But I always start from a presumption of good faith as my interlocutors, so, reading a comment on that site very unattractive Chicco Testa uranifere global abundance of resources, I sent as a representative of the Scientific Committee Aspoitalia, a negative opinion .
Well, our friends nuclearists censor and how, when the arguments against nuclear power are solid and do not know what to reply. So did not publish my comment and I got further confirmation of the nature of part of the initiative.
However, our blog is also really open to discussion on the issue of nuclear power, then we publish below both the arguments that my Chicco Testa, so you can compare them.
CHICCO TESTA :
Several comments opposed to nuclear energy are motivated by a shortage of uranium, its possible fluctuations of prices and dependence on Italy, devoid of such mineral deposits from foreign producers. The concern is legitimate but unfounded for several reasons.
1. The cost of uranium accounts for only about 3% on the final price of electricity. So the uranium price fluctuations have a marginal influence on the price of kilowatt-hours (unlike what happens with gas).
2. The economically viable deposits of uranium are quite common, equally distributed around the globe. The offer is fragmented among several producers, most of which are located in countries with low geopolitical risk. The main producers are: Australia (which holds about a third of world reserves), Kazakhstan, Russia and Canada (which is almost equally divided the other third). The rest is distributed between South Africa, Namibia, Brazil, Niger, USA, China, Jordan and Uzbekistan.
3. The uranium reserves are increasing and have reached 6.3 million tons according to the latest version (2009), Red Book, the OECD report considered the bible of the nuclear fuel. Only with the findings and marketable at market prices, taking into account the current consumption rates (68mila tons per year) will cover the next 80 years: security of supply than normally provided for any other mineral. However, the world's uranium resources are far greater. The deposits known but not exploited today because it is not profitable enough to increase the stock of additional 5.5 million tonnes. That would bring security of supply in 160 years, more than enough even in the OECD scenario of maximum development of civilian nuclear energy (which includes a generous doubling of the reactors attivientro 2035). Besides we must consider the non-conventional deposits (for example, deposits of phosphates and phosphorus) which - according to the Red Book would add another 22 million tonnes available for exploitation, tripling the proven reserves.
4. The future scenario of global demand for nuclear fuel could change substantially in coming decades. In 2009, demand was covered for 76% of mineral resources, the rest is recycled uranium (MOX fuel by reprocessing) or disposal of the nuclear weapons arsenals of the Soviets and Americans. Looking ahead, the spread of fast-breeder reactors and advancement of technologies for reprocessing, could lead to less exploitation of mineral resources.
TERENZIO LONGOBARDI :
Al NUCLEAR FORUM
Gentile editorial
appreciate your attempt to compare various positions on the relaunch of nuclear energy in Italy. In the opinion of our association is a very risky choice on the industrial level for various reasons, but the principal is the availability of uranium Mineral.
In this connection, on your forum, in a few lines reassuring answer to the question: "The uranium stocks will run out quickly? In addition, Chicco Testa wrote an article titled "Uranium has really borrowed time?" Fairly generic and superficial on the subject, so I think of having to send the following summary remarks.
Even with reference to data on global uranium resources certified by the NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency), very questionable for the method of reporting and verification rather anecdotal (see articles by Michael Dittmar in the bibliography), the prospects of life fissile fuel for to power plants as well as those currently active third-generation construction, and possibly in future fourth generation of those appear to be very limited.
As demonstrated by the following graph produced by EWG (Energy Watch Group), elaborated from their data NEA 
that provides a "peak" of production followed by a gradual decay of uranium, can be reached the following conclusions :
1) Currently, global demand of 67,000 tonnes of uranium a year, is met only 42,000 tons (about 63%) from new mine production, the other 25,000 tons (about 37%) are obtained by storage accumulated before 1980 have become available in part through the process of nuclear disarmament. These stocks, according to EWG, will last only ten years. Period which can stretch only a few years thanks to the new availability resulting from the dismantling of nuclear warheads 7,500 more expected by the recent agreement Salt 2 signed between the U.S. and Russia. However if in the meantime, the mine production will not be significantly increased, there will be serious problems with food for just over a decade, the existing nuclear power plants. Include those not yet built.
2) Comparing the scenarios then extraction of the NEA and the Energy Agency 's Energy International, a peak is detected production of about 2015 for the resources with extraction costs reasonably ascertained under $ 40 per kilogram, around 2025 for those under $ 130 per kilogram, around 2035 for the ultra-optimistic assumptions of resources reasonably estimated proven plus Resources Low level of confidence (with extraction costs below 130 $ / kg). In this context, the scenario of expanding production of nuclear energy "minimum" envisaged in the IEA's WEO 2006 intersects the curve of uranium production almost at the peak of the hypothesis mining more optimistic scenario ever "maximum", which corresponds the prospects for growth envisaged in the nuclear programs of the various governments. In other words, the maximum development of nuclear power would be expected in any case incompatible with the availability of uranium, the minimum growth would be hopelessly blocked near the peak of the resource and the operation of only plants that exist today would be in crisis long before the mid-century.
Thus, the hypothesis of duration centennial of mineral resources uranifere proposed by NEA and shooting in Italy by ENEA, is believed to deceptive and unfounded for the following reasons:
1) The simplified calculation method adopted to establish this hypothesis , ie by dividing the total amount of uranium is still available for the annual consumption is by no means reliable because it divorced from the real dynamics of depletion of mineral resources and fossil described by the Hubbert model (peak and subsequent decline), now considered to be the most reliable international scientific to describe these dynamics.
2) also uses the same simplified method for NEA to calculate the duration of mineral resources, gives around 80 years. That is, the NEA has approximately 20 years duration of the resources defined by it.
3) The calculation assumes the NEA for the coming years from nuclear energy production steady at its present level, without considering the assumptions that it hoped to expand production.
4) In the calculation carried out by NEA to determine the duration of Uranium resources are included not only those reasonably tested, but also those spaces which it establishes itself poorly reliable. 
5) In conclusion, even taking their wrong model of resource depletion and correcting trivial errors described above, actually results in a duration of probable resources of approximately 30 to 40 years, as can be seen from the table below Synthesis (in red the most probable hypothesis, the hypothesis in green NEA).
The conclusions concerning the duration of world uranium resources previously synthesized, would not be substantially altered if one were to assume the full productive potential of uranium enriched obtainable with the use of technology driven recovery of fissile uranium, pull through a difficult and costly operation uranium "depleted" available.
In any event, whether it takes the pattern of depletion of uranium resources studio Energy Watch Group, is very inaccurate method of calculating the NEA, and considering the time of production is not sure about a program to build nuclear power plants, in all probability the new installations would begin to have serious problems of supply of uranium to about half of their life cycle.
Finally, there are two other reasons that make it unwise to plan on the nuclear option in our country.
The high cost of production of this energy source in recent decades have discouraged industrial investment, while the few plants under construction see considerably increases the cost of construction compared with budgeted. In fact, in terms of cost, investment in the nuclear WOULD BE standing today only thanks to generous government subsidies, which inevitably would eventually weigh on public finances increasingly bloodless or bills of consumers, creating a heavy distortion of competition compared to other energy sources.
The power of the Italian power plants exist, and those under construction or already approved in Italy, is abundantly able to meet the needs of Italian electricity for decades to come, whereas it is very unlikely to lead to a sharp reversal of perspective compared to the sharp drop in electricity consumption caused by the economic crisis (- 6.8% in 2009 ). In fact, the reduced availability of oil will occur in the coming years after passing the peak of production (also recently acknowledged by the Pentagon and the American Energy Agency), will lead to new tensions in international oil prices that will surely have recessionary effects on 'depressive effects on the economy and energy consumption. A strong impetus to the use of renewable sources, coupled with the strategic choice of natural gas as a source of transition, in a context of diversification of supply, will make it possible to give appropriate responses to a scenario of steady or slightly growing consumption.
We therefore hope that you will reflect carefully on the objective limits of an industrial nature which impede the building program of new nuclear plants in our country, instead of devoting resources and investments in research and development on renewables, the only ones capable of ensuring a supply and safe energy indefinitely.
Insights:
The Oil Drum - The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part III: How (un) reliable are the Red Book Uranium Resource Data? http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5744
Marco Pagani - The curious history of French uranium reserves http://ecoalfabeta.blogosfere.it/2008/06/la-curiosa-storia-delle-riserve- of uranium-francese.html
IEA - World Energy Outlook 2006 http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/2006.asp
Energy Watch Group - Uranium Report
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Reports.24 + M5d637b1e38d.0.html
Terenzio Longobardi - Uranium resources. Chronicle of a midsummer night. http://www.aspoitalia.it/archivio-articoli/259-le-risorse-di-uranio-cronaca-di-una-notte-di-mezza-estate
Michael Dittmar - The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction Chapter I: Nuclear Fission Energy Today
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0627v1.pdf
Michael Dittmar - The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction Chapter III: How (un) reliable are the Red Data Book Uranium Resource?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf
0 comments:
Post a Comment