Talk:Peak uranium/Archive 1

Need for improvements

1. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. The two references at the end of the article are no substitute for proper citations (I'm removing the one to a blog post) and one is a paper from Energy Watch Group, a group with a strong POV (albeit one I agree with).
2. More sources are always better than fewer.
3. The article is written from the point of view of an environmentalist (like myself), with partisan statements of the "It stands to reason that" sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is by no means finished; it's a stub. I will move the reference inline and they will be in Harvard form. I will work on this article for the next two months or so and will include opinions of people that believe that an endless souce of uranium can be obtained from sea water and other that believe that the supply of uranium can be extended for thousands of years using reprocessing. Kgrr (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't run into any impatient editors in the meantime. Some folks think two hours is too long for an article to be here in skeletal form. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been through it all, especially for controversial subjects. The other extreme also exists. If you write the whole article and then submit it, they delete it all, thinking that the whole thing was written by some disinformation group or some other excuse.Kgrr (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I also am not eliminating a POV from an article because it is strong. To be more precise, the Energy Watch Group provides a viewpoint which counters the nuclear industry's strong POV. Wikipedia is about presenting all major viewpoints in an article, not to suppress one or the other. This is what makes articles informative, yet balanced. Kgrr (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You certainly have been pushing the pro-nuke line. It's very obvious.Kgrr (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I think that current version doesn't have disputed POV anymore. Therefore I removed POV tag. If you think that POV is still a problem, please feel free to restore it, but please give more detailed explanation, or tag a relevant section instead of the whole article. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems

There are some problems I see:

• there is probably some potential overlapping with the Uranium mining. It should be checked out more carefully.
• The Table of Contents goes to 3 levels, and doesn't reflect tight organization of the article. See WP:WIAFA, no. 2. Some of the subsections are only one-to-three sentences, resulting in short, choppy sections. If not expanded, it maybe better to merge third level subsections?
• The statement in the Mitigation section is, of course, correct, but probably not very encyclopedic.
• Also attention to WP:MOS is needed, but I think it could be checked after expanding and solving contest issues. Beagel (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have worked to resolve these issues. Overlap with Uranium mining is understandable, but limited. Solved the TOC depth issue. Your pointer helped a lot here. Mitigation has been solved. I have worked the article through for style. I will have someone else give me more specifics if the issue still exists.

Next, I will apply for GA and get some more review comments to further improve it. Kgrr (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

The to-do list has been cleared, the article has been stable and uncontested for a while now. I will apply for GA status. Kgrr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fragmented presentation

A lot of good work has gone into this article and I get the impression that there are many knowledgeable people at work here. But I think the article is fragmented by too many single-sentence paragraphs and very short sub-sections. These are typically not long enough to develop an idea, and the result is a mere collection of discrete facts, which does not allow the article to flow. Single-sentence paragraphs and very short sub-sections are not usually acceptable at GA level. Johnfos (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest news: Article update needed

Uranium fell to a 16-month low, or half the record price reached in June, after new supplies became available and exceeded demand. See Bloomberg.com. Johnfos (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still at nearly 10 times where it was 4 years ago (near 7 dollars a pound) Kgrr (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This graph seems to be showing a price of about $17/pound four years ago (April 2004) and a price of $68/pound currently. That would be a factor of four increase, not ten. Or have I missed something? Johnfos (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Kgrr, I really had hoped that you would have clarified the situation here. Without such clarification I am left with the impression that some of what you say is not supported by the data, that you are pushing a pro-peak POV, and that this is coming through in the article. At the very least the article needs to be updated to better discuss price decreases over recent months, the issue of new supplies becoming available and exceeding demand, and the implications of this for peak uranium. So I'm adding an update tag. Johnfos (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed seeing your reasoning for the update tag. I was probably distracted. Let's continue the discussion under update tag below. Kgrr (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference list

The reference list needs to be improved. Some references listed do not provide enough information (e.g., reference 11: population 2050 and there is no consistent style which is followed throughout. So I'm adding a "citation style" tag. Johnfos (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

Need to consolidate many of the sections into prose (Unconventional resources, Peak uranium for individual nations, World peak uranium, for example)

Some irrelevant sections, particularly "Historical understanding of world uranium supply limits"

Some short sections that either need to be expanded and sourced or removed (Global warming, for example)

A few instances of excessive significant figure (world population, for example)

Scattered typographical errors (see citation 56, for example)

Peak oil section needs help: "Some experts believe . . . Others believe . . . The true figure . . ."

Much of the text in the list in "Reprocessing" seems to be copied from source 37. Are there other instances of this?

2. Factually accurate?: Fail depending on questions below

Is there a difference between recycling and reprocessing as fas as uranium is concerned?

Is spent fuel really as low as 1% U-235? A reference would help here.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

There is good material here, but the presentation needs to be cleaned up quite a bit.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Mjamja (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. This gives me some things to work with. Here is a summary of the items that need work:

1. Will work on it and report status here. I would appreciate some help.

I could do some cleaning up, but not until middle of next week.Mjamja (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will get started, but Thursdays and Fridays are tough on my schedule. I have a bit more free time on the weekend. Kgrr (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2a. Difference between uranium recycling and reprocessing.

• None - "Nuclear recycling" redirects to "Nuclear reprocessing". I have posed the question there is there is really a difference.
• It's my understanding that "reprocessing" is being reframed to "recycling" to move debate away from the polluting stigma of reprocessing to a more environmentally friendly viewpoint. Reprocessing and "recycling" are essentially the same process and are used interchangeably.Tony Batt Stephens (2008-01-18). "Porter looks at recycling nuclear fuel". Las Vegas Review-Journal. Retrieved 2008-04-17. But nuclear opponents stress that "recycling" in the nuclear industry is not like the recycling we are used to:
• Carah Ong (2005-05). "Reprocessing is not recycling" (PDF). waging peace.org. Retrieved 2008-04-17. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Ok. I would say that the recycling and reprocessing sections should be merged then. My preference would be to use reprocessing, as it's my impression that that is the more common/recognized term.Mjamja (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely. Reprocessing is the term been that has used in the industry for many years. Kgrr (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2b. Spent fuel make-up. U235 < 1%

• "96% of the mass is the remaining uranium: most of the original 238U and a little 235U. Usually 235U would be less than 0.83% of the mass along with 0.4% 236U." Spent nuclear fuel. But lacks reference. Kgrr (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Table 1.:"Uranium 93.4% (contains U-238, U-234, U-235, U-236) Enrichment 0.71% (U-235)""What is nuclear waste?". Whatisnuclear.com. 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-17. Note that U234, U236 nor U238 are fissile although they are fertile. This source shows the enrichment level down below 1%, but it's too dumbed down for my liking. Kgrr (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• "After 3 years in a reactor, 1,000 lbs. of 3.3-percent-enriched uranium (967 lbs. 238 U and 33 lbs. 235U) contain 8 lbs. of 235U and 8.9 lbs. of plutonium isotopes along with 943 lbs. of 238U and assorted fission products."Laurence Peterson (2005). "Chemical Processes and Nuclear Reactor Fuel". Kennesaw State University. Retrieved 2008-04-17. Kgrr (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. I was just surprised that the U-235 content ended up so close to the value for natural uranium.Mjamja (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the spent fuel still has a higher U-235 content than the Uranium that is currently mined. The uranium is enriched to 4% before it's made into fuel. Also, these figures are typical of BWRs and PWRs. Other reactors like CANDU (a heavy water reactor) can burn natural un-enriched uranium and at the end of it's cycle it's much less than 1%.Kgrr (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This article still has a number of issues to be addressed (organization, prose as mentioned above; technical items such as ill-formed citations, etc.) and is clearly not in a stable state. I'm moving this from on hold to fail; feel free to renominate it when it's in a little better shape. Mjamja (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

yes Kgrr (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

I am a Systems Engineer. As such, I write specifications, RFP responses, system designs, etc. Kgrr (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

It could be. I hang in three areas technology/energy/environment. Kgrr (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style.

Dan, I do not like the old reference style. <ref>[http://link nameofarticle]</ref> I prefer the new style <ref>{{cite web |url=http://link |title=nameofarticle }}</ref> I don't like the way the reference numbers look inconsistent when both are used together. Kgrr (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First graph is misleading

The first graph mixes up the context of the "fuel" source for electrical energy generation, and the source of all energy used ( including, for example, transportation fuels ). The accompanying paragraph deals with use of uranium for electricity production. However, the graph shows that the largest fuel source is oil. This is plainly not the case for electricity production.Eregli bob (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, I changed the caption to read "World consumption of primary energy by energy type in TW". And, yes, the largest primary energy source is oil. And some oil is being used to generate electricity. While uranium is being used primarily for electricity production, we are seeing some heating and transportation (e.g. electric cars, electrified railways) being provided by nuclear power (uranium). Again, all I was trying to show is the increase in uranium demand next to other primary energy sources as a reference. So let me think about it a bit.Kgrr (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing by AWeishaupt

Someone deleted all of AWeishaupt's contributions marking them as vandalism. I have glanced through the large changes made, but am not ready to take large changes that are not working towards gaining good article status (the article is still in review). I will look through the changes that have been made and consider it point by point. Let's not get into a revert war in the middle of this review.Kgrr (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I inadvertently screwed up the formatting on the references. I'll be more careful in future. Still - wouldn't it be more constructive if somebody could see that and fix the bug, rather than deleting the content?

Would you say that that's the primary reason why my contribution was deleted? AWeishaupt (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at a diff between my contribution of Revision as of 15:05, 18 April 2008 and your Revision as of 14:06, 22 April 2008, it looks to me like you added a lot of material that had nothing to do with the references that you left at the end of your changes. 65.101.141.215 deleted your "work" calling it vandalism. I would have to agree. This is POV pushing to the point of vandalism.

So for example, you changed near line 1 "Like fossil fuels, uranium is a finite resource used for producing Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons ... to Uranium is a metal which is abundant naturally within the Earth's crust, the primary use of which is as a source of energy via nuclear fission It looks like your purpose here was to change the meaning of the sentence to remove the fact that uranium is a finite resource. Nevertheless, you did not even change the reference to support the point you are pushing that says that you think uranium is an infinite, inexhaustible resource. The end effect is that you are mis-quoting the reference.

Your next change at line 33 completely changed the entire paragraph in an attempt to remove reference to uranium being a finite resource. By the way, the reference you quote, although written by "School of Physics at the University of Melbourne in Australia" is dubious. Their fact sheets have no references whatsoever and do not even name their authors. It might as well be a giant blog. Their work is inadmissible by Wikipedia's standards.

at line 72, you made further changes without reference. "However, light water reactors fuelled with low-enriched uranium, as currently employed for the vast majority of nuclear power generation in the United States, discharged used nuclear fuel which is made up of about 96% by mass of uranium which is unchanged from when it went into the reactor. If this used fuel is recycled and re-used efficiently, then 96-97% of the need for mined uranium is eliminated." That paragraph is trying to argue that as population increases that the demand for electricity increases. Your material is completely incorrect. Nuclear power only provides about 20% of today's electric power. Furthermore, your POV injection at this point has nothing to do with the purpose of the paragraph.

at line 116, you insert more POV. You changed "Some proponents of nuclear power believe that building more nuclear power plants can reduce greenhouse emissions." to "Since the use of nuclear fission as an energy source produces no greenhouse gases, any use of nuclear energy as an alternative to replace the use of fossil fuel combustion as a source of energy production reduces greenhouse gas emissions." But it's a fact that other portions of the nuclear fuel cycle does produce greenhouse gasses. As a matter of fact, the enrichment process is the number 1 contributor to CFC's in the atmosphere. If I remember right CFC-114 is about 10,000 times worse than CO2 and lasts up to 300 years.

line 150, you insert "However, one single study by Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith claims that if a" did you really read *all* of the literature? That's a pretty huge claim that van Leeuwen is the only one that will tell you that if you start massively consuming uranium that it will not last very long. Isn't this pushing your point of view that uranium is an infinite, inexhaustible supply? It also seems to push that you think that Jan-Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith do not belong to the consensus. I have news for you. Science is not about establishing a consensus.

continuing on your changes near line 150. You added "This study and its claims have been unanimously refuted by widespread peer review, both by groups tied to the nuclear energy industry, and by numerous academics and experts with no relations to the uranium mining or nuclear energy industry." and you point to a reference which has some disagreement with SLS, but never says the claims anything like what you are reading into it. Here is what the article says "It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). The difference is that Vattenfall actually measured their energy inputs whereas Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith employed various theoretical relationships between dollar costs and energy consumed. This paper also grossly over-estimates the energy cost of mining low-grade Ores and also that the efficiency of extraction of Uranium from reserves would fall dramatically at ore concentrations below 0.05%. ..." It looks like they have a difference of opinion. But I don't read that they believe the study has been "unanimously refuted"... etc. Don't you think this is pushing POV just a little?

you go on haphazardly editing through the entire article making large changes and seemingly back your changes with quotes, but the sources say nothing like what you are putting forth. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 65.101.141.215 deleting your POV pushing "work" calling it vandalism. Kgrr (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proper references

If you cannot add content with properly formed references, the material will be deleted. The references must have the same form as is being used in the article currently, and must at least contain a URL, title, publisher, language and access date. If available, the reference must include the author, the date it was written. I cannot spend my valuable time correcting references. Also, the reference must include material that substantiates what is being claimed in the article. Don't state yada-yada study is the only study and has been refuted by tons of industry experts when the reference you give does not say that.Kgrr (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Update tag

Don't tag this article with anything without discussing it here. If you want to point out that the material is out of date somewhere, put the update tag on the section that needs to be updated and not the whole article. Then discuss here what needs to be updated. Better yet, make the change yourself, but back it up with properly formed references. Kgrr (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kgrr, I get the feeling you are losing the plot here. The update tag is clearly discussed above (see Talk:Peak uranium#Latest news: Article update needed). It is not just one section that is involved, and the lead needs to be updated as well. At the very least the article needs to be updated to better discuss price decreases over recent months, the issue of new supplies becoming available and exceeding demand, and the implications of this for peak uranium. So I'm adding the update tag again.

In terms of making changes myself, the article is not well written, as the GA reviewer has explained, and the reference list does not include full details of sources used, so it is difficult to work with this article. Johnfos (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnfos, yes I'm working on the article and at the same time, the article is being bombed by a few people who add lots of text and provided references that include only the title or only the URL. However, If you click on the spot price graph, you will see a link to the data I referred to in creating it. I will simply remove the claim altogether.74.61.37.1 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kenneth S. Deffeyes - A very long time

I deleted this section because that is not at all what the abstract and the article says. The WP article claimed "Deffeyes estimates that for a ten times increase in price, the supply of uranium that can be economically mined is increased 300 times."

What is being said in the abstract is "In brief, they conclude that both sets of data can be described by a single log-normal curve, the smoothly ascending slope of which indicates approximately a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade." Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor (1980-01). "World Uranium Resources". Scientific American. p. p 66. Retrieved 2008-04-21. {{cite web}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help) What they are saying is that as the ore grade decreases, the more low-quality uranium there is. They are pointing out it follows a log-normal distribution. This speaks nothing about how economically recoverable it is. Since there it's lower grade by 10 ten times, you need ten times the ore to recover the same amount of uranium. It also takes ten times longer and ten times the diesel fuel. Also, ten times the crushing at the mill and at least ten times longer to purify it, and so on. Kgrr (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at one tenth the concentration, then the cost of processing will be about ten times as much. Paul Studier (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At least. Some of the costs compound. For example, one needs to build more centrifuge stages in the enrichment plant.Kgrr (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why more centrifuge stages? Once natural uranium is extracted, no matter how poor the ore, it will still have the same 0.7% U²³⁵. Paul Studier (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Because you are starting with 1/10 of the grade ore you started with. Kgrr (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Once purified, the Uranium yellowcake is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. I retract that point. But you do need to do more purification with the lower grade ore. Kgrr (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if it takes you 10 times as long to mine the ore, then the money you borrowed will accrue at a compounding rate. It won't cost you 10 times more, but probably more like 15 or 20. This is why diminishing returns happen. It's not a linear problem, but a compounding one. Kgrr (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dubious sources

Lots of dubious sources in this article. Like this unsourced opinion piece[1] or wisegeek. com[2].Ultramarine (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What is dubious about the opinion of the UK's Environment Minister about a matter he no doubt has much inside information? What is dubious about a source which explains what a buyer's or seller's market market is? Do you disagree with the information provided there, or find that the website is selling anything or is POV? Are there other examples, or is that all you found? NJGW (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

An unsourced personal opinion piece by a non-expert is not a reliable source. Possible "Inside information" is unverifiable. The concept of a "buyer's market" is dubious since there cannot be too much demand unless there are price controls. If the price is not fixed demand and supply will match exactly at the market price. Here is even a blog cited as a source: [3]. Extremely POV article only present straw mans regarding long-time uranium supply. The whole article reads like a pump-and-dump promotion for uranium mining companies.Ultramarine (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Michael Meacher, UK's Environment Minister ... I will be happy to find another reference if you wish.
2. Buyer's Market - happens when there is an excess of supply. Seller's market - happens when there is a shortage of supply. Both of these have nothing to do with price controls. For example, you see the same phenomenon in Real Estate. OK ... I will get you another source to say the exact same thing.
3. AutoBlogGreen - ok .. I will find another source for you. You could have found one yourself too. Maybe electric cars don't push your POV.
4. POV Article - please provide your balancing opinion in the body of the article. We need to make sure the lede stays NPOV and is not stuffed full of your POV details. Kgrr (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

MP for 38 years, Environment Minister for 6 years... seems pretty notable to me. Do you have any evidence against him? And are you really arguing against the law of supply and demand? If Uranium gets more sparse, then the miners will jack up the price. Do you have evidence that this isn't so?

The next blog source you mention is citing a government study (which is clearly linked to). By selectively giving that example instead of fixing it you are being tendentious. If you see problems, work towards a consensus.

Your pump and dump allegation is the only straw man/red herring I see. The concept is simple: when you mine half the ore, it gets harder and harder to find more. Now why not cooperate to fill in the details? NJGW (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, an unsourced opinion article by a non-expert is not a reliable soruce. Lots of sources on nuclear power so should be easy to find a more reliable one. I am not arguing against supply and demand. I am arguing that a concept of a "buyer's market" and "demand exceeding supply". Demand always equal supply at the current market price. Which can of course change. Blogs are not allowed source. Since I am not psychic I do not know if the real source is some other source. Adding the correct source is the responsibility of the person making the claim.Ultramarine (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, go read the nutshell at wp:so fix it. From your assertions of responsibility, you seem to be unaware of how Wikipedia works, so maybe you should read the whole thing. Stop treating all of this like a playground game. As far as the blog source and you being psychic goes, you're either being facetious or you didn't even read it: the link to both the Gov study and a good news story on it are right there. If you're not questioning supply and demand, you're not questioning that source above, so what's you're point? Stop playing naive and start trying to help. If more people want a substance than there is in the market, then demand does not equal supply. I don't see how you can have a problem with that statement unless you're just playing games. NJGW (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Demand always equal supply at a certain price. This price may change of course. You could say that at a certain price demand is greater than supply. But then the price will quickly adjust so that demand is equal to supply. "Hubbert's peaks are the points where demand exceeds supply." That is simply not correct. Hubbert's peak refers to when oil production starts declining. If applied to uranium it would be when uranium production starts declining. Which may never happen. Uranium is not like oil. Very small amount contain an extremely high amount of energy so extracting uranium from seawater would be possible if the price increases. Which is replenished by the world's rivers eroding minerals.Ultramarine (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You said yourself the source you mentioned is probably right, so basically your asking for a better source, not asking for proof. Stop playing games. Hubbert's peak is the general principle behind Hubbert peak theory. If you are not aware that the peak is useful in more than one domain, please read those articles. Peak oil is the Hubbert peak of oil.

Please explain how straining the oceans for individual atoms of Uranium is a sustainable or advisable process. Please explain how 3 parts per billion is an "extremely large amount" (I may be wrong about this, but I think that means you need 18 million liters of sea water for 1 gram or Uranium, or 4500 km³ per KwH... my other calculations are showing discrepancies in their calculations of available Uranium in ocean water off by as much as 3 orders of magnitude, so maybe someone else should also look at that). Who translated the information from the Japanese source? Why isn't a better source used? Please explain why you are so certain of the above when your English source says "has hinted that it is possible." Please explain how it's impossible to eventually run out of a mineral (which you imply with {{totally disputed}}). Please explain what technologies currently exist which allow the usefulness of spent Uranium to be extended. You position is not a strong one. Your games are tedious. I'm going to bed, and I hope you two can learn to play nice. NJGW (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From the seawater part of the article, there is about 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean, far more than we will use for centuries. At the OECD estimated cost of $300/KgU, this will cost 0.75 cents/Kwh. Such a low cost in dollars indicates a low cost of energy. There are few sources for this because no one expects the uranium to reach this price and stay there for any extended length of time. The interest in breeders is low for the same reason. Paul Studier (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Michael Meacher, UK's Environment Minister's opinion. Replaced with two references - IEER and Scottish Parliment
2. Buyer's Market / Seller's Market - went to another nearly identical dictionary definition.
3. AutoBlogGreen - Replaced with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
4. POV pushing - Take a moment to refresh yourself on economic theory: "Demand always equals supply at the current market price." Exactly, price is the independent variable and demand is the dependent variable. Remember that economists drew the curves backwards (the price should have been on the horizontal axis). Nevertheless, the convention stuck. If there more supply than demand, price will drop. This is called a buyer's market. If there is less supply than demand, the price will go up. This is called a seller's market. The demand curve shifts so that supply and demand are in equilibrium at the market price. This is true in stocks, bonds, real estate and the commodities markets.

Hubbert's peak theory attempts to predict the market shift from buyer's market to seller's market. This happens when the supply is no longer met by an increasing demand. And again, peak uranium has nothing to do when uranium runs out, but when this market shift happens. This is the point where the price of the resource goes up dramatically (like our pump prices). If I am not getting the point across, please help me write it so everyone else can understand. Kgrr (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubbert's peak refer to a peak and then a drop in production. Not to a shift "from buyer's market to seller's market". Says nothing regarding price in itself. For example, when OPEC dramatically raised oil prices in 70s this was not a Hubbert Peak. So a dramatic price increase is not a Hubbert peak.Ultramarine (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK let me try one last time. Uranium is a commodity. This means the overall market price is set by the market, even though the individual mining company will try to maximize the price and the buyers will try to minimize it. Assume demand is steady for a minute. They don't build nuclear power plants all the time.

Now as long as there is no change in the quantity demanded and if the mining companies tried to bring loads of uranium to the market to drive off excess supply, the price would *move* along the demand curve to cause the buyers to increase their inventories. If on the other hand, if all the buyers felt like uranium prices were too high and they have inventories of uranium, the equilibrium price will also *move* along the demand curve. In short, a change in supply with a constant demand will cause a change in price along the demand curve.

On the other hand, if a major mine suddenly collapses, the price would remain the same, but the whole supply curve would *shift*. Uranium mines are forced to sell uranium at the same price even though the the disaster caused a shortage of uranium. When the quantity supplied is effected by a factor other than price, the supply curve shifts. If the ability for the majority of mines to produce uranium falls off due to resource depletion, the price would remain the same, but the supply curve *shifts*.

The degree to which a demand or supply curve reacts to a change in price is the curve's elasticity. You can find elasticity in two places - the demand or in the supply. Nuclear power plants need to run 24x7 and they have their share of inventory. If they don't buy uranium, they are out of business. This means the demand elasticity depends on the shape of their inventory. Once inventories are low, the nuclear power plant don't have a choice and need to pay a higher price. An elastic demand curve is flat. An inelastic demand curve is more steep.

Supply elasticity depends mostly on how much uranium can be on the market. If the price of uranium goes up and a lot of uranium is brought to the market, then the supply curve is flat. However, if a higher price of uranium does not bring very much uranium to the market, then the supply curve is more steep.

Since uranium is a finite resource, the supply elasticity will change over time. When uranium is plentiful, if a buyer wants more uranium, it's available for nearly the same price. The supply curve is flat. It's a buyer's market.

As uranium becomes more and more scarce, no matter how much someone would be willing to pay for additional uranium, the extra cannot be mined fast enough. The supply curve is steep. It's a seller's market.

At peak uranium, the supply curve has tilted from being elastic to inelastic because the supply of uranium to the market cannot easily be increased even though a higher price is being offered. The market is tighter or has shifted from a buyer's market to a seller's market.Kgrr (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You ignore that if using breeders then a given amount of uranium will last much longer. So price will increase until breeders become economical. Then price will increase very slowly. Again, the potential supply is enormous if considering uranium in oceans and rocks. Also important is that an increase in uranium price will not affect electricity price very much. The real costs for nuclear power plants is contruction and safety regulations. Not the uranium itself.Ultramarine (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass deletion of sourced material

Extremely POV article only present straw mans regarding more long-time uranium supply. The whole article reads like a pump-and-dump promotion for uranium mining companies. Some attempt to add sourced opposing views were simply deleted [4].Ultramarine (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been deleting my sourced material. You also are inserting unsourced material for which I've had to correct many references. I really don't want your POV in the lede. I am getting tired of bullying me. I told you on several occasions you may put your material into the body of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article.Kgrr (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop 3rring each other and discuss this. NJGW (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"You have been deleting my sourced material." Diff please. I have only removed unsourced material. The current intro is a POV presentation. There is no presentation of the real points by those who see a long-term supply of uranium. Like in the material you simply deleted.Ultramarine (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I am really tired of being bullied by you. Find your deletions yourself. Find your URL only insertions with a robot generated title yourself. I am tired of getting pissed on. Kgrr (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no concrete objections I will restore the material to the intro. It should be neutral.Ultramarine (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) First, you're already past 3rr, so don't start up again. Second, I think you can read well enough to see his objections. If you don't answer his objections, then go back to fighting your other battles. NJGW (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not but I prefer to discuss obviously. What objections? That is is POV? It only adds some opposing views to the current material which are all pessimistic regarding supply.Ultramarine (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this one more time. You say "There is no presentation of the real points by those who see a long-term supply of uranium." The article has nothing to do with the long-term supply of uranium. It has to do with the point where the demand exceeds the supply. Hubbert's peak happens much sooner than total resource depletion. Am I supposed to let you insert material that is totally irrelevant to the article? By the way, if you look at the current consumption of uranium, it's not being met by the primary supply. The reserves are being drained and not replenished by new discoveries and mining.

Another thing I object to is how you twist what some sources are saying. For example, your twisting of Kenneth S. Deffeyes's paper. If you read his paper, you will find that he is describing the distribution of uranium. There are very few high-grade deposits and very many low-grade deposits, following a log-normal distribution. He is *not* saying that low-grade ores are economically recoverable. But you twist this around to deduce something that Deffeyes never said - that if you are willing to accept lower-grade ore by 10%, that there is 300 times as much. Yes there is a very large amount of uranium, but the grade of most of it is such that it's economically not recoverable. As the grade of the uranium gets lower, it takes more and more energy to recover it. Eventually, it costs more energy to recover the uranium than it can produce.

Another objection that I have is that you can't seem to put your points into the article sections where they belong. You insist that large amounts of details be inserted into the lede. The lede is an introduction, not another copy of the article. The idea is that you really want a summary that someone can read if they don't have the time to read the whole article. Please don't fill lots of detailed material here that pushes your POV. Achieve the balance you want by describing a summary of your viewpoint. Then put the material that backs your point into the article. Let the facts speak for themselves.

The article needs to deal with what is possible now rather than speculate. Do you really think that you can have enough room for giant beds of seaweed that will capture uranium for you and crowd-out all the sunlight from the sea life below. I don't think that Bernard Cohen's speculation of 5 billion years of breeding and uranium from sea weed extraction or nano tubes is realistic or feasible. After 25 years of research, no more than a few kilos of uranium have been recovered from the seas.

Currently, it looks like there are no commercial breeders. They are all experimental or pilots and have their share of accidents, fires or partial melt-downs. Reprocessing plants are still extremely damaging to the environment.

Anyway, enough of my rant.Kgrr (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not the judge of what is factually correct. We simply describe different published views. Do not delete sourced material simply because you personally disagree. Regarding breeders, the BN-600 reactor is producing electricity for the grid.Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then don't delete my material again. I have no problem with your material, only placement in the article and the lack of proper references (I had to correct every single one of them). Put your material in the right place. I don't want to have to be your janitor.

The BN-600 prototype fast breeder reactor is still under operation, but is not breeding.Kgrr (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There you are

• "Safer Energy For Europe – One Million Europeans against Nuclear" (PDF). Friends of the Earth Europe. 2006-03. Retrieved 2008-04-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Kgrr (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Design still working. If uranium prices continue to rise then at same point it would be economical to use is as a breeder.

That's debatable. They are producing electricity with it but not breeding anything. If they were successful, they would be using their new investment, wouldn't you think? But furthermore, it is not economical to use right now. And by the time that the price of uranium is so high that breeders, reprocessing and thorium (which requires a breeder to work) become alternatives, will uranium still be plentiful? Will the cost of the capital and construction have increased along with the price of uranium? For eample, if you buy the breeder today, it might cost $10Billion. But if you wait until uranium is expensive will it cost $20 or $50 Billion and still not be competitive with the cost of uranium? I think the uranium from sea water is the same situation. It requires a very large capital outlay to build and very risky from a return on investment standpoint.Kgrr (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Another deletion of opposing views: [5] Ultramarine (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, you don't want to use the article's reference style. I'm not cleaning up after you. Change the reference style.Kgrr (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Now stop deleting material with opposing views.Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Complete confusion of Peak theory

Peak uranium is not the same thing as when the supply is predicted to run out. This is not a *quantity* problem, but a *rate* problem.

Peak uranium seeks to only predict when the *rate* at which uranium can be supplied is exceeded by the *rate* of the demand. At this point, the resource shifts from a buyer's market to a seller's market. This causes the price of the resource to go up.

So the added POV stating "Others argue that uranium is equivalent to a renewable source since they estimate that uranium will last as long as the Sun just like wind power and other renewables.[3]" really has nothing to do with peak uranium. None of the references that say that uranium is inexhaustible say that they can meet a demand that is growing geometrically. The demand is growing geometrically because population and therefore electrical demand is growing geometrically. The statement "uranium will last as long as the Sun just like wind power and other renewables" serves to completely detract from the thesis of this article. It shows you don't even get the concept. Kgrr (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Demand cannot exceed supply at the market price. Hubbert peak refer to a peak in production and nothing else. See above. Population growth is not growing geomterically but declining.Ultramarine (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't understand Economics 101 and you did not read Hubbert's paper. When demand exceeds supply, the demand curve shifts. Please refer to section E of this reference and look at excess demand and excess supply and look at section F about demand and supply shifts "Economics Basics: Demand and Supply".

Why don't you bully on some people that wrote this article since it does not agree with your POV: Population growth ? Kgrr (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Added UN view on population growth.Ultramarine (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Fix the crappy reference style. It does not meet the form acceptable to this article. Again, I am not your janitor. Clean it up, or I will delete it. 2) you are confusing population growth with population growth rate. Population is still growing, but not as fast. (6 billion to 9.2 Billion is still growth) Kgrr (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You really love picking fights with people don't you? Are you a bully like this in public?Kgrr (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy against giving direct links. Please state one if claiming that. The UN states that world population will peak at 9.2 billion which is what I stated. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Do not repeat.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a policy for keeping withing the link style prescribed for the article. Your material's reference did not follow that standard that I clearly set for this article. Second, your material does not add to the premise of the paragraph. Although the rate of growth is slowing, population is still growing. That growth in population causes an increase in electrical demand. Whether the rate is slowing or not is irrelevant.Kgrr (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously long term population predictions are relevant for long-term energy demand.Ultramarine (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, but as you see below you are fixating too much on demand. This article is about the ultimate total supply of Uranium and when it will be half exhausted. See below. NJGW (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article has a section on demand with a subsection on population. If having such a section it should be presented in a NPOV way.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "Obviously long term population predictions are relevant for long-term energy demand." Yes. And the point that population will increase has already been made. The text you are forcing into this section is totally irrelevant. It does not matter that the *rate* of population growth is slowing. As long as the rate of population growth is not turning negative, the population is still going to increase from 6 Billion to 9.2 Billion. A population increase will increase the electrical demand. Why do you think there is any NPOV here? Kgrr (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The UN estimates that population growth will turn negative after 2075.Ultramarine (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• "World Population 2300" (PDF).

Take a careful look at the graph in figure 7.

World population is projected to grow from 6.1 billion in 2000 to 8.9 billion in 2050, increasing therefore by 47 per cent.

Then from 2050 (in their middle projection) the population continues to increase from 8.9 billion to 9.1 billion 2100. The population is still going up. This is population growth. The growth *rate* has slowed (the slope is not as steep), but the population growth is not at all going down. Take a look at the rest of the graph. 2150-8.5 2200-8.5 2250-8.8 2300-9.0 Yes, the population goes down a little, but remains more or less steady. Take a look at worst case: population skyrockets. Take a look at the best case: population still increases to 7.4 billion in 2050.

How does the fact that the population growth *rate* going negative in 2075 tell you anything. The point is for the next 40 to 60 years, the population is going to increase. That population increase is going to increase electrical demand and therefore uranium demand. Are you arguing that this is not going to happen? Exactly what point are you wanting to make in the context of factors that increase/decrease uranium demand? Are you trying to say that someday by some miracle, the uranium demand will go down? How does this add to the article? Are you just arguing a point because you like to argue? Kgrr (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Figure 6 clearly shows that population stabilizes at 9 billion in the medium variant. Energy demand will certainly increase even if population is stable due to economic growth. But again, breeders allows uranium to be used at least 60 times more efficiently than today meaning that every ton Uranium is equivalent to 60 or more tons if used more efficiently. There are also other energy sources more long term. See Solar power satellite and Dyson sphere.Ultramarine (talk) 21:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, just like I said, population grows by another 47% by 2050 and then population stabilizes out to 2300. The point is population is increasing in the near future. And increased population means increased need for electricity and thus uranium.

But breeders don't work today due to a wide set of reasons and there are not enough of them to extend the entire supply of Uranium until they build hundreds if not thousands of them. At the present rate, according to many, many references, uranium will last at most 80 years. Peak uranium will happen much sooner than when uranium runs out using the once-through (or two or three times through with reprocessing). And, since many conventional nuclear power plants are being built, peak uranium may even happen much sooner as the direct result of increased demand and production not being able to meet the demand. Do me a favor. Put your POV aside for just a minute and try to comprehend the material being presented here. It just might make some sense.Kgrr (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kgrr, uranium will definitely not run out in 80 years. You are assuming that 100% of uranium is already discovered. The current situation is that there is 80 years of known reserves. There are only 30 years of known reserves of copper, yet no one is saying that there will be no copper to mine in 30 years. In fact the 80 years of uranium is much higher than average. Resource exploration is expensive and it simply makes no economic sense to explore for uranium until there is an anticipated shortage or a spike in prices. Uranium discovery has been historically highly correlated with exploration expenditures. See the chart in the appendix here: [6]. --Tweenk (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Infinite Uranium

I have a real problem with uranium supposedly being infinite. To me, this is like saying "of course you can go faster than the speed of light". But we need to separate what is today from what might be or science fiction. The real problem is not how much, but how fast.

Right now, currently, although some countries that have run out of uranium already do reprocess, but it is uneconomical. They are reprocessing for national security reasons. The high-level waste from the reactor is indeed valuable due to its U-235 and Pu-239 content and could be re-used. Not all of its U-235 has been used up and it also contains some Pu-239 that was made during the fission reaction. However, there are also contamination products such as U-234 and U-236 that make it only usable a few more times at most. Currently, reprocessed spent fuel is being counted as part of the secondary sources. And, it appears that it can be reprocessed at a decent rate, but not infinitely.

Breeders come with the promise that U-238 and Th-232 (which are fertile but not fissile) can be bred into Pu-239 and U-233 (which are fissile) respectively. Also right now, breeder reactors are still in the proof of concept or pilot stage. Many of them have had accidents, explosions, and massive cost over-runs. They are simply very, very expensive and the bugs have not been worked out. Breeders take a long time to make plutonium. One breeder reactor only can make enough fuel for 1.1-1.8 or so light water reactors. We would need many more than a handful to even begin to affect the supply of fissile materials, let alone the demand of fissile materials.

So if you take the current state the world is in, the uranium supply can be extended by about 30 or so at most using a combination of reprocessing and breeding. There are a lot of references that point this out. The 30 factor extends the depletion date, but it does nothing to increase the rate of fissile material production.

Other sources such as obtaining uranium from sea water, phosphate mines, or shale deposits are in today's dollars much more expensive to extract due to rising fuel and material prices since the articles have been written. There is clearly a limit as to how much oil, coal, or uranium can be recovered. But more importantly at what *rate*. There may be an infinite amount of uranium out there. But if you cannot get it out of the ground or water fast enough, you still cannot supply the demand. This is why that 16,000 tonnes per year *rate* in Cohen's article is so important. Even if we were able to extract uranium from the sea with a sea-weed factory spanning half the globe, we still would not be able to produce the uranium fast enough to meet today's needs. This is what peak uranium is all about.

We need to write this article based on facts, not fiction. And, it should be based on today's figures, not something that was dreamed up 25-30 years ago when people still believed in infinite uranium and the plutonium economy.Kgrr (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has argued that uranium and thorium are infinite. But there is a lot in seawater and many minerals. If using breeder reactors uranium can be used at least 60 times more efficiently. Since uranium contains so much energy there is still a lot of energy gained if extracting if from seawater or minerals like granite and using it efficiently in breeder reactors.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Peak uranium is not about when we will run out of uranium, but rather when the uranium market turns "hard", or becomes a supplier market. This happens when the demand exceeds supply.Kgrr (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a rapid increase in Uranium prices in the 70s due to increasing demand. Are you arguing that a Hubbert Peak occurred then? Despite price declining and production increasing in the 80s?Ultramarine (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From the 1950s through the 1970s, when uranium was being used in nuclear weapons, and later, nuclear power plants, it was selling at a hefty price. Look at the economics primer reference I gave you and look at section E-2 - Excess demand. The excess demand pushes the price up. This is due to an increase in demand and a lag in the supply. The peak that we recently saw last year is another on just like that. The Hubbert peaks are where the supply can no longer be increased to meet the demand. This is for example why oil price keep on increasing - demand increases, but there is no more supply to meet the growing demand.Kgrr (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You avoided my question. Demand increased prices in the 70s. Fits all you requirements for a Hubbert peak. Are you arguing that a Hubbert peak occurred then?Ultramarine (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He didn't avoid the question, he's answered it so many times I'm getting dizzy. The real question isn't about demand (though changes in demand will affect the timing of the peak) or about price (though price will be affected by the peak and by demand), it's when supply can no longer grow. Period. Forget demand for 2 seconds. Supply can't grow anymore. That's the peak. When will it be? That's what the sources get to argue about in this article. That's what this article is supposed to be about. NJGW (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The Hubbert peaks are where the supply can no longer be increased to meet the demand." <----<<< Thanks NJGW. I'm off of lunch and need to get back to work. Ultramarine, do me a real big favor. Please read Hubbert's paper. It's an easy read and not too full of math. He's a real believer in the plutonium economy and believed that his theory does not apply to uranium. Pay real careful attention to what is being said about oil. Because for as long as there is no reprocessing and no breeding to any significant large scale, the world is really burning all of the uranium in a once-through process. There really is not that much uranium left. Please read the economics primer I sent you. You are correct about supply and demand matching when things are in balance in a free economy. However, there are movements and shifts along the supply and demand curves. It would help if you understand that. Then understand what happens if there is no possibility in growing the supply because the resource is running out. I think you can actually help write this article if you would only cooperate a bit better and understand the subject matter.Kgrr (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"it's when supply can no longer grow." Agreed. That is equivalent to saying that production has peaked. But that article instead states "Hubbert's peaks are the points where demand exceeds supply. This is when the market shifts from a buyer's market [6] to a seller's market." Wrong for reasons given. Happened in the 70s.Ultramarine (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps then a better wording would be "Hubbert's peaks are when supply can in no way grow to meet rises in demand." NJGW (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing that if a hydrogen economy is a realized so the oil if only used for plastics etc with prices falling, then the Hubbert peak oil has disappeared?Ultramarine (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to have multiple Hubbert peaks. For example, Canada has peaked in 1959 and again in 2001 and cannot produce more at the moment because their largest mine flooded. It will take some time before they stop the water intrusion and get mining again. Also, there are a few smaller mines that are being developed. However, this time around, they may never be able to mine at pre-2001 production rates. Kgrr (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So every time price increases we have a Hubbert peak?Ultramarine (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Hubbert peaks happen when the supply can not be increased (or grow) in order to meet the demand. Prices can change for a variety of reasons. The price of uranium for example can go up due to increased demand, or when supplier costs increase (due to having to extract a lower grade of uranium ore). These cause price moves and curve shifts. See above.

In fact, what happens at the Hubbert peak is that the elasticity changes, and the price eventually responds. A shift from a buyer's market to a seller's market. No matter what price you offer, they simply are not going to be able to deliver the uranium. Take oil for example. The per barrel of oil price has increased recently from $20 per barrel to $120. Did it cause more oil to be discovered? No. We are still consuming nine times as much oil as is being discovered. Did it cause more oil to show up on the market (not from new discoveries, but by pumping it out faster) No. Oil cannot be produced faster. The supply elasticity is very steep. Do the higher prices cause people to conserve? No, the demand elasticity is very steep. So guess what. We are very near or at world peak oil. Oil prices will continue to go up. The oil companies will start extracting more oil at much higher costs from more capital intensive projects - exotic projects - tar sands, shale, world record deep sea wells like Jack2, etc. They will still have a problem supplying oil at the *rate* needed to satisfy the *rate* that oil is demanded.

When world peak uranium happens, the uranium mines will be able to set the uranium price to what the market will bear. Will you see more uranium discoveries? No. We are already consuming more than two times what is being mined. Will you see more mining? No. Uranium will be produced as fast as it can be. Do the higher prices cause people to conserve? Maybe a little - fluorescent bulbs, better insulation, etc. Will there be real changes? No, people need their electricity. The demand elasticity for electricity is very steep. Companies will take on more capital intensive projects like breeders and reprocessing and more exotic, capital intensive projects like uranium from shale, phosphate and sea water. Will all this increase the rate at which uranium is supplied. No.

So the first thing to get is that uranium is *not* an endless resource - they will grow more corn, wheat, pork bellies... (all renewable resources) Uranium is not an endless source. It can be depleted and therefore cannot be renewable. Once you get this, you will also have to understand that a lot of classical economics don't apply to finite resources. You will need to understand that what you are seeing under normal market conditions are price movement along the demand and supply curve. When changes in technology or disasters happen, the supply and demand curves can shift. In classical economics, the elasticity curves are pretty steady from year to year because more companies can come on line to build a product, a farmer can go into business growing pigs, etc. But since uranium is a finite resource it's supply will eventually begin to run out. This is why you will see changes in supply elasticity and a corresponding shift from a buyer's market to a seller's market.Kgrr (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uranium is not oil. At some point one loses more energy to extract oil than is gained by using the oil. Uranium is different since it contains much more energy per unit of mass than oil. Especially if using breeders. So extracting uranium from granite or sea water still gives a large net energy gain. Oil if also limited to a relatively small amount created from organic materials. In contrast, the whole planet Earth contains uranium. For example the supply in in oceans is constantly being refilled by water eroding rocks. So no, uranium need not peak for a long time. Really long-term all energy sources including renewables will cease when the Sun does.

Regarding your claim that "Hubbert peaks happen when the supply can not be increased (or grow) in order to meet the demand.", that is what happened in the 70s which increased prices. That is not commonly seen as a Hubbert peak. A Hubbert peak is when supply/production starts to decline. May happen in the near future for oil. Uranium is different as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) It's amazing to me that you just keep confirming for us that you don't understand the very concept of this article. Are you really not getting it, or are you playing dumb?

1. supply is not production!
2. even when the growth of production is steady, demand can spike and create a seller's market (yes, this isn't a Hubbert peak)
3. the Hubbert peak will be when production enter's it's terminal decline (unless a sudden new source of Uranium is miraculously found).

For the last time, forget demand, forget everything but production, and until the technology works, forget breeding. The base of this article is "when will the terminal decline start." If you keep misunderstanding this, then just keep reading what's written until it makes sense. (yes the breeding programs have a place in this article, but they are secondary to the peak in production issue unless they somehow can produce more uranium than is used) NJGW (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article is problematic. It is far too long and doesn't use summary style properly. There is no way to achieve WP:GA status not improving the lead. Please see the WP:LEAD for guidelines.Beagel (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Beagel, I've been having a revert war with one of the writers. He insists on inserting loads of irrelevant materials into the lead of the article. In some cases, his contributions change the meaning of the paragraph. In other case they don't add value to what is being said.

For example inserting "Uranium turned out to be far more plentiful than anticipated, and the price of uranium declined rapidly (with an upward blip in the 1970s)." between "Breeders may be technically feasible, but they are complex, costly and plagued with problems." and "This is why the US halted their use in 1977" changes the meaning of the reference I was quoting. I have a difficulty in getting him to see that this is POV insertion and severely distorting what is being said in the referenced article.

Furthermore inserting <quote>The World Nuclear Association states that natural uranium contains about 0.7 % U-235 and 99.3 % U-238. Breeder reactors can utilise the U-238 uranium at least 60 times more efficiently than a normal reactor. They are however expensive to build and could only be justified economically if uranium prices were to rise to pre-1980 values, well above the current market price. About 20 breeder reactors have been operating, some since the 1950s, and some supply electricity commercially. About 290 reactor-years of operating experience have been accumulated. The BN-600 has been supplying electricity to the grid since 1981. Bernard Cohen has estimated that there is up to five billion years’ worth of uranium if using breeder power plants.</quote> bloats the lead.

I have a great deal of problem keeping the lead (which is supposed to be an introduction) from bloating. Please offer some solutions. Kgrr (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

More issues

There aree some more issues needing to be fixed:

• Uranium demand section. Subsections of this sections are too short (exept Population). Propose to have only Uranium demand section without subsections
• Uranium production. Propose to merge all third level subsections into second level subsections
• Peak uranium for individual nations. Same issue. Subsections are too short to be separated.
• World peak uranium. No need for subsections.

Beagel (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Beagel, I will begin working on these.Kgrr (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have completed working through the demand section.

I am re-working the supply section. The supply section is just a short introduction to all the components. It should remain short. I needed to delete a few items due to copy and paste from the source and due to the proper citation style not being used. I corrected one reference.

I worked through uranium production and have merged the third level subsections into the second level subsections.

I will come back later to work more of the article through. Perhaps without interruption, I can get it done this week. 74.61.37.1 (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Beagel, I have removed the subsections from peak uranium for individual nations and world peak uranium. It's now formatted in a similar way that peak oil is formatted on similar sections. Kgrr (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More deletions of sourced material

See [7]. Not unsourced. Is in given source. POV to just cite anti-nuclear arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See [8]. Exactly what is wrong with reference style? Full details are given. What do you simply delete sourced material? The intro mostly have anti-nuclear arguments. In order to achieve NPOV there should also be opposing views in the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See [9]. Cohen clearly states that he views nuclear as renewable. See the sourced material removed above.Ultramarine (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

My head is spinning over your endless fighting. Again, it has nothing to do with your endless POV pushing (even though that bothers me as well). I deleted your entries because you don't get the point I've repeated over and over and over again. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. I will continue to delete your "sourced material" if you can't follow the citation format that is being used in this article. I really don't want to have to fill-in your URL-only inline style where a robot has to fill in the title and someone else has to fix it for you. Not using the proper citation style also wrecks the reference list. The inline style produces one style of reference entry with big [Reference number] and the template style creates a reference entry with a small [Reference number] I spent a lot of time writing this article. I am trying to get this article through GA in case you have not been reading. I am not your janitor. Please see WP:CITING. Kgrr (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that long before this is a featured good article, we must make get the facts right. I suppose any resource that is finite will eventually have a peak, but if it is hundreds of years in the future, then it is not really meaningful. Consider this statement from the article One particular life cycle study argue that below 0.01–0.02% ore content the energy required to extract and process the ore is so high that the energy needed for supplying the fuel, operation of the reactor and waste disposal comes close to the energy which can be gained by burning the uranium in the reactor. From List of uranium mines we see that Olympic Dam uses ore of 0.05%, yet it operated for the many years that uranium oxide sold for about $10/lb. Given this, the energy costs are not credible. Paul Studier (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting that this article isn't notable. Well then, put it up for deletion if you are so sure, instead of the endless games. See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. UMarine is playing games with the citations (amoung other things), and you are suggesting that the fact that some folks disagree about the time frame gives you licence to muck around as well. Read the sources, get a handle on the subject, discuss what you don't understand, and then help edit it. Your statement above suggesting that .05 is less than .02 is a prime example of you not paying any attention to what is actually being said. NJGW (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that I don't know that 0.05 > 0.02? Let me show you an estimate of the energy cost of extracting uranium. For $10/lb of yellowcake, one can extract uranium from 0.05% ore. Converting units, one gets a cost of $26/kg U. Making an extreme assumption that the entire extraction cost is energy, and energy costs $0.10/Kwh, then it costs 260 Kwh/kg U. Using current LWR and no reprocessing, one can get a Kwh of electricity for 25 milligrams of Uranium, or 40,000 kwh / kg U. This is an EROEI of 154. One could certainly have a good EROEI at much lower grades than 0.01% Paul Studier (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, you know as well as I do that the Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith study (also known as SLS), although controversial, has not been dismissed, but it has been used as a debate tool. It has been updated year after year for almost a decade now. Science is not about a concensus, it's about discussing ideas, doing experiments to try to prove the theories. If the theory does not work, it gets updated until an understanding is gained. Now there are *parts* of that study that are being disputed. But that by no means throw out their study. Both Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith are well known in the industry and very qualified. They are just not pro-nukers like you and Ultramarine. What really bothers you? Is it that their paper will throw out the uranium from seawater theory? Seriously, if the study was moot, no one would be discussing it or taking it so seriously. 74.61.37.1 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What really bothers me is the the concept that uranium will run out or will be too energy intensive for a net energy gain in the next couple decades, or that it has already happened, is obviously wrong. I do some simple arithmetic to demonstrate this and I am accused of not paying attention and nit picked on the format of the references. Then NJGW misquotes the OECD and then makes a factor of 100 error in a cost estimate. Peak Uranium is notable for being wrong so I won't nominate it for deletion. I will just note that uranium mines are opening all over the world, new reactors are being constructed all over the world, and even in the United States, there are several applications for new nuclear power plants. It is not credible that people all over the world would spend billions of dollars on new reactors if the uranium was about to run out. Paul Studier (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) "the concept that uranium will run out or will be too energy intensive for a net energy gain... is wrong" Is that what you really think this article is about? If so, you should inform yourself better, and then reevaluate the statement, "Peak Uranium is notable for being wrong," as it appears to be based on a false premise. NJGW (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1) Since uranium is so common, how can anyone possibly be running out? I can see how this makes no sense whatsoever. The lower the grade of ore, the more ore you have to process to extract the same amount of yellowcake. Clearly at some point, the amount of ore you have to work through in order to collect the amount of yellowcake is going to take more energy than is contained in the yellowcake. For each decrease in ore grade (for example from 1% to 0.1%) it takes at least 10 times as much ore to refine to get the same amount. Clearly, at some point the grade of ore is so low that it's uneconomic to recover the uranium from it. So technically we will never run out of uranium. But clearly only certain grades of ore are worth mining. So conceivably the amount of economically recoverable uranium is limited.

2) Peak uranium and running out of uranium are two different things. I am not convinced you understand the difference yet. There are several important concepts are a) Economically recoverable uranium is finite. b) At some point, the supply that can be mined tapers off and the rate at which its being produced no longer meets the rate it's demanded. c) when this happens, the producers can name their price. Prices will start to go up dramatically. So far, you seem to disagree with a) b) and c)

3) The problem with your references has nothing to do with your arithmetic. I'm simply getting tired of asking for them to be correct and eventually having to correcting them all myself. I am nit-picking over the format of the references because after they've been dropped into the article which is in the middle of a GA review. I want a quality article.

Relative uranium ore grades

200,000 ppm* U High-grade orebody - 20% U

1,000 ppm U Low-grade orebody - 0.1% U

4 ppm U Granite

2 ppm U Sedimentary rock

1.4 ppm U Average in Earth's continental crust

0.003 ppm U Seawater

What bothers me intuitively is that the cost of recovering uranium from seawater can be so cheap from such a low grade source. Something is not right.

With conventional mining, one has to dig up rock out of the ground, grind it up and soak it with chemicals. With seawater extraction, one just hands a fabric in the current. One does not even have to pump the water. [10] says that this fabric can be reused 18 times. Paul Studier (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we know that this massive contraption with unknown costs can collect about 1.5kg per year, and can be in use for 12 years before it has to be replaced (18*240/365 give or take). But we still don't have the cost of the contraption itself, or info on whether or not you need oil for the 52,000 poly sheets. Also, Kgrr had a question about the different types of U and which ones are actually useful, which still stands here.

From Kgrr's comment: Once purified, the Uranium yellowcake is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235. All mined uranium is equal. Paul Studier (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, don't forget that "Current global uranium production meets only 58 per cent of demand, with the shortfall made up largely from rapidly shrinking stockpiles. The shortfall is expected to run at 51 million pounds a year on average from next year to 2020. During the last 15 years, the shortfall between production and requirements was made up by excess commercial inventories, uranium released from military use and other secondary sources. These are now in decline, and the shortfall will increasingly need to be made up by primary production", so we need millions of these things yesterday. That's the rub on any development short of finding the moon is made of uranium or breeders somehow becoming viable. I would love to see that last part happen, as it would mean much less coal burned in the world and much less nuclear waste to dispose of, but until it does we have to procede on the assumption that peak U is a real issue that must be considered. Just like corn ethanol was a poor choice to persue in place of oil, we may have to face the fact that U is as well if breeders won't work (and the moon isn't really U). I still don't see how you can have a problem with that. NJGW (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From [11] we see that the price increases started in about Jan. 2004 and by Jan. 2005 the price was about $20/pound yellowcake. From [12] we see that production in the US declining from 1996 until the end of 2005. Then production went up from 2.7 million pounds in 2005 to 4.7 million pounds in 2007. Looks like there is plenty of uranium in the US at a reasonable price and the production is expanding because of the rising price. Paul Studier (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

4) I don't have a problem NJGW's simple typo such as cents instead of dollars. It's a tiny error. Just point it out, correct it and move on.

5) We really want to understand your simple arithmetic. I found a reference that tried to reproduce the experiment and found it takes three times as much money to recover the same amount of yellowcake. $900 per Kg instead of $300. Some of the articles I read said $200, but that was in 1960's dollars. To me nit-picking through the numbers just gets me to understand. Currently something is just not right.

6) "Peak Uranium is notable for being wrong so I won't nominate it for deletion." Nuclear power is notable because there is such a lack of common ground between the people that are all for it and the people that are against it. It just completely amazes me as to how different the conclusions are given the same data.

7) Germany, France and England and eight other countries have run out of uranium. Others like Japan never had any. We now have to import because our uranium grade is so low. Nertheless, they are building Nukes. It does not make any sense. There are plenty of people that don't care whether it's profitable or not, it's a construction project for some people. Here in Washington, where I live, we are still paying for several nuclear power plants that were way over budget and never completed. See Washington Public Power Supply (WPPS). We call it Whoops. Kgrr (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarify

From the part on Seawater: <!-- this is cost of extraction, not including R&D costs, repair and maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and of course massive profits; how much does it cost to extract each barrel of oil??? last I heard $5-10 -->

What is there to clarify? For many years uranium sold for about $10/pound of U₃O₈, which included repair, maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and of course massive profits, as well as extraction. These costs will be a small fraction of the $300/Kg U. What does oil have to do with this? Paul Studier (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, so are you saying you haven't read to sources? They state that extraction of U from sea water can be done $300/Kg. I saw nowhere that this includes repair, maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and of course massive profits. NJGW (talk) 06:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All these other things must cost less than $10/lb U₃O₈ because that is what uranium cost for many years. This adds up to $26/kg U. So including these, uranium will, worst case cost $326/kg U. However, I think that this was already included in the $300 estimate. Paul Studier (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal of the clarify. OonPage 25 of the 2003 Redbook http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/reactor_physics/NEA-redbook2003.pdf states "Research in Japan has hinted that it is possible to tap the vast resources of uranium contained in the world's oceans. At present only laboratory-scale quantities have been extracted and the cost of extraction is estimated to be very high, on the order of USD 300/KgU." But if you read The Benefits of Nuclear Power http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheBenefitsOfNuclearPower "The cost of extracting Uranium from sea water using methods of Seko et al. was estimated by Tamada et al to be approximately *$900/kg* with the technology employed in the experiment reported above. " It sounds to me the $300/KgU figure is just the cost of recovery, this does not include the capital expenditures (CapEX) and any other operational expenditures (OpEX).Kgrr (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

These are costs to extract raw uranium. What's not there is the cost to take it from yellowcake, gassification, enrichment, back to yellowcake, fuel manufacturing; Plus it does not count the capital and operational costs of running the power station. Also keep in mind that the fuel cost always have been swamped out by the capital costs. However, note the caviat. The plant to do this also costs you 1/3 the construction cost of the NPP. So this means that using uranium from seawater also comes with a huge pricetage of paying back the capital costs and the operational expenses of the seawater uranium extraction plant.Kgrr (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"One possibility for maintaining fission as a major option without reprocessing is low-cost extraction of uranium from seawater. The uranium concentration of sea water is low (approximately 3 ppb) but the quantity of contained uranium is vast - some 4 billion tonnes (about 700 times more than known terrestrial resources recoverable at a price of up to $130 per kg). If half of this resource could ultimately be recovered, it could support for 6,500 years 3,000 GW of nuclear capacity (75 percent capacity factor) based on next-generation reactors (e.g., high-temperature gas-cooled reactors) operated on once-through fuel cycles. Research on a process being developed in Japan suggests that it might be feasible to recover uranium from seawater at a cost of $120 per lb of U3O8.40 Although this is more than 10 times the current uranium price, it would contribute just 0.5¢ per kWh to the cost of electricity for a next-generation reactor operated on a once-through fuel cycle-equivalent to the fuel cost for an oil-fired power plant burning $3-a-barrel oil."Nobukawa 1994: H. Nobukawa "Development of a Floating Type System for Uranium Extraction from Sea Water Using Sea Current and Wave Power," in Proceedings of the 4th International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference (Osaka, Japan: 10-15 April 1994), pp. 294-300. Source: Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role In International Cooperation On Energy Innovation. A Report From The President's Committee Of Advisors On Science And Technology Panel On International Cooperation In Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, And Deployment. Washington, DC, June 1999, p. 5-26 - 5-27"

That was in 1999. Price is now 10 times what it was then which would make seawater uranium possible. Does not include the later research discussed in the section below.Ultramarine (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[13][14][15]Ultramarine (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The current operating cost of nuclear power are less than 2 cents/Kwh. This includes the cost to take it from yellowcake, gassification, enrichment, back to yellowcake, fuel manufacturing, plus the Uranium at current prices, plus decommissioning plus waste disposal. Capital costs for the power plant are extra. So 2 cent/Kwh plus 0.75 cents for seawater uranium plus capital is going to be a whole lot less that the 12 to 20 cents/Kwh that I pay in Southern California. Paul Studier (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So in the breakdown listed on your bill in SoCal, does it tell you how much it costs to produce the power, pay off the patent holders, lawyers, accountants, phone answerers, field technicians, stock holders, board members, taxes, power lost to inefficiency/waste, etc etc etc... this is an apple to carrot comparison (best case scenario operation of one type of plant vs. what you pay on your bill) without a proper breakdown, and OR unless a source which compares theses costs is available. NJGW (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is that even if one had to get Uranium from the ocean, it would only add 0.75 cents/Kwh on top of the 12 to 20 cents (depending on how much I use in a particular month) that I already pay. Paul Studier (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if you don't count repair, maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and of course massive profits and probably paying off patent holders and several other costs I can't be expected to come up with right now. Your analysis of the cost stated by the source is OR. NJGW (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think that these costs are not included?Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the source says, "At present, only laboratory-scale quantities have been extracted and the cost of extraction is estimated to be very high, on the order of USD 300/kgU." I don't see the other factors mentioned there, all I see is the word "extraction." The notes reference Sugo, Tamada, Seguchi et al. (2001), Recover System for Uranium from Seawater with Firous Adsorbent [sic] and its Preliminary Cost Estimation (in Japanese) and Uotani, Shimizu, Tamada (2003, Long-term Perspective of Nuclear Energy Supply Using Uranium Extracted from Seawater. If you can get a quote from those, I'm sure it would be helpful, otherwise all we have to go on is "extraction." NJGW (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

They are comparing the price to the market uranium price so obviously all costs are that are included in the market uranium price apply here as well.Ultramarine (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote to back up your assertion please. NJGW (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Research on a process being developed in Japan suggests that it might be feasible to recover uranium from seawater at a cost of $120 per lb of U3O8.40 Although this is more than 10 times the current uranium price, it would contribute just 0.5¢ per kWh to the cost of electricity"As per above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing your little games. That says the exact same thing. Recover/extract. Unless they explain what that means we can't assume it includes the other factors involved in bringing the U and it's energy to market, and you should know that very well, as litigious as you are about every little syllable of meaning in other articles. NJGW (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They are comparing the prices and making an overall comparison regarding added cost. Obviously they include all the costs otherwise they cannot make comparisons.Ultramarine (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"If 2g-U/kg-adsorbent is submerged for 60 days at a time and used 6 times, the uranium cost is calculated to be 88,000 yen/kg-U, including the cost of adsorbent production, uranium collection, and uranium purification. When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetitionuses."[16]

References a study from 2006 when U prices were much lower. 25,000 yen is is 240$.Ultramarine (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we have $240/Kg extracted and purified. Now (lets start our little merry-go-round again) what about repair, maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and of course massive profits? NJGW (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Those costs are already included in today's U prices and cost for the reactor. No reason that these costs is higher with this technology.Ultramarine (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ref please. NJGW (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly for what? Repair, maintenance, transportation, security, insurance, and profits are included in today price for energy from nuclear power. Not to mention decommission and storage which are also included. Why would repair costs etc change? The uranium when used in the plants will be no different.Ultramarine (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The price of U on the market today is one thing. The authors of the study only mention extraction and purification. If you have another source that says different, great. If not this is pure speculation and OR. You should and do know better, and therefore I'm stepping off this circular train to nowhere. I'm tired of repeating myself. If you have no ref, this thread is dead NJGW (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have given source which explicitly states how much the the cost of electricity would change if using sea water uranium. No mention of only "extraction and purification". It is you who claims that the sourced comparison does not include various things. So it is you who have to give the source.Ultramarine (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobukawa 1994 is 14 year old speculation. It discusses reactors we don't have, and what actually does seem to be total recovery price of half the extraction/purification only cost we are discussing here, as well as myriad other assumptions from 14 years ago. Do you or do you not have a source that states that the $240/300 at issue includes more than just extraction and purification? It's a simple question. NJGW (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have given a quote showing a comparison for how electricity cost would be affected. Such a comparison includes all cost. You are making different claims; you have to provide a source. Below I have given a 2006 source estimating that technolog at that time would be 66% more expensive than uranium mining prices. Prices have increased much more than that since.Ultramarine (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Tamada M. et al. (2006) mentions "adsorbent production, uranium collection, and uranium purification" only for ~$240/kg. That's the only claim I'm making. That the 240/300 price is "extraction and purification". As you can see, there are plenty of other costs missing that would be included for bringing the U to market. For the record, your claim seems to be that the U collected this way can be brought to market for $240 or $300/kg (which you and Paul then attempt to use in an unpublished synthesis to discuss the cost of electricity from this method--which isn't really even relevant to this article anyway). You're claims and calculations are OR unless you can show what the actual market price of this U would be. NJGW (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, "If 2g-U/kg-adsorbent is submerged for 60 days at a time and used 6 times, the uranium cost is calculated to be 88,000 yen/kg-U, including the cost of adsorbent production, uranium collection, and uranium purification. When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetitionuses." Again, a clear comparison to minable uranium the price of which has increased much more since.Ultramarine (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV 2

Seawater extraction is still experimental since the mid 1970's. It's not even scaled up more than a small proof of concept. "So far, no more than a very small amount of uranium has been recovered from sea water in a laboratory." I replaced it because it serves to balance the article. Quit pushing your POV by removing sourced material that balances this article. Kgrr (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that a source that actually said how much was extracted was more informative than the words a very small amount. OK, I'll leave it in. Not every change is POV. Paul Studier (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The big point is although Hubbert talked about sea water extraction of uranium in 1956, no one has ever extracted any in significant quantity sufficient for more than a lab experiment. Systematically stripping the article of the facts that not a lot of uranium has ever been produced this may lead them to believe its viable, ready for prime time and scalable, which it's not. This kind of sytematic trimming of facts is definitely POV pushing. I'm just not sure you are doing it intentionally. Anyway, thanks for not fighting with me over it.Kgrr (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

See this: [17]. A simple experiment only involving adsorption and no active energy demanding process easily gathered over one kg of yellow cake. Easy to scale this to tons.Ultramarine (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No replies to this point? Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From the abstract: "The three adsorption cages consisted of stacks of 52 000 sheets of the uranium-specific non-woven fabric with a total mass of 350 kg. The total amount of uranium recovered by the nonwoven fabric was >1 kg in terms of yellow cake during a total submersion time of 240 days in the ocean." Interesting primary source[18], but need secondary reputable source telling us that a 350kg contraption made of 52000 sheets of some unknown material to get 1kg is scalable. Also, is the fabric destroyed while harvesting the yellow cake? NJGW (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From the patent: "can consistently be used for many times"[19] Also collects various other valuable metals.Ultramarine (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This patent (6863812) has nothing to do with the process described by Seko et al or Tamada et al.Kgrr (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) So essentially, they are patenting a uranium sluice box. If I understand correctly, they will need to block how many rivers with boxes like these? And at what rate will they be harvesting? 200 days to recover enough ore to produce 1 kg yellow cake. Let's do some simple math: 3 boxes = 1 kg recovered U3O8. Current demand is about 70 thousand tons of yellowcake per year. This means about 115 million of these boxes. The boxes are one meter on a side. This means 115,000 kilometers worth of river widths to hold all of these boxes. A river is about 100 meters across. 1150 large rivers? I can't imagine the ecological problems. I can't imagine how these boxes sustain the natural debris in rivers - logs, fresh water algae, etc. I don't understand how you could block entire shipping lanes, etc. Somehow this does not seem ecological, amenable to the current river traffic or even scalable.Kgrr (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No rivers, placed in the oceans where there is plenty of place. Also not a sluice box, water simply flows through it. Nor does it produce ore but more pure uraniuim. So no energy needed for the absorption or for refining ore. If using breeders which are 60 times more efficient current demand is 1200 tons. Note that these experimental boxes are 16 m2 in cross-sectional area and 16 cm in height. Since protype likely that more research will gives much better efficiency. But lets assume for simplicity that one such box captures 2/3 of a kg every year or slightly more officent than the protoype. That would mean 1800,000 boxes covering slightly less than 30,000,000 m2 or 30 km2. In other words an area of less than 5.5x5.5 km. Not much compared to areas required for solar or wind power. Undoubtedly the boxes will be placed so that they intersect a major oceanic current which are much larger than that.Ultramarine (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The adsorbent uses Ion exchange like a water softener. It is designed to make uranium stick to it instead of calcium and magnesium. Just like the Ion exchange resin in a water softener, it can be used many times. Paul Studier (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In a water softener, you have to have a source of ions (the salt pellets). So I take it they would need to add calcium and magnesium salts?Kgrr (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In a water softener, the resin adsorbs the unwanted calcium and magnesium by releasing sodium or potassium. The resin is renewed with the sodium or potassium in the salt used for recharging. For the uranium, the adsorbent is treated with hydrochloric acid, then nitric acid, which releases the meals. Then it is treated with sodium hydroxide.[20] I believe that this would replace the metals with the H+ ion, and then the sodium hydroxide would extract the H+ ion by H+ + OH- -> H20. This would leave the adsorption spot empty. Paul Studier (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I'm still not happy with this statement: "this indicates that using uranium extracted from seawater at $300/Kg U will cost about 0.75 cents/KWh." Not all costs are accounted for. Why is the cost of nuclear electricity much cheaper than what you calculate. The current price of yellowcake is around 1/10 of this or $30/kg. ($70/lb).Kgrr (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

you are talking about another source discussing a different technology. Please keep that discussion to the section above.Ultramarine (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would point out that it's assumed that this technology has not been implemented on a commercial scale. Why would someone implement something on a commercial scale if it is a financial loss? No one will bother with this until Uranium reaches higher prices. That doesn't mean it's not practical, rather that it costs more than the current market price for Uranium, confirming the results of the study. 130.71.96.19 (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The paper you refer to is from 2003. Since then Uranium prices have increased many times and new reserach have been done. Here is a 2006 description where the price for extracting U from sea water was equivalent to current high cost U mining if the technology improved as planned.[21] Since then U prices have increased. But obviously people will wait some time to see if prices stabilize or collapse again like in the 70s before starting to extract from sea water.Ultramarine (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, the article page you point to is referencing the "Tamada M. et al." study which is reference [56]. It's the one that repeated the "Seko et al." study. Their best case for extracting (yellowcake) uranium is $240/kg (u3o8). Today's spot price for uranium is $30/kg (u3o8).74.61.37.1 (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of U3o8 or yellowcake. This is not a mining process. They only state "When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetitionuses."Ultramarine (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not mining in the conventional viewpoint. However, it's a form of natural leeching to dissolve the uranium into the oceans. Then you capture the uranium ore? using the crates with the uranium fiber. Can you at least agree that it's an extraction of uranium from a natural source? Natural uranium is still not enriched, so it has to be 0.7% u-235 and 99.3% u-238. The recovery process does not enrich the uranium for us. So again, it's at least similar or comparable to $300/kg of u3O8, ten times today's u3O8 spot at $30/kg.Kgrr (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No leeching involved. No ore involved. In the oceans uranium is found as uranyl. Thus cannot be compared to yellowcake prices. The Japanese comparison stated in 2006 when uranium prices were much lower that the lowest attainable cost then was 66% higher than the highest cost of minable uranium. Uranium prices have increased much more than that since 2006.Ultramarine (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure uranium when dissolved in water is an ion, uranyl or UO2. Then when it comes in contact with oxygen, it oxidizes to form triuranium octaoxide, (u308) or yellowcake. I would imagine the yellowcake resulting in this process bypasses the mill and gets sent to a purification and gasification plant from there.Kgrr (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Source for that this is what occurs in this process. Again, The Japanese comparison stated in 2006 when uranium prices were much lower that the lowest attainable cost then was 66% higher than the highest cost of minable uranium. Uranium prices have increased much more than that since 2006.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if the method scales.Kgrr (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

I have deleted the original research since it's obvious that the calculation that you made is not obvious and furthermore incorrect. "25 milligrams of uranium per kilowatt-hour" It is nowhere to be found in "The Economics of Nuclear Power" reference. Can you show me how you derived this? A 1000 MWe light water reactor uses about 25 tonnes of enriched uranium UO2 or 200 tonnes of yellowcake (U3O8) per year.

Here are a couple of hints: There are 365.25 days in a year and a light water reactor has a capacity factor of about 90%. 1000 Me is the reactor's peak power output, not the amount of electricity it produces in one year. Power produced is in units of energy, not units of power.

But in the bigger picture, it does not make sense to convert the dollars per kg of extracted yellowcake to cents per KWh because it does not contain all of the costs of generating the electricity. The reference given, "The Economics of Nuclear Power" clearly points out the costs of producing reactor fuel from the yellowcake. However, there are still major costs that are not included in the cost of electricity that are being claimed. For example, the CapEx and OpEx costs. When people glance over an article a figure of 0.75 cents per KWh looks like a price delivered and merely serves to confuse the reader with a false fact.

Capital costs for a new nuclear plant are 3.2 cents per KWh averaged over a 30 year lifetime. It's clear that your claim of 0.75 cents per kWh cannot include the capital costs of the nuclear plant and also cannot include the $1,000,000 capital costs of the machinery to recover the uranium from the sea.

Today's yellowcake costs about $30/kg. They are extracting yellowcake (U3O8) (not enriched uranium) from the seawater at ten times today's U3O8 costs. 74.61.37.1 (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, no mention of yellowcake or U308. This is not an ordinary mining project. They stated in 2006 when U prices were much lower "When 6g-U/kg-adsorbent and 20 repetitions or more becomes possible, the uranium cost reduces to 15,000 yen. This price level is equivalent to that of the highest cost of the minable uranium. The lowest cost attainable now is 25,000 yen with 4g-U/kg-adsorbent used in the sea area of Okinawa, with 18 repetitionuses."Ultramarine (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Using [22] I took from the table in Cost of Fuel 8.9Kg U3O8. This is about 7.56Kg U. The caption says that this gives 360,000 kWh, or 21 milligrams. When I calculated 25 milligrams, I forgot the yellowcake to metal conversion.

From your figures (200 tonnes/year yellowcake)*(0.85 U/U3O8)*(1e6 tonnes/gram)/(1000 Mw)*(1000 Kw/Mw)*(0.9 capacity factor)*(8766 hours/year) = 0.0215 grams, or 21.5 milligrams which is almost the same. Simple arithmetic. Paul Studier (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to explain several times that the 0.63 cents (previously 0.75 cents) is the cost only of the Uranium. Currently [23] uranium is $63/pound yellowcake, which converts to $118/kg. Getting this from seawater instead of conventional mines will cost (($300 - $118)/kg)* (1e-6 milligrams/kg) * (21 milligrams/kWh) = $0.0038/kWh or 0.38 cents/kWh more that the current cost of between 3.7 to 7.4 cents/kWh. This indicates that the uranium cost will not be prohibitive in the foreseeable future. Paul Studier (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

and for the nth time, I'm telling you that your price of uranium alone per KWh that does not understand that the enormous costs of a NPP outweigh the cost of fuel wonder why their nuclear electric bill is so expensive. Be sure to include the other half of the story.Kgrr (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Peak uranium which is the point in time at which the maximum global uranium production rate is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. It is not about whether nuclear power is economical, that discussion belongs in Economics of new nuclear power plants. The only relevant things here are whether uranium will be too expensive to mine or take too much energy to mine or whether it will not be possible to mine it fast enough. At this moment, the section on uranium cost from seawater indicates that this is uranium cost only. If you can further clarify this, please do. Paul Studier (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, the point is moot now. The section that I was objecting to is gone now.Kgrr (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is peak uranium plausible in the next seven generations?

User:Kgrr claimed that Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina have already hit peak uranium and completely exhausted their uranium resource according to the 2003 Redbook. However, according to [24], Germany, France, and Romania have mined uranium in 2006. There is available huge amounts of uranium in the ocean that can be extracted at a cost that is a small fraction of the total cost of nuclear electricity. Is peak uranium Fringe science?

Again for the Nth time, peak uranium is not about running out of a resource, it's about not being able to meet the demand after the supply begins to taper off. It's not a problem of quantities (there will always be some uranium left), it's the problem that it cannot be mined or produced at a rate to meet the demand.

However, since there is a concern about some people not liking this reference for some reason: Uranium Resources and Nuclear Energy (since it's being constantly being attacked as dubious and outright deleted). I have offered to back those points with additional references, mainly the Redbook numbers which evidently some people trust as their sole reference for everything. I think the article should be fairly presented with materials from both sides. I contend that the Redbook is not researched, but compiled by figures given to the European government. Much of that data can be made-up or faked and must be collaborated with other sources to even be a valid reference. But I won't go so far to call Redbook a dubious reference.

I will point out that those three countries having depleted their uranium entirely. Perhaps they can be used as examples where peak uranium has already occurred. I will address each one individually:

Romania's large mine was exhausted in 1960. The Romanian reports appear to be falsified because high party officials did not report proper uranium production figures. Uranium-mining in Romania. Redbook see Table 12, footnote *, p29 Romania has no Reasonable Assured Reserves left Redbook Table 2, p. 15. Furthermore, Romania has chosen to not report any exploration expenditures Redbook see Table 10, p26.

East Germany's mines were closed with the unificationn of Germany in 1990.Uranium Mining in Eastern Germany: The WISMUT Legacy Germany is going through a massive effort to clean up the mess left behind. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12917541.600-uranium-mines-leave-heaps-of-trouble-for-germany-.html

Uranium mines leave heaps of trouble for Germany] 02 February 1991 New Scientist TARYN TORO, SCHNEEBERG. Production comes from mine rehabilitation efforts only.Redbook see Table 12, footnote c, p29 All Germany - Their mines are closed. The output is from mine rehabilitation. Redbook p. 32.

France - All western Europe mines are closed. France is recovering uranium from water treatment during cleanup operations.Redbook p. 32.

revised Kgrr (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I do believe "Is peak uranium plausible in the next seven generations?" is a very valuable question. The reason I picked to write peak uranium was because I had the sense that there was enough material out there. I am well aware it would be controversial because of the it will last forever argument I always get during lunch time discussions at work. Also, I participated in writing peak oil and am familiar with many of the issues. However peak oil, peak coal, peak gas are all obvious. They will all run out soon or eventually to where they can't be economically recovered. And like we are experiencing with oil where gasoline prices continue to go up, it's pretty evident that peak oil is here. Demand is barely being met by the current supply. What happens when the supply begins to taper off?

We will probably never run out of uranium completely. But will we enter a phase where uranium prices will begin to go up because the demand cannot be met? This is peak uranium. Some people appear to be clearly for or against it. But your question slightly restated "Can we sustain for seven generations without encountering peak uranium?" is clearly asking a middle ground between the peakers (or doomers) and the cornucopians, the horn of plenty crowd.

If reprocessing, breeding, the safety and disposal issues were all worked out, I think nuclear power could theoretically be sustainable far beyond seven generations. To put this all into practice means a lot of details need to be worked out. Can all problems be worked out within economic and political boundaries? I really don't know. Can enough things be solved so that peak uranium does not happen? To prevent peak uranium there needs to be not only the quantity of fuel, but the rate of supply also needs to be there. My car wash in the desert fable.

How we make a car wash in the middle of the desert that can be used affordably for the next seven generations? Some people say, It's not a problem, since there is tons of water out there. Water will never run out. Yea, yea .. it rains out here once in a while. But the real problem is how do we get enough water and fast enough to the car wash. To run the car wash, we have pumped water out of this huge lake (reserves). We have been draining it faster (current demand) than water has been coming into it from the creek (primary mining) by about two to one. The good news is that some guys have made some huge ice blocks to cool things off, and it did not work. Now we are melting them to fill the lake (dismantling nuclear weapons). The bad news is that the ice blocks are almost melted (2012?). Now we could take the water from the car wash and filter the mud out and put that water back into the lake (reprocessing/recycling). We had to filter the water in order to make the ice blocks (nuclear weapons). Filtering the water is hard to do and costs us filter material. The filters are more expensive than we charge for the car wash. Then there is this other technology that helps us use less water (breeding) but it too is expensive too. Without these two technologies, the lake will dry out soon, especially with our neighbors building their own car washes.

Now how do I write a happy ending to this fable so that everyone can use the carwash?

Kgrr (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP is not the place for OR research and personal theories. Use reliable sources please. Taking one question at a time. "peak uranium is not about running out of a resource, it's about not being able to meet the demand after the supply begins to taper off." Source please for this definition. Looking at peak oil and the premier quick peak site ASPO: "The term Peak Oil refers to the maximum rate of the production of oil in any area under consideration, recognising that it is a finite natural resource, subject to depletion"[25]. No mention of demand exceeding supply which is as mentioned above is strange since demand always match supply at the current market price. Using a definiton where there are peak uraniums or peak oils every time price increases means that there have been numerous such peaks which is not how the concept is usually understood. The peak only refers to a large peak in production as per ASPO. Nothing else.Ultramarine (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am using reliable sources, and not doing research or personal theories. We are saying pretty much exactly the same thing. There are three essential things being said here: 1) the rate of production which tapers off due to depletion. 2) the rate of demand which continues to increase and cannot be met by the supply. and 3) All of this has nothing to do with the quantity of the resource that is left over. Supply and demand are only the same in a free market when things are in equilibrium. In classical economics, consumer patterns will shift along the supply and demand curves or the curves will shift until things are in equilibrium again. Classical economics, like you keep referring to assume an infinite supply. For example you can continue to produce corn, pork bellies, guns, butter, etc. In an economic system system where resources are finite and can be depleted, this statement about balance does not hold true anymore. I don't have an economics book I can show you online. But read this article as one example: [http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mgc129.html Supply-Demand . . . . Implosion

by Milo Clark] "Using a definiton where there are peak uraniums or peak oils every time price increases means that there have been numerous such peaks which is not how the concept is usually understood." I never said this. This is what you think because you forget the supply levels never return to where they were due to depletion, not some other reason. "The peak only refers to a large peak in production as per ASPO. Nothing else." You are mostly correct. You can have a second peak due to a radical change in technologies. For example, people at first found uranium with geiger counters running around on the surface. This lead to surface mines. Many surface mines have depleted. Then, people found uranium doing geology and understanding the geological layers and opened up new deep mines. Canada is an example where there were two major peaks. I never meant for you to think any price increase meant a Hubbert Peak.Kgrr (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Hubbert peak in given source.Ultramarine (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

1. From a 1993 book "Peak uranium (the point at which the growth in demand outstrips the potential for the growth in supply)" [26]
2. "Uranium has been in a long-term bull market for quite some time - but a flood at industry giant Cameco‘s Cigar Lake mine ... looks set to [cause] uranium prices [to soar]." Buyers market and sellers market anyone???
3. From pg. 10: "Peak Oil Defined: a)Supply can no longer be increased b)Supply can no longer meet demand c)Roughly half the oil has been used c)Supply will level off and begin to decline" [27]
4. " "peak oil" -- that moment when supply stops growing and begins to decline, while demand continues to chug along." [28]
5. "It’s a myth that “peak oil” means it’s “running out” ... What the analysis of Colin Campbell and others shows is that production is about to run “down”".[29]

NJGW (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of intro

IAEA

Why is the "Energy Watch Group" allowed to state its view in the intro regarding Uranium exhaustion but not the IAEA? Why was this deleted "The IAEA estimates that there are between 85 and 47,000 years of uranium reserves depending on technology used.[30]"Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, there is no neutrality issue in the intro. It's merely your continued confusion about the topic. The subject of the article is "Peak Uranium" "Peak uranium is the point in time at which the maximum global uranium production rate is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline." This marks the *beginning* of the decline. Your POV is to talk about the *end* of the decline or the depletion.

So please get this straight. The article has nothing to do with uranium exhaustion. This is the POV you and your pro-nuke buddies are constantly wanting to push into this article. The article for the 1,000th time it's a *rate* problem and not a quantity problem. It has to do with the peak *rate* of production, not the exhaustion of the uranium resource. And again *IMHO* and for the 1,000th time, uranium will probably never run out. It will simply be uneconomical to mine or cannot be produced at a sufficient rate.

I completely agree with the IAEA estimate for exhaustion and what happens under various technologies. 85 years assuming no growth in demand and only known reserves are extracted. If extraction from all resources - primary known, unknown, secondary and all unconventional ... uranium will last 47,000 years assuming no increase in demand. However, this is about the depletion and not when peak production happens. They simply tell you given the current demand rate (which they assume will continue to remain steady) and given the known reserve when it will run out. But the IAEA does not predict when peak production will happen. Your material really does not even apply to this article.

On the other hand, the Energy Watch article deals with peak uranium. When will uranium be produced at the highest rate and when does depletion start?

I have a suggestion that will make both of us feel much better. Why don't we move all of the uranium depletion material into a separate article. Peak oil has dealt with this same situation by creating the Oil depletion article. I will stub out the Uranium depletion article for you and you can push all of your uranium depletion POV over there. If you think it's going to last longer than the sun, great. If you think it will last 200-300 years fine too. Just put all of that argument that has nothing to do with peak uranium over there. OK? Kgrr (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Watch Group quote states "Eleven countries have already exhausted their uranium resources". No mention of a peak.Ultramarine (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Watch Group article deals with peak uranium. Your POV is to remove the controversial article as many have already tried. It's part of pushing the pro-nuke POV. You very well know this. Clearly if a country has exhausted it's reserves, peak has already happened.Kgrr (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If statements by the Energy Watch Group regarding uranium exhaustion are included, then no reason to not include a much more reliable source regarding this like IAEA. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Watch Group quote is balanced with a reference to the pro-nuclear source "redbook2003". It seems like both the Energy Watch Group and the redbook are reporting countries that have peaked and have run out of uranium. You can look at the redbook data and see the peaks followed by closing of the mines. I don't understand how your adding yet another reference to when uranium exhaustion will occur balances anything. However, it's obvious POV pushing on your part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.62 (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The Energy Watch Group is an advocacy group. IAEA is a more reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Kgrr, you are trying to pull a no true Scotsman. If you attempt to limit discussion to peak uranium only then you will get only pessimistic estimates because the concept of peak uranium is not widely recognized in the nuclear industry and among nuclear advocates. Additionally, I have the impression that a depletion estimate can be converted into a rough peak estimate by dividing by 2. --Tweenk (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thorium

Why is there no mention of the much larger thorium reserves in the intro?Ultramarine (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove it. I suspect someone removed it from the lede because it's not the main subject of this article. However, thorium is certainly an alternative to uranium and mentioned further down in the article. Remember the lede is just an introduction.Kgrr (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a four times larger source of nuclear fuel should be mentioned in the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a moot point in this article. The subject of this article is Peak uranium and not peak everything. It is brought up in the breeding section. Why don't you write the peak thorium article. It's a finite resource as well and India has the majority of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.62 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If is a substitute nuclear fuel. Obviously so a large fuel source should be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear reprocessing

Is not laboratory technology as implied but used widely except in the US.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article at all implies it's laboratory technology at all. There are only a few operating reprocessing plants - 11? This is not exactly "used widely", considering the relatively very small capacities they have. Uranium and thorium cannot be infinitely reprocessed due to an accumulation of very radioactive isotopes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.62 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Cannot be reprocessed indefinitely because that would be Perpetual motion.Ultramarine (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahahah. The Paducah site enriches over 20% of the Uranium in the world. I guess if number of facilities is important, then Uranium enrichment itself isn't "used widely", as a mere 5 plants could handle all the world's capacity and more. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of disputed tag

Please do not remove a disputed tag while there is an ongoing dipute.Ultramarine (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't care about your created dispute anymore. Please go edit Uranium depletion now.Kgrr (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't beg me to bring up your name in a dispute resolution. They already know all about your endlessly pissing off people with your POV pushing. You know this as well as I do. You have been banned for it before.Kgrr (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

False. Stick to factual arguments please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the logs and have seen a lot of POV pushing from you. Your edits are pretty much the opposite of creating an NPOV balance as you claim. Perhaps you should have given kgrr some room while he was trying to clean up the article for GA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.62 (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, your M-O is well discussed on the Internet. For example, you have worked to destroy quite a few articles with your POV pushing. Take the wikipedia article "Race and intelligence". It looks like they love your destructive POV on the paleopsych list server. [31] I bet you get your jollies by wrecking people's work with your POV pushing. There are quite a few more of these. You would be really amazed about what they say about you.Kgrr (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Please give a quote from that very long usenet discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone that needs it can read an entire rant about it. As long as you are being civil and not pushing your POV, I'm fine with your contributions. Is it that you finally get the difference between peak uranium and uranium depletion? 74.61.37.1 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination

Thanks for all your help in order to meet the quality criteria. We did not make it.Kgrr (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Uranium depletion

I have created a new article called "Uranium depletion". The entire point of the article is to split off the endless POV pushing that says that uranium will never run out. The purpose of these "counter points" stating that uranium will never run out, or will run out in 47,000 years is to render the "Peak uranium" article moot and not to help develop the idea. This will give that argument its own space away from "Peak uranium" which is all about when uranium production reaches peak, not when uranium runs out. Clearly these two events are distinctly different. One article deals with the *rate* of uranium production and when the demand keeps growing although the supply begins to shrink. The other article deals with the *quantity* of uranium and when it becomes uneconomical to mine or use. Peak uranium is not a quantity problem, but a *rate* problem.

If there is anything you need from this article for the newly created Uranium depletion article, take it now. I am going to delete all references to uranium running out. If you would like to endlessly argue whether or not and when uranium will run out, do it there.Kgrr (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

POV forking is against Wikipedia policy. --JWB (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

x,000,000s of pounds

I don't see the point of converting 'thousands of tonnes' into 'millions of pounds'. E.g. "And that number is expected to increase to 80,000 tonnes (180,000,000 lb) to 100,000 tonnes (220,000,000 lb) per year..." Is there anyone who's going to find the second figures more meaningful than the first?
—WWoods (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tonnes is a metric unit and pounds is an English unit of measure (that only the United States uses). Nevertheless, a lot of the papers written here in the US are written in pounds and not tonnes. So I'm presenting both. I am asking for a {{convert}} macro that will display something like (180,000,000 lb) as (180 million lb).Kgrr (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert of changes to the lead

I reverted both changes that were made to the lead because they were not discussed prior to making the change. 1) The closed cycle is being researched. However the current solution still produces high-level waste, albeit far less than it used to. However, critics of this plan contend that much of the high-level waste is merely being diluted by this process and not being eliminated. 2) The change to the definition of peak uranium has been discussed ad-infinitum and took quite a long while to settle. I am reverting the change simply because we had consensus on the previous definition. Kgrr (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Article

I can't support this as a 'good article'. This is heavily slanted in POV, with factual errors galore, and organized as a pile of sentences.

How can you address 'Peak Uranium' without acknowledging the distortions caused in uranium supplies by 1) The nuclear arms race, 2) the end of the Cold War, and 3) the persistent use of the extremely inefficient open fuel cycle. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of perfectly usable uranium stored in Paducah, among other places, that are a resource-in-waiting for whenever we as a civilization decide to utilize it. That one resource knocks all this 'Peak Uranium' discussion into a cocked hat. The obvious subtext of this article as written is that Uranium has already peaked, so we should abandon it. Anti-nuclear propaganda, pure and simple, trying to sneak into Wikipedia.

Also, the thorium fuel cycle IS a breeder cycle. It's the exact same cycle as U238 -> Pu239 except it starts with Th232 and produces U233. In the long term, fast-neutron reactors are the only sensible way to go, and once uranium prices reach a proper market level based on total energy content, this will become obvious. 63.239.69.1 (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have POV issues, then please list them one by one. We cannot improve the article when you do not point out the paragraphs or sentences you have an issue with. With 132 references, I believe that this article is well documented on just about everything. I agree that the article can use a few transitions. We can certainly work on that.

Peak theory deals with the rate at which the resource can be mined and has nothing to do with the nuclear arms race and the end of the cold war. However, the article does acknowledge that one of the sources of demand of Uranium is from nuclear weapons programs. But it does have something to do with the inefficient open fuel cycle and the article does address this. The introduction does point out that because the fuel cycle is open, uranium has to be treated as a finite resource. The uranium at Paducah is addressed part of government inventories. Peak theory is about the rate of production peaking, not about running out of a resource. Since Paducah is not a mine, it really cannot add to the rate of production figures. It's inventory that has already been mined and processed and can get used up just like the downblended HEU from weapons that are being currently dismantled. Although uranium has peaked in several countries and run out in 13, world uranium has not peaked and nowhere does the evidence show that. This article is not anti-nuclear propaganda. The facts are stated and the reader is left to form his own conclusions. If you find facts that counter the ones stated, by all means bring them forth. Let the facts speak for themselves.

The article does point out that the thorium fuel cycle is a breeder cycle. However, that cycle has used thermal reactors to breed it instead of fast-neutron reactors. Many of the fast-neutron reactor projects have failed. This is documented in the article as well. Again, let the evidence speak for itself.

Please get yourself a named account and perhaps I can take your comments seriously. With an IP account, there is no way to prove that you have not previously edited this article. Kgrr (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rob, It's important that you first familiarize yourself with the topic at hand (it's not about supply of Uranium, it's about relative production levels... you might be looking for Uranium depletion), get to know the wp:Good article criteria, and then learn about how wp:Reviewing good articles works. Also, if you have a strong point of view on the subject (as you seem to have), you may not be able to accurately asses any issues the article may have. NJGW (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proliferation concerns associated with breeder reactors and reprocessing

I think that the waste and proliferation concerns associated with the technologies for using U-238 in a breeder or recovering unused portions of spent fuel deserve mention. I would suggest a brief mention & a link to more substantial treatment in another article. It's unclear to me which article would be best for this, as most of the ones I've visited have only the briefest mention of the proliferation concerns of breeders & reprocessing. As a start, UCS has some statements on the matter: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf Please pardon me for making suggestions rather than edits. Just wanted to start the discussion. Mishlai (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The waste and proliferation concerns of uranium should probably be addressed in in the Uranium article. The subject has little to do with Peak uranium.Kgrr (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a main treatment here, just mention. I argue that it's relevant in the sense these issues will affect the debate on whether or not reprocessing and breeders are considered to be good options in the face of diminishing U-235, or not. The advantage of reprocessing is that we can get more use out of the same fuel, but if presented without disadvantage the reader may be left with the impression that there is no downside to consider. Mishlai (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"The debate on whether or not reprocessing and breeders are considered to be good options" and "diminishing U-235" are not related to this article. Better articles for this would be breeder reactor and uranium depletion. This is about the point in time at which uranium production is at it's highest, so the question of advantages or disadvantages of reprocessing are beyond the scope of this article (production happens at the mine, not the reactor). Both the breeder and depletion articles are linked to in the lead. NJGW (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If that were the only mention then I would agree with you. Breeders and reprocessing both have significant sections in this article, describing how they can play a part in the mitigation of peak uranium concerns but with no mention of the risks of these mitigative actions or that political decisions might be made to not use them because of those risks.

I'm not suggesting a proliferation section, but that mentioning breeders as a solution to the problem without any treatment of their risk leaves the reader without information that is, imo, pretty obviously relevant to the section. It becomes relevant to the article as a whole because if, based on proliferation concerns, either breeders or reprocessing options are not chosen, then those technologies - which ultimately represent a conservation of uranium - will not be present. If the article is indeed only about the peak production of uranium from mining & other sources then breeders would not be relevant either. We've gone so far as to describe the creation of plutonium and link to a plutonium economy, so I reject the notion that this article has been confined narrowly to the mining of uranium.

In short I think if breeder's are relevant then a brief mention of their disadvantages are also relevant. Ditto for reprocessing. Mishlai (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The strange part is that this discussion happened before, but in the opposite direction. Starting with the "Dubious sources" section above, you can see how this info got pushed on this article by Ultramarine and his buddy Paul Studier. I actually agree with you, but I'm tired and misread what you were saying to be the same as that old discussion. Well, I'll let you and Kgrr hash out how this should get pruned and/or edited. I'm due for another wikibreak. NJGW (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Yes, I went back and read the vast majority of the talk page. I'm sorry you had to go through all of that. I don't have a specific proposal at this time, it's just an aspect that I think should be given some treatment. I'd like to educate myself further on the precise nature of the increased risk before attempting the edit. Enjoy your wikibreak.

I guess one of the questions here is: "Are breeders & reprocessing relevant to the article?" Does using Uranium more efficiently have an effect on how much we're mining & therefore peak uranium, or are these technologies mentioned only to alleviate concerns about depletion? Mishlai (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, breeders and reprocessing plants are relevant because they could close the uranium cycle. But doing this is out of our economic reach.

The problem is that breeding U238 -> Pu239 and reprocessing it in order to recover it is much more expensive than just mining more uranium and enriching it to increase the U235. Uranium is largely consumed once-through. Although there are a few breeder reactors and reprocessing plants, they don't have the capacity even to close the cycle. If the cycle were to be closed, the need for mining uranium would drastically reduced and the production rate would not have to constantly increase to meet the needs of new reactors coming on line. The result of once-through is that all the rich, easy to get to uranium ore is mined first. Once the good ore is gone, more and more ore needs to get mined in order to produce the same grade of U3O8. This means the production rate has to eventually go down. This downturn is what peak uranium is all about. When the rate of U3O8 demand is higher than the rate it's produced, the market becomes a seller's market and the prices go up.Kgrr (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Mishlai (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done

When the high-grade ore is gone, the price of uranium will rise until breeders and/or sea-water mining become cost-effective — whereupon the amount of energy produced per tonne of uranium goes up by a factor of ~100 and/or the amount of uranium refined per year goes up arbitrarily high. Either way, the putative peak in the production of power from uranium recedes into the distant future, and the concept of 'peak uranium' becomes about as significant as 'peak aluminium'.

—WWoods (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand peak uranium. Peak uranium has nothing to do with running out of uranium, but it has to do with the *rate* at which uranium is produced. Here in the US, when the price of uranium goes up, the rate at which uranium is produced still has not increased over the rate that it was when it peaked. The same happens all over the world. Kgrr (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The seawater methods are not limited to any specific rate of production. --JWB (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is known as globalization. It is more profitable to extract the uranium elsewhere so there is no incentive to expand US mining. It does not happen all over the world because Kazakhstan has increased production significantly in 2009. --Tweenk (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

I am fixing the following dead links:

• http://www.uic.com.au/ne8.PDF
• http://www.anl.gov/Special_Reports/NuclEconSumAug04.pdf
• http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Uraniumreport_12-2006.pdf
• http://www.india-defence.com/reports/2854

Kgrr (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It turns out the Newsweek link is on a blacklist. I've asked to have it removed here and I'm waiting for an answer. In the mean time I formatted the link in a way that won't add the article to the Category:Articles with broken citations

It's not Newsweek, it's Moneyweek. See discussion at the bottom of this page. (btw, I reverted you because it is not a dead link. NJGW (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Newsweek/Moneyweek was a mistake because of the late hour. But you were a little fast to revert my edit. If you'd checked the result of reverting, you'd have noticed that reference 44 (which is this link) is broken. The advantage of my way of editing this link is that it doesn't add the article to Category:Articles with broken citations. So until we get permission to use this link, please do not revert my edit. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the link is not spam. It's a nice article. Just that the whole domain has been block because of spam somewhere. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Cleanup

For GA,

• I am fixing (restoring) the article's lead to give a better summary of the article.
• I am trimming the the external links section
• I am removing the language=English parameter from the {{citeweb}} templates

Kgrr (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The section on Breeder Reactors is rather poor IMO, and the one within Wikipedia cited is not much better. There are more than two energy levels of neutrons in breeder reactors, Thermal neutrons are the lowest level but above that you have Epithermal which goes through a range of energies before you get to Fast or unmoderated neutron energies. Fertile and Fissile materials change absorption/fission cross section multiple times across the spectrum from one end to the other, it is not at all a smooth gradient. Also somewhere in there you list that Light and Heavy water are moderators, which is correct, but there are many additional moderators used depending on just where in the spectrum you desire your neutron energy to be. The earliest reactors for example used Graphite (carbon) as their moderator and gasses like CO2 and Helium as their coolant. For Epithermal designs Beryllium salts are the most common moderator. I don't expect you to go into details but you do need to point out that many reactors have been designed using a range of moderating materials from none (fast reactors) to completely thermalized (heavy water CANDU). For more information google MOSEL, LWBR, Epithermal Breeder, Molten Salt Breeder, and RMWR. The last one in particular makes Peak Uranium date be pushed back significantly, it stands for Reduced Moderation Water Reactor and simulations show a conversion efficiency of 1.01. It is an Epithermal design using light water that with reprocessing of its spent fuel would only need to add depleted uranium to make up for the fission fragments removed to keep the system running in perpetuity, about 3% of the current consumption rate and Uranium mining can cease until all of the already mined Depleted Uranium has been consumed. Also please note that Thorium is fertile for all neutron energy levels from Thermal to Fast, not just for Thermal reactors. Tanada (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New citations needed

Are all these really neccessary? Most of them are available at the articles linked to in the section or are extensions of other nearby citations. Is this part of a GA review? I've seen these get out of hand in other areas before. NJGW (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen several that were not necessary because they were in an introductory paragraph and the details and the reference followed below. In other cases, it's rhetoric without references from those guys that dropped-in the last time we attempted GA. It definitely got out of hand right in the middle of trying to do GA. I will work through the article and try to clean up or deal with the remaining {{fact}} tags. Kgrr (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Go figure ;) NJGW (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous reference to WNA stating peak at 2015?

In the section Pessimistic predictions for peak uranium, WNA is allegedly saying a peak will occur in 2015. I checked the reference, and I couldn't found anything there supporting that statement; the reference isn't even to WNA's website. WNA seems to have an other opinion according to their website. Could someone see if this statement (peak 2015) from WNA could be confirmed? Mårten Berglund (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Try this link, and always remember to assume a mistake or changed web address rather than a "fake reference." NJGW (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that was an unfortunate choise of words, sorry... Anyhow, that was a 100 page long document, could you give me page number and maybe insert that as well in the reference? Mårten Berglund (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's on page 12. Don't forget that these are searchable documents. NJGW (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Okey, thank you. Still, it's a little bit strange that WNA on this aforementioned webpage is talking about 200 years of supply (even though I know production peak and supply running out is two different things). BTW, changed the headline for this section, sorry again... Mårten Berglund (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A common misconception about the Peak events is that the peak is the same as the end of supply. Many people confuse peak oil with oil depletion. The peak is at the top and near the middle of the Hubbert curve. Even though this curve is mathematically different from a normal curve (and economic and engineering issues not quite the sameas the distribution properties of some naturally occuring property), you could compare them and say that approximatly 68% of production will be with in a given range (-1 to +1 standard deviations), and that some production will be possible long after 98% (+3 deviation) of the resource has been produced.

Remember that the Hubbert curve is the derivative (calculus) of a graph showing total amount produced to date (known as a Gompertz function growth curve). The peak is at the inflection point... with roughly 1/2 the resource still in the ground, unless there is some high degree of skew to the production curve. NJGW (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, even though I know about the importance of being able to make a distinction between derivative and actual stock. Although, it seems strange that WNA thinks the peak will occur in 2015 to 2020 (after, what is it, 50 years of production?), and at the same time they think the total supply will run out first 180 years after that, if the same production rate as today applies. That doesn't fit with 1/2 the resource still in the ground, not even close... Or? Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

These are again two different issues. You notice above I mention that the curve can be skewed. In this case, the source you are looking at states that as Uranium becomes more scarce, it will become more expensive, thus relatively expensive extraction methods/locations will become economically viable to exploit. This does not contridict the possibility of a Hubbert peak in 2015... in fact if a peak is reached causing demand to out-pace supply, you would expect prices to go up in this very manner. This does not entail a new global peak (in fact, a new peak of production would lower pressure on the supply/demand/price equilibrium, making the new stocks once again economically unviable).

And again, even if the curve is roughly symetrical, supply could technically "run out" far into the future. As long as there is demand and money, people will be trying to find ways to extract U from sea water or granite, etc... just not nearly at the same pace as today's rates (let alone the peak rates). Remember that as more and more of the resource is already mined, the rest of it is harder and harder to get, taking longer time and more effort to reach it, so that production rates approach zero approximately asymptotically. NJGW (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This reference is highly questionable. A company annual report is hardly an ideal source for what the WNA predicts. If it is truly a WNA prediction, there should certainly be some record of it either directly from the WNA or in some academic publication. The WNA, after all, has quite an extensive website. The First Uranium report unfortunately does not give a citation that can be tracked down and verified for the WNA prediction. Given the above-conflict noted with the WNA website, we could reasonably suspect that the prediction might have been taken out of context. For instance, was the WNA speaking only of currently known reserves or currently planned mining projects? Given this questionable source, we can't know. As it stands, the statement should at least be qualified: "According to the First Uranium Corporation Annual Report dated 13 June 2007, ...." In addition, some material directly from the WNA website should be cited to put it into the broader context of their views of the non-scarcity of uranium. Plazak (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you are so untrusting, yet unwilling to do some leg work. I have changed the ref to one which I trust will satisfy you. NJGW (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for patient explaining. Sorry for being tiresome, but is it possible to find that new reference on the webb? Mårten Berglund (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's possible. I think it was inadvertently changed. Please confirm that this is the reference you are looking for: "...we now reconfirm our previous Market Report conclusion that the fuel supply is potentially short beyond 2015, unless the lower demand scenario occurs. In particular, future uranium supply is now a big issue. Actually, the uranium market has been concerned about it for some time and accordingly, the price has been increasing for the last couple of years. Primary uranium production now needs to rise sharply to meet market demand." Haruo Maeda, The Global Nuclear Fuel Market – Supply and Demand 2005-2030. WNA Market Report World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium 7-9 September 2005 - London Kgrr (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't edit due to spam protection

1) I've tried to edit the article, but a spam protection warning comes up, saying I cannot save my edit cause there's a blacklisted link in the article (moneyweek). Strange, since Moneyweek seems to be just an other business magazine. Also, I didn't put that link there in my trying to edit, so it must have been there for a while. 2) Another strange thing is that in the reference where moneyweek is used, what actually appears in the reference list in the article, is not the same as what is written in the article's code for that reference (Seller's market is wiki-linked to, instead of Moneyweek). See note 42. 3) WP is reeeaally slow right now. I get timeouts all the time, average page load approx one minute. Really onerous to do any work here. :( Why doesn't some billionaire give a billion for new servers, for this humanity's most important project ever...? Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's really weird. I edited it yesterday with no problems. I'm looking for a better ref now, as the statement that ref supports needs to be updated anyway. NJGW (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a new ref and put it in.[32] There's also these stories if people want more info. NJGW (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference to moneyweek was used twice in the article (in the same paragraph), so now there's a cite error in the ref list. I'm not initiated in the subject of that paragraph, otherwise I would have fixed it. Mårten Berglund (talk) 11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved for now by a bot. NJGW (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Traveling wave reactor

I moved this completely theoretical breeder reactor from increases of efficiency section into the breeder section. But I really don't want this to become a collection of every breeder type (and theoretical ones at that). I would like to move all of the discussion of breeder types to the articles discussing how they work. We don't need for peak uranium to become a duplicate of the breeder articles.

The real point of this section should be that breeders are a means of producing plutonium which can be used as a substitute for uranium as reactor fuel. As such, breeders could delay peak uranium. The article should reflect the status of breeding efforts to date and the rates at which they have been able to stave off peak uranium.Kgrr (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. NJGW (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Increasing reactor efficiency

I propose that this section be deleted altogether. It's a result of original research. Increasing efficiency has no effect on the rate of uranium production. It only affects the rate of consumption. Peak uranium is all about production, not demand. Clearly, fuel efficiency cannot stave off peak uranium.Kgrr (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. NJGW (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done Kgrr (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article also says, "He and others since have argued that if the nuclear fuel cycle can be closed, uranium could become equivalent to other renewables.[4]" It seems to me that reactor efficiency would play a huge role in that. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

These are two different issues. Peak uranium is only a supply-side issue. Closing the fuel cycle implies recovering fuel out of spent fuel through reprocessing and breeding. Those two clearly increase the supply of nuclear fuel. Increasing reactor efficiency decreases the demand for nuclear fuel. The efficiency issue is clearly a demand-side issue. Reactor efficiency does, however impact uranium depletion (running out of uranium). Peak uranium does not mean running out of uranium.Kgrr (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Peak uranium vs running out

Peak uranium is a rate problem, not a quantity problem. Peak uranium is when uranium is extracted at the highest rate. The quantity problem (running out) is uranium depletion. There is endless amounts of uranium in the oceans, but this is not the issue. The issue is that uranium cannot be produced at a high enough rate. Your sentence clearly does not belong in the lead. The possibility of uranium being recovered from the sea has already been dealt with in the article in the "Sea water" section. It can't be recovered at a fast enough rate.24.16.206.104 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)