Posted on 08/22/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
That's because US government scientists have just announced research in which they've massively increased the efficiency of techniques for extracting uranium from the ocean - and that means that supplies of uranium are secure for the future even if the entire human race moves to fission power for all its energy needs.
"We have shown that our adsorbents can extract five to seven times more uranium at uptake rates seven times faster than the world's best adsorbents," says Chris Janke of the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of America's top nuke labs.
At the moment people don't use nuclear power much (the UK's small and aged nuclear fleet can barely generate four times as much power as its wind farms, showing just how little energy we're talking about here: just 8 per cent of our national energy needs are derived from nuclear right now). As a result there's no scarcity of uranium, and indeed nobody has bothered exploring for more of it for decades.
But one day people really will have to stop using fossil fuel for nearly everything - either to prevent a global warming apocalypse, or (perhaps more realistically) because supplies will eventually run out. There's no chance of renewables generating the sort of energy the future human race will require to live above the poverty line, so something else will be required.
Anti-nuclear people have always argued that the something had better not be nuclear because more nuclear powerplants equals more weapons-grade material (not by any means necessarily true, though it seemed as though it might be the case back in the early days of nuclear technology). And even if you think nuclear bombs are OK, the fearmongers have always added that there just isn't enough uranium about to keep the lights on for long.
That may very well be correct, provided all the uranium must be dug out of the ground and run through a powerplant just once before being classified as waste and dumped. But in fact almost all of the spent fuel can be recycled and used again (nobody bothers much right now, as new uranium is cheaper - and in the States recycling the waste has actually been banned at the behest of the anti-nuclear tendency).
And best of all, there's an awful lot more uranium in the sea than there is in the ground. But until now, the costs of getting it out have been so steep as to make it unfeasible even given nuclear-power economics. (Normally, fuel price isn't a big deal for nuclear power as it is a tiny proportion of the cost of having a station - so double-price uranium only sends up the cost of the electricity by a few per cent at most. But seawater uranium to date has cost many times double.)
But now Janke and his colleagues at Oak Ridge and the Pacific Northwest federal atom labs have massively increased the efficiency of seawater extraction.
"Our HiCap adsorbents are made by subjecting high-surface area polyethylene fibers to ionizing radiation, then reacting these pre-irradiated fibers with chemical compounds that have a high affinity for selected metals," says Janke. The allied US government experts behind the tech presented details at a major boffinry conference in Philadelphia yesterday.
Nobody's saying that the new HiCap tech can compete with ordinary mining on cost yet - but that's almost irrelevant. What HiCap offers is, first, assurances to nuclear powerplant operators that they will still be able to obtain uranium for the foreseeable future with no more than a massive price increase - say no worse than three or four times over - no matter whether landbased reserves play out or become oversubscribed. That means their plants' total operating costs won't climb by any more than a marginal amount. Thus, a major source of risk for investors is removed.
Secondly, the prospect of being able to extract billions of tons of uranium from the sea means that humanity has access to enough fuel to meet all its energy needs - all of them, not just present day electricity demand but also the other 90 per cent currently supplied in thermal form - for thousands of years.
One US government statement issued this week says that oceanic uranium could last 6,500 years: but a more conservative estimate assuming use of recycling (as offered by Professor J C Mackay of Cambridge) is say three millennia with all humans using as much energy as a present-day European does. So we've gone with that for our headline.
There's more from the US government labs here and here. ®
I gotta get my eyes checked. I thought you said A 10 gay source is fatal if you get a dose all at once
Reactors operating in the US are 30-40 year old designs. That and we haven’t reprocessed spent fuel rods for close to 40 years. In the mean time other countries have surpassed us in nuclear plant design, with improved efficiencies, safety, and cycle life. We have even let our military outpace our commercial reactors with their technology, and most of the people operating commercial plants are former Navy trained personnel.
If you want to get serious about nuclear power, lift the spent fuel reprocessing ban, develop a standard reprocessing progam, and license the building and use of a standardized proven reactor design. The US is 30 years behind the rest of the world in terms of nuclear power generation, it’s time to catch up.
Reactors operating in the US are 30-40 year old designs. That and we haven’t reprocessed spent fuel rods for close to 40 years. In the mean time other countries have surpassed us in nuclear plant design, with improved efficiencies, safety, and cycle life. We have even let our military outpace our commercial reactors with their technology, and most of the people operating commercial plants are former Navy trained personnel.
If you want to get serious about nuclear power, lift the spent fuel reprocessing ban, develop a standard reprocessing progam, and license the building and use of a standardized proven reactor design. The US is 30 years behind the rest of the world in terms of nuclear power generation, it’s time to catch up.
What, really, where, how and what power output?
Thorium is the answer.
Neither will be done though. This, like other issues, is one of the heart and emotions controlled by ignorant people. Ignorance leads to fear and fear leads to violence. They win unless they are removed.
Well said.
If our nation dropped half the money into infrastructure improvements that they do into entitlements and social programs, we’d live in a very different country.
I don’t know the power output.
My buddy works at the local university, but he ordered this for himself before xmas and just got it. It cost $4k and change and shipping. I assumed it was the Defkalion because it outputs electric power as well as steam and I didn’t think Rossi’s unit did the voltage output. I’ll have to ask where he got it. It may have even been one of the other 2 dozen plus outfits that have appeared this past year with Rossi type designs. This is my buddy’s toy and he’s still in the playing and testing stages.
Nope.
1. There is no "fusion power" now, so things don't go wrong. Fusion power has been "20 years away" for 50 years now.
2. Fission power "may" melt down if things go wrong, but highly dependent on the design of the system. It is supposedly very nearly impossible to make one go "boom," even on purpose.
Yeah. I got fusion and fission completely backward. Sorry. And yeah, again. There is no working fusion plant. I’m talking about what I read about the risks of fusion based power plants if it were to ever lead to a runaway chain reaction.
That’s all.
Did you have that at the ready.....LOL!
It's my understanding that in commercial nuclear power plants, intended for the generation of electricity, the enrichment level of the uranium is too low for "boom".
I can confirm that that’s what the math looked like when I was studying nuclear power half a century ago . . .You don’t want to overdo the enrichment because of monetary diminishing returns, let alone the possibility of going boom.
BUMP
True. But for my money...if it were my money...Pebble Bed would be the way to go.
I think you forgot your sarcasm tag.
Thanks for the ping. Extraction of Uranium from seawater means there will be plenty of it for power plants — and bombs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.