone.aspx

It can be Done and azw88 IT WILL BE DONE!!

[Dwight D. Leister:Chair]

azw88:

You will note that the masdaruae project IS NOT JEWISH!

My point is there are more solutions than that of GIFFORDS AND FRIENDS AROUND TODAY!

[Dwight D. Leister:Chair]

The Magnetic Levitation Trains I have proposed as listed on my web-site , if you were to have read about it are NOT just for 125 miles between Tucson and Phoenix azw88!
I have proposed a East West North South High Speed Magnetic Levitation Train routes that will travel at speeds above 270 mph and are quieter , smoother and faster than todays trains and will take preasure OFF the AIRLINE HUBS and Carriers that are now overloaded!

New Interstate Highways now under construction costing in the Billions of Dollars upon completion will be OBSOLETE!

Its a game of CATCH UP that will never occur, so trains that can travel close to 300 mph IS the answer COAST TO COAST and BORDER TO BORDER!

[Dwight D. Leister:Chair]

AZW88:

I want you to listen to what Russell Lowes IS saying; and you see NO PROBLEM with an Illegal Immigration Problem that is OUT OF CONTROL flooding the United States with Millions of people using more and more power and infastructure!?

For the sake of everyones sake lets at least try and return to The Rule Of Law and be able to choose who comes to America!

Why do ALL our Immigrants have to be Mexicans with very low skills and NO Education that refuse to assimilate into our society as every other immigrant group HAS DONE in our History?