The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The economics of oofle dust > Comments

The economics of oofle dust : Comments

By Chris Shaw, published 29/5/2006

Counting up the true cost of uranium enrichment.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Great article. As a chemical engineer I can appreciate that this makes Uranium hard to justify especialy if the UF6 come into the equation.
Posted by The Big Fish, Monday, 29 May 2006 12:41:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've had a tube of yellowcake (U3O8) in my shed for more than 20 years. I ain't dead yet.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:05:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this is a an article which should be widely read.
The problem is that our leaders seem to have no vision past the next election.
What do they care about the legacy that we leave for future generations?
I hope that many people will contact their elected members and remind them that the uranium is an election issue as well as an environmental issue.
Posted by Peace, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:09:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An addendum to my own post, because you can never say too much about this.

Here are some industry movies from earlier days, when they were less secretive about the messy difficulties. There is still a kind of naive optimism about the whole deal.

I don't think nuclear would have got a guernsey if it hadn't been for the perceived need to create weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

Although I am heartily against the bullying of Iran (who have handy uranium deposits of their own), dare I say that the Yank's refusal to fully buy the Iranian story of nukes for peace, stems in part from an unspoken admission that nuclear is pretty shonky as a practical long-term power source?

This is the first US plant for power generation. Note the massive concrete shields which must surround each unit-operation.

Part 1:

http://www.archive.org/details/AtomicPo1958

Part 2:

http://www.archive.org/details/AtomicPo1958_2

This is a must-watch. A DoE film about the cleanup of the large old Hannaford installation. They are big on talk, but short on achievements. Note the time-frame - 2035 (and counting). Cost = $90 billion (and counting). Download direct from here (36 mb):

http://www.archive.org/download/acc300/acc300.wmv

Lastly, the cleanup from plutonium production (26 mb):

http://ia300214.us.archive.org/1/items/5decades1997/5decades1997.asf

Despite the bright and shiny beginnings, all the facilities ultimately turn into a rotting technicolour mess, because the chemical and radiological environment is so detrimental to the structures and equipment. Likewise to humans. The old gear cannot be recycled if it is irradiated too badly. All must be buried - somewhere.

I suggest that the pictures we see of the sad and mournful end of nuclear facilities in the old USSR are not exceptional - that their disrepair is not due not only to lack of zeal, but is the inevitable thermodynamic end of an economic cul de sac.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:15:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris

Thank you for this informative article and for the additional links.

As usual, so much of what what we hear smacks of short term thinking, so yes, lets bring on an informed debate.

Are you able to comment on the use of Thorium as an alternative to Uranium? I am not a scientist, but my lay understanding could be summarised as:
- it has a much shorter half-life than uraniuam;
- thus has less residual risk to future generations;
- it can be used for electicity generation;
- Australia has deposits of some 340,000 tonnes, and;
- Thorium cannot be used as a weapons grade material.

Any information you can contribute, or comparison you could make, would be helpful.

Thanks again.

Peter F
Posted by Greenlight, Monday, 29 May 2006 1:55:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find this article disappointing because although the technical argument is well presented the idea that 9t DU is produced for every ton of fuel is not enough to prove that uranium energy is not cost-effective. There are no comparative figures with other energy sources in terms of overall energy efficiency, including facility construction costs.

Secondly, the Sellafield plant in the UK is designed to take DU and further refine it to extract more fuel - so the idea that spent fuel and the 9t waste is of no use is not entirely true. Having said that the recycling plant has not been particularly effective to date.

regards
dave rawlinson
Posted by davidra, Monday, 29 May 2006 3:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geez Chris,

It's not that hard. The waste goes in the green wheelie bin, and the recyclables (DU can be recycled into bullets, shells and Tank Armour)go in the yellow wheelie bin. Any left over gas can go up a really big chimney so people aren't affected.

Seriously though - nice article. Thanks for the links.
Posted by Narcissist, Monday, 29 May 2006 3:31:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article, thanks.
Surely though, the world is only re-examining/re-committing to nuclear because the politicians all know that the emperor has no clothes but aren't prepared to tell us poor saps - the general public. In this instance, the emperor's clothes are peak oil and no more cheap energy to power our escapist, spoilt, ignorant and defunct society which will go into terminal decline/crash without our daily fix of the oil drug.

Hitching our hopes to the nuclear star belongs to the same category of improbable solutions as the hydrogen economy, geosequestration, biodiesel and the rest, and simply buys the politicians the next election and makes a few more millions for those addicted to the share market and in particlualr, to BHP Billiton. The chance that nuclear will power the world for a few more years is about as likely as the granting of a wish by some distant star and should be recognised for what it is - a mere distraction to fill the 'opinion' columns of our dailies and keep the public in ignorance for a while longer that there are no answers and no solutions to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us in the wings.
Posted by diantod2000, Monday, 29 May 2006 8:12:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article, Chris. Thanks.

diantod2000 is very close to the mark, EXCEPT that I would have to differ with her conclusion that "that there are no answers and no solutions to the inevitable catastrophe awaiting us in the wings".

If society continues on its present course, disaster is inevitable, with our without nuclear power. However, if we do change course, who can say with absolute certainty that catastrophe is inevitable? We must act with a sense of utmost urgency to ensure that what little chance we have of preserving civilisation is not wasted.

We need a political movement that will demand that our elected representatives act now to make it possible for our society to be reorganised, as advocated by David Holmgren in his book "Pemaculture - Principlea & Pathways Beyond Sustainability", so that our transport, manufacturing and agriculture is not dependant upon non-renewable resources.

At best, nuclear power just may be a short interim stop-gap meausure which may help civilisation meet its energy need as it adapts to the inevitable future of much lower energy consumption and much lower human population. At worst, nuclear power, by further poisoning our biosphere, and, possibly consuming more fossil fuel energy than it generates, if we are to account for all costs instead of externalising them, may make an already very bad situation even worse.

I refer readers to the article "Rebuttal of World Nuclear Association critique of the analysis 'Can nuclear power provide energy for the future; would it solve the CO2-emission problem?'" at http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-rebuttal_WNA.html

... which is a rebuttal of:

http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-WNA_energy_analysis_of_power_systems.html

... which in turn is ostensibly a rebuttal of:

http://www.greatchange.org/bb-thermochemical-nuclear_sustainability_rev.html

"But certainly no sane person would base plans for a long-term, i.e., fifty to a hundred years, energy future on the limited reserves of rich ores. When the available ore grade drops to around 0.02% it becomes questionable as to whether any more energy will be delivered by a nuclear power system than would be obtained by directly burning the fossil fuels needed for maintaining the nuclear fuel cycle."
Posted by daggett, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 9:56:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very informative article, as nuclear is an old technology and a failed one. Lead in times for construction of more than 10 years makes it very suspect as being useful. In Germany they've just commissioned a coal fired plant they say is pollution free. Their going to pump the Co2 emissions into the ground and store them in aqaufiers. Hopefully they say forever, but being a gas, forced into the ground under pressure, must have some future drawbacks.

I have to laugh at those denying the part biodiesel and other biofuels will play. The catastrophe, thats being talked about will mainly effect those living within high energy reliant situations, cities.

The only reason politicians push single point energy solutions, is because thats the only way their vested interests can control the economics of energy production and supply. Biofuels will create cottage industries and competition they can't cope with. Just as Woolworth/coles would disappear of the people realised how much extra they are paying to be enslaved to monopolies.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 1:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
great stuff chris.

i do share the slight concern with one of the other commenters that it's difficult to make draw conclusions from energy input arguments without some numbers to compare.

however the work of philip smith and storm van leeuwen as mentioned by daggett goes a long way into this.

there's a great summary of the smith and van leeuwen's efforts by david fleming available here - which i can highly recommend as a starting point for anyone wishing to come to grips with nuclear energy:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

it's a timely document which should be spread far and wide in australia.

there's also a speech by fleming here:
http://www.feasta.org/audio/Nuclear_IsItAnOption_Pt1.mp3 (5.7 MB)

i was also impressed to see david holmgren's important approach to peak oil mentioned here. see this link for more on peak oil and permaculture: http://www.energybulletin.net/524.html

as a friend of di's i know she's already working on solutions, so don't believe the hype ;)
Posted by adamf, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 11:04:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alchemist you are right to define biofuels as a suitable cottage industry rather than for large scale production. But even on that level I would caution that the following questions by asked.

The first four are suggested by The Society of Environmental Journalists, the second two are by my EnergyBulletin.net co-editor Bart:

1. What is the energy content of a gallon of the renewable fuel? (In megajoules or another standard energy unit.)
2. How much biomass feedstock (corn, etc.) does it take to produce a gallon of the fuel? How much energy was required to produce that biomass? (Consider farm equipment, fertilizers, pest management, transportation, storage, etc.)
3. What other substances are required, in which quantities, to produce a gallon of the fuel? (Process chemicals, etc.) How much energy was required to produce each of these?
4. How much energy is required to manufacture a gallon of the renewable fuel? And, on average, to transport and store it?

..Add the answers to 2, 3, and 4 together, and subtract that figure from 1. If the answer is a positive number, ethanol is net energy positive in that case. Perform similar calculations to determine the energy economics of gasoline in your region. You can also extrapolate from this calculation to compare greenhouse gas emissions.

5. What will be the effect of constant cropping on soils, if ethanol production is expanded to a large scale?
6. What will be the effect on the food prices and the foodsupply?

http://www.energybulletin.net/12875.html

Biofuels may be an important niche fuel, but they will never replace oil and gas in quantity.
Posted by adamf, Tuesday, 30 May 2006 11:11:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adamf, I'm not an economist, nor a scientist. Using ethanol as an example for biofuels has many drawbacks, I agree soil degredation etc has a big bearing on results. However biodiesel and SVO (straight veggie oil), is another thing all together.

In the production of biodiesel, you use a triglyceride and methanol combination to remove glycerine etc. SVO just requires good filtering and preheating, SVO currently has some drawbacks in relation to longitivity of some engine parts. I use biodiesel from waste VO, all up, including picking it up and making it costs me 32 cents a litre.

Biodiesel can use any source of oil producing plant, the method is very simple. The waste is used in fodder, compost, or producing methane. Ethanol requires a more complicated process and only uses certain plants. A friend in Nth of Tas, grows his own oil crop using mustard and wild radish (48% oil content). He also uses wattle, eucalyptus as well and presently experimenting with bracken and dam algae. I'm not sure of the exact figure, but he told me he could produce biodiesel from wild radish for 62c litre. As a cropping farmer he now runs all his machinery, plant and vehicles on it from about 2 hectares which he rotates with his normal crops.

Theres no impact on food prices, nor soil as you can use a wide variety of plant material. When it come to electrical energy, currently the biggest problem is storage, which will be overcome in the next two years when the new perpetual battery become available and store huge amounts of energy without deterioration.

“Biofuels may be an important niche fuel, but they will never replace oil and gas in quantity.”

Thats a pretty rash statement considering oil is a finite resource, whilst vegetation isn't. Logically, when you run out of oil, you need a replacement.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 7:27:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shaw's first major error is "To stoke a nuclear fire, we require a concentration of 35 (U235) atoms in every thousand." Seven -- the natural concentration -- are plenty for heavy water-moderated reactors.

It is a minor error to say that *only* these seven, or these 35-to-50 in the case of light water reactors, can burn. The 238s can burn in a two-step process that naturally occurs to a considerable extent. Thus some CANDU reactors that are fed 993 heavy uranium atoms and seven light ones burn ten per thousand in total. This is enough to make a dollar's worth of uranium thermally equivalent to $40 in natural gas or $40 in petroleum. These are highly taxed fuels, so every dollar's worth of U that governments allow to be burned in civilian reactors means tens of lost fossil fuel tax dollars.
Posted by GRLCowan, Wednesday, 31 May 2006 11:44:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GRL Cowan, more please....

How about an article up-front.

I have done my best to try to understand and describe what has happened up until now, and I imagine, what profits the money-spinners.

We need to be true leaders, or get dragged into something we will end up regretting - like Iraq. How about it?
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Thursday, 1 June 2006 5:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stay tuned, I'll try to put something up by the 8th.
Posted by GRLCowan, Friday, 2 June 2006 3:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alchemist: "Logically, when you run out of oil, you need a replacement. "

We may 'need' a replacement for oil, that doesn't mean one will magically appear.

I welcome your friend's experiments. I'd like to know more if you'd be so kind as to email me - adam (at) energybulletin.net - however of course those kind of practices will eventually have an impact on food prices.

Humans already use most of the best land in the world, in fact 40 percent of the world's primary productivity (photosynthesis). http://www.energybulletin.net/30.html The other millions of species are left with the table scraps. We may be able to use what we do harvest more efficiently, but there are diminishing returns on efficiency gains. We use 85 million barrels a day of oil, biofuels will be a cottage industry next to that.
Posted by adamf, Friday, 2 June 2006 3:37:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adamf, I'm not sure what you mean about details. Processes, figures etc, he certainly won't release those. For his last effort in introducing alternative approaches to this problem, he received heavy threats, harassment and prejudice resulting in almost losing his farm and family. I was surprised at what lengths the elite go to in controlling energy here.

Biofuels will have no negative or inflationary effect on food prices, quite the opposite. Its fossil oil fuels that are the biggest contributor to food costs. Shipping oil across the world, transporting it to processing plants, then trucking it thousands of klms into the bush and then using it to transport food back to cities.

This is an irrational and insane approach. Having fuel grown, processed locally, would reduce transport and machinery fuel costs dramatically. Plus by-products are very useful for feed, or in soil rejuvenation. Other products are also being produced by these processes, once they have worked out the best method of extraction from bracken and other renewable prolific plants, it will be a successful alternative. You can use just about any plant for oil, crop rotation is simple and used properly will increase soil productivity and improve the environment.

All petroleum products degrade the land dramatically, as does their waste and by-products. If you use the highly successful no plow methods, cropping costs are very low. You don't have to worry about taking bracken from the ground, nor algae from dams and ponds, Wattle is also very useful and produces a good amounts of oil from its seeds.

Sadly the world is collapsing under the weight of those whose only aim is control and economic power. The reality those blinded by stupidity face, is you can have an environment without an economy, but you can't have an economy without an environment. When the fools of the world realise this, it will be too late for them, the latte crowd and their city slaves. Thats a natural progression of nature, survival of the smartest, not the richest or most educated.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 3 June 2006 7:32:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My article-up-front was not accepted. Too geeky, maybe.
Posted by GRLCowan, Friday, 9 June 2006 12:08:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy