IEA, India to collaborate on critical minerals data analysis
The IEA is placing a strong focus on critical minerals analysis, with the Agency set to release a World Energy Outlook special report this month.
Thirteen percent of the world’s electricity is nuclear but despite being the fourth largest electricity source, uranium doesn’t make headlines very often. When it does it’s usually over fears that some power-bent dictator is collecting the stuff or a nuclear reactor is threatening to explode. Now the people of Kivalliq Energy Corporation (TSXV:KIV) have decided to dispel the mystique surrounding the radioactive element with this Visual Capitalist infographic: Uranium – The metal of tomorrow.
Kivalliq has been hunting for uranium in Canada’s north for more than 25 years. The company recently began a $4 million drilling program in Nunavut after embarking on the largest exploration phase in the company’s history in 2012.
9 Comments
Lois Johnson
Thanks for this graphic. It is a balanced description of uranium history and the pros/cons of uranium as an energy source.
terrydwj
Uranium ~ very mysterious & deadly !
zzq
Gravity ~ very mysterious & deadly !
doesn’t mean it can’t be harnessed to our advantage…
david
The significant amount of building materials that go into a nuclear power plant should be taken into consideration when calculating lifecycle carbon output. With this consideration, nuclear should not be considered carbon free / zero greenhouse gas. However, it is a low emitter.
Dr. Subir Kumar Mukhopadhyay
In the last sixty years Uranium has become one of the world’s most important energy minerals. and I opine that Uranium is the most likely the stongest power of tomorrow.
“Everything begins with mining” – leitmotif espoused by the US NMA
Being an acadecian and practioner in mining I animadvert the following leitmotif espoused by me
“Uranium….invincible power; Oil….superordinate power;
Coal….mainstream power; Minerals….invisible power;
Metals….fortifying power; Rocks & Stones…building power;
Mining fosters all such natural powers”
Dr. Subir Kumar Mukhopadhyay
The uranium mineral pitchblende, also known as uranite, was reported from the Erzge brige (Ore Mountain), Saxony,, as early as 1565. Other early reports of pitchblende date from 1727 in Joachimathal and 1763 in Schwarzwaid.
Mia
The contribution of nuclear has dropped significantly since 2008 (the year the makes of this graphic decided to use) – in 2012-2013 global nuclear output dropped 6.9% according to BP, for the second consecutive year. While renewables (conveniently left off this graphic) increased output globally by 15.2% – it now contributes 4.7% of global energy and growing – it is cheaper and faster to install, it has wider support from communities it does not involve the ongoing costs of buying and mining of fuel and does not produce weapons usable material or radioactive waste. Our future is renewable not radioactive. The nuclear industry is about to be redundant. Nuclear is uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.
renevers
My posted comment disappeared yesterday. So another try
I do NOT agree that Uranium is NOT a “renewable” energy
source as mentioned in the infograph.
1 Just rivers bring more (about as much as consumed now) uranium to the oceans than there is usage in nuclear power.
2 But the amount of the uranium in the oceans already is so large that it could
fuel the economy for thousandths of years with energy gain ( at 500 USD/LB) .
3 amount of Uranium in lower grades ores pegmatites , shale sand, granites and
further other low grade ores even with large energy usage 20 times more than present usage of energy investment, is so huge that there is no limit on future production. So uranium and later thorium can be mined with energy gain (more energy out , than put in the mining process) . But later in the future we should exploit the fast reactor to get all energy out of the Uranium for energy gain, from those low level ores. But fission as principle fuel principle, is net energy gaining, from ores as low as 3 ppm .. That is average crust level for U.
There should be an exemption for Uranium as calling this a renewable fuel as well ,because it is so widely available. Uranium is even more renewable than wind or solar, as these technologies use rare metals like rhenium , neodymium,
tellurium selenium etc. for making magnets and solar panels. These metals are not endless available at a energy level needed to mine them. The input of energy in these technological solutions is huge. Even storage of electricity with batteries uses lithium , vanadium ,lead or other metal and large scale wind and solar needs incredible amounts of metals to make battery storage it possible. More metal is
used in “renewable” energy investment than the little amount of uranium people use in fission and the investment in nuclear infrastructure. The amount of Uranium and Thorium that decays naturally in the crust every day is so huge that it dwindles the potential use of uranium by fission per year, by orders of magnitude. Why shouldn’t we use it before it decays, without energy gain for us? If human beings are responsible for less than a billionth of the disappearance of U
in the crust than natural processes than, our mining cannot be seen as consuming earth resources. Nature itself does that on a larger scale, in the form of natural decay. Even concrete and steel usage is a lot higher in renewable, than in nuclear power. Windmills at sea use like 15 times the amount of steel and 8 times the amount of concrete compared to the equivalent amount of energy production capacity from a nuclear power plant like an EPR (Areva 1630 MW) , with much of the steel and concrete used , for the reinforced building and the double dome and heavy shielding against possible disasters and terror. In fact uranium and thorium fission is more renewable than wind because of this better, more economic use of materials in infrastructure. And that is with reuse of windmill foundation construction for 60 years considered.. If the lifetime is shorter, it will be even more consumption of raw material at ratio. The amount of concrete used in “renewable” infrastructure is amazing.. What about the copper cables needed to connect Europe with Iceland for electricity storage or with Norway? And all the concrete ,steel and aluminum, that is needed for extreme connection grids? There is something fishy and hypocritical in “renewable” branding.. But is to blame on the not understanding of the gaining of energy from low density energy sources like wind and solar radiation. The following book is good reading about the subject :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Resource-Depletion-ebook/dp/B0045U9UY8
Yellowcake
I have to say that most of what I read about uranium/nuclear power is BS! You really need to look at uranium/nuclear power in terms of what is happening today and particularly in the short term, i.e. the next 20 to 50 years.
If we wind down nuclear power, what are we going to replace it with, renewables, coal, oil?? I don’t think so.
Japan is a classic example, they shut down all of their nuclear power plants as a direct result of Fukishima and very quickly realized that without it their economy would falter, significantly contract and eventually collapse. Hence, they will be restarting all of them excluding Fukishima as soon as safety checks have been approve. My guess is that Germany will also restart their stations once the politics have been played out.
It’s a simple fact that if were to shut down ALL of the nuclear plants around the world, the developed world would very quickly descend into an economic depression that would make the 1920’s look like a walk in the park. China’s growth would go into reverse along with the US, Europe and parts of Asia and Africa.
So, for those of you who can’t live with it, whichever way you look at it, your stuck with it until either new technology is introduced or renewables start to replace it. But remember, if you want a clean air policy then I presume you would also want to shut down ALL coal or oil fired plants as well. In the real world that is not going to happen any time soon. It would lead to a global economic catastrophe. An economic melt down ( pardon the pun). No government can withstand such a complete reverse in civilization.
Of all of the “conventional” power sources uranium is here to stay for at least another 30 – 50 years. Whether you like it or not!
However, with 2013 bringing with it the end of the “Megatons to Megawatts” deal between Russia and the US we are heading very quickly into a supply shortage as first China and then India embark on a massive nuclear plant building program. Add to that the Middle East, some South American countries, S Africa and the rest of Asia, and then include all of the refurbishment and new plants to be built in Europe, and what do we have? A massive supply and demand imbalance that can only lead to a substantial increase in the price of uranium.
Uranium is here to stay, at least in my lifetime and instead of continually knocking it down, the anti-nuclear movement should be looking at how, when the time comes, we transition into “other” technologies, whatever they are.
Get real, understand ALL of the implications and either do something positive about it or shut up whinging about a subject you quite obviously don’t understand or appreciate!
Here’s what I mean: nuclear power in the US accounts for 20% of electricity supply. That’s one in five homes. Now switch them off and ask the population to wait until we have renewables in place or a new technology ready to produce the at least same volume of energy as nuclear power currently delivers. Oh yes, don’t forget that you same people want to shut down all the coal and oil fired plants. We will truly be back to the Dark Ages!
I hope you can all see in the dark while you’re waiting for this to happen because at the same time you won’t have enough heat, light, work or even access to the internet, amongst other things because it will take 50 years just to get back to where we are today in terms of replacing nuclear power alone.
Good luck to you all!!
I’m pretty confident that nuclear power will be around for many decades yet and at least until we find a viable alternative. So it doesn’t really matter whether you think nuclear power is renewable or not, it is not going anywhere soon!!
Just for the record, I am a mining engineer and am busy mining uranium in the US where currently we import 92% of all the uranium we consume (about a third of the current global supply)!
Any critique or comments based on the real world we live in will be gratefully received.