Talk:Peak uranium

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peak uranium redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Peak uranium was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Nuclear power to solve climate change?

There are some that feel that nuclar power plants will have little impact in solving the climate change issue.Nuclear Power Won't Fix It CCS the 'only' technology essential for CO2 reduction: Oxburgh The Nuclear Option, Climate Change Policy and Sustainability/ This is why I don't want to debate this issue in the demand section. It will detract from the real argument - there is pressure to increase the number of reactors world wide. The demand section is there because it's informational. It's not essential to the Peak Uranium case. Kgrr (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link brings out the same old arguments that have been answered ad nauseum.

Waste - why is reprocessing or burying underground "unacceptable"? The fission products from the natural nucelar reactor in Gabon did not move for 2 million years despite being in porous water-permeable sandstone. Geological containment is proven. Furthermore, wind and solar power had unsolved intermittency problems that are more real and experimentally demonstrated in e.g. Denmark and Ireland than the theoretical risk of nuclear contamination - they do not mention it at all.

Cost - relatively legitimate, but even the over-budget EPR will be cheaper per kWh of total generation than wind turbines.

Inflexibility - again the distributed generation fallacy. Distributing something does not magically make it greener. Opposition to centralized facilities is irrational. Centralized facilities are better for the environment, because they can be better managed and benefit from economies of scale.

Undermining energy efficiency - pure stupidity. They say we should have less electricity available, because otherwise people will squander it, while omitting the fact that emissions free technologies like electric cars require more electricity not less. Also carries a message of philosophical disbelief in technology.

International security - pure arrogance and hubris. They say that other nations are not competent enough to handle nuclear power.

--Tweenk (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reprocessing emergency?

72.79.224.115, I copy edited your contribution that came without any references. I took liberty to delete your third paragraph because it made too many assumptions on how the big energy crisis could unfold. Let's work on shoring up the first two paragraphs. We need to find quite a few references. As far as I understand the current situation on reprocessing is that Japan, France and England all have found it to be uneconomical, but France and England have chosen to go ahead with it at the cost of the rate payers. Here in the US, it's well known that it is not economical until the price of Uranium is much higher than it currently is. Furthermore, the nuclear industry is not willing to shoulder the cost of such a plant in the US. There are several risks that are too high for private industry to invest in such a project. Considering of the history of nuclear power and the risks, stringent regulations are probably necessary. It's difficult to say the anti-nuclear movement has any real effect when 60% of the population currently wants more nuclear power. So let's set out and find references to back these two paragraphs. kgrr ^talk 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reprocessing is not done because it is profitable but because it reduces the volume of waste that must end up in ultimate storage. Furthermore politicians tend to listen not to the majority but whoever is shouting the loudest so the anti-nuke movement can have considerable influence. --Tweenk (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seawater

Reading about this subject in Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air the cost of seawater extraction is given as $100/kg by Seko et al. (2003) and this link on p174. Unfortunately my uni does not have a subscription to Nuclear Technology and the web link for the other site appears to be down, so I can't confirm that this interpretation is correct. If another editor has access to the original, or if they know what document the 2nd link was supposed to reference, can they update the page? If correct then it would add more depth to the cost issue.

As a side note, in that chapter the cost references switch between $ and yen. I don't know what the policy is usally, but would it help to have some continuity to make comparison easier? Or is it assumed that the exchange rate whenever the article is read gives a more realistic comparison? WindyHaven (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with the article

The artice is too big.
It discusses a lot of things related to uranium market, which would better fit there, particularly the information about long-term contracts.
Lots of material is also related to uranium depletion, could be relocated there if appropriate.
There are 3 links "refuting" the baseload argument against renewables. All of those arguments are based on the notion that if you interconnect a lot of wind farms then you approach 100% reliability. This is in direct contradiction to experimental evidence in the form of total power output from wind farms of Ireland and Denmark. See for example here: [1] Even the entire Ireland can have several day lulls during which wind farms produce a tiny fraction of their nameplate capacity. I think the discussion of the baseload argument should be moved elsewhere, for instance to base load power plant. There are other issues with substituting nuclear plants for renewables, like land use and available energy density, so the subject is complicated and I think it should be avoided here.
Too many links to opinion pieces that have little relevance to the main subject of the article. Example: "Mining companies are returning to abandoned uranium mines with new promises of hundreds of jobs and millions in royalties. Some locals want them back. Others say the risk is too great, and will try to stop those companies "until there's a cure for cancer."" This results in profoundly unencyclopedic tone.
Storm van Leeuwen. The guy essentially said that Olympic Dam cannot exist.
After reading WNA materials, particularly [2], I think they do not predict peak uranium at all. The supplied ref is unavailable to me.
Personally I think Hubbert peak theory is poorly applicable to uranium. Hubbert's theory has some hidden assumptions: 1. the resource is fully explored (in other words Q_max is not subject to market forces); 2. demand for the resource at zero price is practically infinite; 3. demand does not fall until the peak is reached; 4. no significant secondary supplies, unconventional resources or stockpiles. Those assumptions are not mentioned in the main article about Hubbert's theory but they are definitely present in it. Some of those are not fulfilled even for oil, and not even one of them is fulfilled for uranium. I think the article should at least menton it if an appropriate reference is found.
Solar thermal is not base load because it has huge seasonal variations (80%) in Europe and northern US.

--Tweenk (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some problems as well, particularly that it does not address one of the main counter-arguments I have encountered. That being: for things like uranium that we KNOW we have a lot of around, it is usually not economical for companies to "prove" more than 10-20 years of reserves. They know that if demand increases, they will have plenty of time to discover new ones (especially when it takes so long to get a nuclear plant online). That said, I have no doubt uranium companies will happily take the price increase that comes when government stockpiles run out...

Now, granted, I think I read this argument in a paper from an Australian uranium mining trade group, but it was convincing despite my initial skepticism (I will try to find and re-read this article). It seems that *this* article often conflates "reduced uranium production for economic reasons" with "running out of uranium" (as in the sense of "peak oil"). For instance, two examples of countries that have "run out" of uranium (Germany and Sweden) explicitly state that they stopped mining because it was uneconomical. This is sort of like saying the United States has "run out" of toys because we now import most of them from China. (peak toys anyone?) Which is not to say I disagree with the overall premise; it's just disingenuous to cite the closing of inefficient East German mines (let alone floods and cyclones at existing mines!) as evidence that uranium production is peaking. I see that a lot of this addressed on uranium depletion, though I'm not in favor of a merge it would be nice to get some of that POV over here and vice versa. Has anyone tried fitting the numbers to a Hubbert curve? The one production graph in the article doesn't appear to be approaching any sort of "peak"... Stuffisthings (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written to advocate a certain point of view. It is also a terrible article just from a writing standpoint. Furthermore, even as an advocacy article, it's fairly lame. Many of the arguments made are very weak and can be debunked by a cursory Google search, or even just by reading related articles on Wikipedia! This desperately needs a total rewrite, preferably by someone who knows what NPOV stands for. I can give it a shot if I ever get a chance, in the unlikely event that I find some of this "free time" stuff I keep hearing about. I bet it will be quickly reverted, though. Xezlec (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phosphate section and use of the word "mature"

Since when is a technology considered mature? Is this just an archaic form of the word or is there something else that's trying to be said? It's rather awkward. Maybe "established" would convey the idea of it being around, just not in use. I'm guessing that is the connotation you're going for. Lime in the Coconut 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not archaic. It's a perfectly normal, modern use of the word. Not awkward, either. "Established" doesn't mean the same thing. For something to be "mature" means that it has reached an advanced stage. The word is frequently is applied to life forms, technologies, and structures or systems of various kinds. Xezlec (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another equation

this youtube video by Albert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch from TNT equivalent to coal

In the intro section, the ammount of energy yielded from fissioning U-235 was compared with kilotons of TNT. While this may be useful for calculating weapons yields, it has no such utility for caluclating energy generation at a power plant. TNT is not commonly used as a fuel, and the total energy released in explosions is actually quite a bit less than most people tend to think - for example a medium sized candle will actually release more total energy than a typical hand grenade, but explosives have a big impact because their energy is released extremely fast. I also find the comparison with explosive yield to be rather POV, as it fits with a common anti-nuclear strategy of stoking fear of nuclear power by conflating it with nuclear weapons and explosions. In any rate, I've changed it to a comparison with the weight of coal required to generate the same ammount of energy. This is a much more useful comparison, as coal actually is a common fuel used in electric generation. -Helvetica (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted and great work! keep it up!

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pessimistic Frog

User:Wtshymanski removed the image of the cartoon frog with the comment: "same comic twice , why is it even in once?" I readded, stating: "there were 2 of that image because you merged the articles; 'why even once?' because it illustrates a pessimistic prediction." They removed it again; "Comic books aren't real." I added it back: "FWIW, comic cites ref; National Observer (United States) week ending Apr 24, 1976, P.1" They removed it again: "we have real references and don't need an imaginary talking cartoon frog. Wikipedia articles often have trouble identifying reality."

Rather than continue trying to argue my point via the limited capacity of an edit summary, I'll state it here. The comic from 1976 (thus notable for its anti-nuclear stance pre-Three Mile Island accident) that the frog is from uses a pessimistic predictions of uranium supply (laughably wrong in hindsight) to argue against nuclear power. I don't see a problem with the image being used here at all (it illustrates the point, ne?), though if anyone feels the comment needs modification to elaborate on e.g. the anti-nuclear tone, we should do that. Thus I intend to add the image back with the caption:

All-Atomic Comics (1976) argued against nuclear power in part by citing pessimistic predictions that uranium supplies could be exhausted by 1989.

-- Limulus (talk) 18:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly a good illustration. We have plenty of references for people worrying about the uranium supply. We don't need a comic strip to illustrate this article. An obscure comic book sold in a dozen head shops is a pretty poor resource compared to what's already listed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration aptly illustrates the pitfall of overly pessimistic projections, and how they circulate into mainstream public opinion. Even though a comic, this publication evidently was meant to be non-fiction, and so deserves placement in this article. It would be even more useful if someone could cite where the 1989 date came from, assuming that the comic authors didn't themselves make it up. Plazak (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The preface in the comic (the whole thing is viewable in CBR format; you can download it via the link in the image's info page) states "I've tried to make certain that all the information in this comic book is up-to-date and true." and the footnotes at the end mention an article in the National Observer (United States), "Nuclear Fuel: Will It Run Out?" by William J. Lanouette "for the week ending April 24, 1976, page 1" (note also this from the preface: "permission is granted to reprint parts of it in any way that might help spread these ideas." This is not a typical comic book any more than Our Friend the Atom is a typical Disney movie.) An alternate caption? Pessimistic uranium supply predictions have been cited as an argument against nuclear power, e.g. All-Atomic Comics (1976) warned that reserves could be exhausted "by as soon as 1989". -- Limulus (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the lack of a scholarly bibliography is just *one* of the many reasons that we shouldn't rely on comic books for factual purposes? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A source for the 1989 date is found here: [3], a December 1975 article by M. C. Day, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The cartoon should definitely go in. Plazak (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will use that ref in the caption as I readd it in a moment. -- Limulus (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd, of course. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you hold that 'comics' are necessarily devoid of mature discussion (cf. manga; it is interesting for me to note that A-AC was produced by Educomics, which later would translate I Saw It and Barefoot Gen). In case you are interested, Rifas (who wrote A-AC and founded Educomics) wrote Cartooning and Nuclear Power: From Industry Advertising to Activist Uprising and Beyond in 2007 for the American Political Science Association journal PS Political Science & Politics and mentions A-AC specifically: "All-Atomic Comics [...] came out in 1976 with an initial press run of 10,000 copies, and in revised editions in 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980, for a total of 47,500 copies." The fact that he "distributed these comic books primarily through underground comix channels (to “head shops”)" (as you correctly guessed! :) does not detract from their merit in terms of having notability for the Anti-nuclear movement in the United States or, in this case, for the topic of illustrating pessimistic predictions of peak uranium (note that Rifas continues that A-AC was also distributed "through anti-nuclear organizations, which sold them as educational material when tabling.") -- Limulus (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comic should go in.

Boundarylayer (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contending the hinting at Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

Let me know what you guys think!

One highly criticized (- http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Critical%20note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf Dones, Roberto, 2007. Critical note on the estimation by storm van Leeuwen J.W. and Smith P. of the energy uses and corresponding CO2 emissions from the complete nuclear energy chain. Paul Scherrer Institute Policy Report, April -) life cycle study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen suggested that below 0.01–0.02% (100-200 ppm) in ore, the energy required to extract and process the ore to supply the fuel, operate reactors and dispose properly comes close to the energy gained by burning the uranium in the reactor. (- http://www.stormsmith.nl/i05.html -) Researchers at the Paul Scherrer Institute who analyzed the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen paper however have detailed the number of incorrect assumptions of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen that led them to this evaluation, including their assumption that all the energy used in the mining of Olympic Dam is energy used in the mining of Uranium, when that mine is predominately a copper mine and uranium is produced only as a co-product, along with Gold and other metals.(-http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Critical%20note%20GHG%20PSI.pdf Dones, Roberto, 2007. Critical note on the estimation by storm van Leeuwen J.W. and Smith P. of the energy uses and corresponding CO2 emissions from the complete nuclear energy chain. Paul Scherrer Institute Policy Report, April-)

The report by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen also assumes that all enrichment is done in the older and more energy intensive gaseous diffusion technology, however the less energy intensive gas centrifuge technology has produced the majority of the world's enriched uranium now for a number of decades.

An appraisal of nuclear power by a team at MIT in 2003, and updated in 2009, have stated that:(- http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf page 12 -)

Most commentators conclude that a half century of unimpeded growth is possible, especially since resources costing several hundred dollars per kilogram (not estimated in the Red Book) would also be economically usable...We believe that the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous edit with no sources

Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources. http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf

The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf

Nuclear is only 2% of our world energy generation. renewable are 16% and solar and wind are doubling every couple of years.

German and Denmark are doing fine with solar and wind predictability. There are two of the most reliable grid on the planet. Their whole sale cost are average or low. Their retail rates a high because of taxes and fees.

Reprocessing has never been economical, and it multiplies the volume of deadly medium level wastes for a slight decrease in spent fuel rods.

Every grid in the world has massive reserve generators or hydro because baseload has always needed them. even France uses the rest of Europe as their reserve generators. Those same generators work just fine with predictable intermittent solar and wind. Solar actual reduced peaking requirement. Gird operators can count on solar when it's need for summer peak air conditioning load.

I'm just scientist who has written operating systems and design optical computers, I cant figure the wiki system. You folks have made it your own private party, I wish you with change that.

Please turn down the difficulty level on Captcha, it's ridiculous.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.115 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overemphasis on cost/kg

The content of this paragraph should be emphasized more, earlier: If one is willing to pay $300/kg for uranium, there is a vast quantity available in the ocean.[63] It is worth noting that since fuel cost only amounts to a small fraction of nuclear energy total cost per kWh, and raw uranium price also constitutes a small fraction of total fuel costs, such an increase on uranium prices wouldn't involve a very significant increase in the total cost per kWh produced.

It is stated early in the article that 1 kg of U-235 can give as much energy as 2700 tonnes of coal and that 0.7% of mined uranium is U-235. Light Water Reactors allegedly utilize around 0.5% of their fuel, which is enriched to about 3% U-235 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-water_reactor#Fuel). Thus, the equivalent amount of coal for 1 kg mined uranium is approximately 2 700 000 kg * 0.7% * 0.5% / 3% ≈ 113 400. When not considering processing or administration costs of either product (nor efficiency losses in their respective plants), this translates $300/kg for uranium into less than 0.003$/kg for coal. That is cheap coal.

When is cost/kg relevant for energy sources? We should by default be considering cost/kWh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]