Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Adopting an energy lean lifestyle

By John Busby - posted Friday, 18 November 2005


Unsurprisingly the US, the world’s largest consumer of oil and gas, turns out to be the biggest consumer of uranium. The US consumes 25 per cent of the world’s oil production, 25 per cent of its gas and takes 33 per cent of the world’s available uranium, while producing only 2 per cent of it from its own mines.

France ranks second and relies on nuclear power for 80 per cent of its electricity. But since its own mines are now worked out, it is the most insecure. Japan ranks next, followed by Germany, Russia, South Korea and the UK. The combined uranium consumption of the principal seven nations with nuclear power totals 53,500 tonnes (78 per cent of the supply), compared with their own primary mining production in 2005 of only 1,366 tonnes (2 per cent of the supply). World primary production is expected to amount to 40,000 tonnes in 2005, with the balance to satisfy the world demand of 68,000 tonnes coming from secondary sources, including ex-weapons highly enriched uranium (HEU), re-worked mine tailings, a little mixed oxide (MOX) and inventories. The secondary sources are expected to be exhausted within a decade, causing many nuclear power stations to close for lack of fuel.

How then can the rising aspirations for nuclear power by China and India, together with the need to replace obsolete stations in the US and the UK, be satisfied? China (is sensibly negotiating) negotiated with Canada and Australia, the top two uranium suppliers (12,000 and 9,000 tonnes per annum respectively) to establish long-term supply contracts to secure fuel supplies for its projected fleet of nuclear stations. The negotiations have presumably failed as China now seeks permission to explore and develop its own mines in Australia.

Advertisement

If China with its pile of US dollars competes with the US for its supplies of oil, gas and uranium there will be little energy security around. The UK, if it builds replacement nuclear power stations, will exchange insecure gas supplies for insecure supplies of uranium.

Australian uranium production

In 2004, the principal Australian mines were Ranger with 4,356 tonnes (0.24 per cent ore grade by open pit); Olympic Dam with 3,706 tonnes (0.045 per cent ore grade by underground with copper, gold and silver); and Beverley with 920 tonnes (0.18 per cent ore grade by in situ leaching).

The average ore grade mined is around 0.11 per cent, which means that for every tonne of uranium extracted around 4,500 tonnes of waste rock is mined and 900 tonnes of mill tailings added to a lagoon. The fossil fuel energy and electricity used to produce this tonne of uranium amounts to 2 gigawatt-hours (GWh), and 1,400 tonne of CO2 is released. So the 9,000 tonnes produced requires roughly 18,000 GWh and releases 12.6 million tonnes of CO2.

Given the current price of uranium of US$86 per kilogram (price at October 2005), the export revenue totals US$774 million, but the energy used in the mining and milling is equivalent to that obtained from 30 million barrels of crude oil at 37 per cent utilisation efficiency, totalling US$2 billion with oil costing US$67 a barrel. The price of uranium is rising rapidly, but will be set by the lower energy costs of producing uranium from the higher grade ores occurring in Canada, rather than the higher energy costs involved in mining and milling the lower grade ores in Australia. Because rising oil prices cannot be offset by rising uranium prices, it is not viable for Australia to merely supply uranium, denying itself the benefit of the energy that could be produced from it.

This energy penalty does not include the handling of the radioactive waste rock and mill tailings and the eventual restoration of the mining sites. As mines are exhausted, the revenue fails and the mining company has none to pay for the cost of the energy needed to perform the restoration.

The life of a uranium mine follows the same “Hubbert” curve first applied to US oil production, which was correctly forecast to peak around 1970. To maintain production, a succession of new mines have to be opened, requiring a constant energy input. The energy needed for exploration and mine development has to be generated from costly oil and gas. The high energy costs of mining low grade ores may prove prohibitive.

Advertisement

Conclusion

Without its own nuclear power stations, Australia’s uranium export business requires an undue use of scarce energy. But the overall nuclear power fuel cycle is not economic and the Australian nuclear lobby will not secure its hoped for “renaissance” without massive government subsidy. To supply Australian electricity generation of 236 TWh would require 30 nuclear power stations consuming 6,000 of the 9,000 tonnes annual production, leaving little to satisfy an undersupplied export market. Moreover, there would have to be a parallel investment in spent fuel handling and disposal. Continued use of coal, perhaps with carbon sequestration to appease Kyoto signatories, would be the simplest and cheapest course of action.

Although the generation of electricity is vital to Australian well-being, the real problem is to retain the mobility offered by oil products. It is often suggested that a hydrogen economy might provide a solution. Unfortunately hydrogen is not an energy source, merely a carrier and is produced by steam reforming of natural gas, which is very inefficient and emits the carbon in the gas as CO2. The other way is electrolysis of water, but this is even more inefficient. To retain Australia’s mobility in the absence of oil and gas would require the electrical output of around 200 nuclear stations of 1 GWe, which would require 40,000 tonnes of uranium per annum, the entire world’s mining production.

As around half of Australia’s primary energy is derived from coal, a better alternative could be the production of liquid fuels from coal using the South African Sasol processes. However, digging up coal has an energy penalty and a proper energy audit of the candidate coal fields will be advisable.

The depletion of the UK’s indigenous oil and gas in conjunction with a world shortage of all fuels except coal and wind will force the UK to adopt an energy-lean lifestyle, whether it plans for it or not.

I leave it to On Line Opinion’s readers to consider life in Australia after petrol, and to define a plan for survival through the 21st century.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Julie Marlow.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Busby has a unique background in project financing and negotiation, power generation, chemical manufacture, agriculture and food processing.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Busby
Related Links
John Busby

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy