Advertisement

Uranium Mining Life-Cycle Energy Cost vs. Uranium Resources

  • W. Eberhard Falck
Part of the Springer Geology book series (SPRINGERGEOL)

Abstract

The long-term viability of nuclear energy systems depends on the availability of uranium and on the question, whether the overall energy balance of the fuel cycle is positive, taking into account the full life-cycle energy costs. The fundamental question is: how much (fractional) energy units do we need to invest in order to produce one energy unit in a useable form, i.e. heat or electricity? The individual process steps that lead from the undiscovered resource to yellow cake are well established for “conventional” resources, but the energy costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions are not very well known in quantitative terms. Resources estimates are usually made on the basis of economic costs of recovery, but from a global energy supply sustainability point of view, neither commercial nor national strategic considerations are really relevant. Comparison with historic data for gold and silver or oil and gas indicate that uranium reserves would increase by orders of magnitude, if the same level of investment into exploration was made. Oil and gas prices have shown that society can and will accommodate fuel price increases by one order of magnitude over the span of half a century. A comprehensive assessment of the full-life cycle energy costs of uranium mining, milling and subsequent decommissioning and remediation is required in order to help settle the debate on the net energy balance of nuclear energy systems that dominates both, the debate on resource availability and the sustainability of its exploitation. This paper illuminates some of the crucial issues.

Keywords

Yellow Cake Fuel Cycle Uranium Mining Energy Conversion System Uranium Resource 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Dones, R (2007) Sachbilanzen von Energiesystemen: Grundlagen für den ökologischen Vergleich von Energiesystemen und den Einbezug von Energiesystemen in Ökobilanzen für die Schweiz, Final Report ecoinvent v2.0, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Duebendorf, CH.Google Scholar
  2. Falck, WE (2006): Closing the Cycle: Life-Cycle Impact Assessment of Materials Used in Nuclear Energy Systems. In: Uranium Production and Raw Materials for the Nuclear Fuel Cycle – Supply and Demand, Economics, the Environment and Energy Security, Proc. Symp., Vienna, 20–24 June 2005: 76–83.Google Scholar
  3. Falck, WE (2009) Towards a Sustainable Front-End of Nuclear Energy Systems. European Commission, Report EUR 23955 EN, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  4. IAEA (1994) Net Energy Analysis of Different Electricity Generation Systems. IAEA-TECDOC-753, Vienna.Google Scholar
  5. IAEA (2003) Sustainability and Environment. Guidance for the evaluation of innovative nuclear reactors and fuel cycles, Report of Phase 1 A of the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO). IAEA-TECDOC-1362, Vienna.Google Scholar
  6. IAEA (2004a) Recent Developments in Uranium Resources and Production with Emphasis on In Situ Leach Mining. IAEA-TECDOC-1396, Vienna.Google Scholar
  7. IAEA (2004b) The Long-Term Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings, Final Report on the Co-ordinated Research Project 2000–2004. – Report IAEA-TECDOC-1403, Vienna.Google Scholar
  8. IAEA (2006) Management of Long-Term Radiological Liabilities: Stewardship Challenges. Report IAEA-TRS-450, Vienna.Google Scholar
  9. Kröger W (2001) Measuring the Sustainability of Energy Systems. NEA News 19(1): 21–24, OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris.Google Scholar
  10. Leersow M, Märten H (2008) Energiequelle Uran – Ressourcen, Gewinnung und Reichweiten im Blickwinkel der technologischen Entwicklung. Glückauf, 144(3): 116–122.Google Scholar
  11. Mudd GM, Diesendorf M (2008) Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling: Toward Quantifying Resources and Eco-Efficiency. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 2624–2630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. OEDC-NEA, IAEA (2010) Uranium 2009: Resources, Production and Demand. Report OECD-NEA, Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Price R, Barthel F, Blaise JR, McMurray J (2006) Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective. OECD-NEA Newsletter 24(1): 4–6, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Preston F, Baruya P (2006) Paper 8: Uranium resource availability. In: Sustainable Development Commission UK [Ed.], The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy, London, http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/Nuclear-paper8-UraniumResourceAvailability.pdf (accessed 18.05.11).Google Scholar
  15. Storm van Leeuwen JW, Smith P (2008) Nuclear Power – the Energy Balance http://www.stormsmith.nl/ (accessed 18.05.11).Google Scholar
  16. Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey. Energy Policy 36: 2950–2963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Zurbuchen D (2006) The World’s Cumulative Gold and Silver Production. http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/zurbuchen011506.html (accessed 18.05.11).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Eberhard Falck
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire REEDSUniversité de Versailles St. Quentin-en-YvelinesRambouilletFrance

Personalised recommendations