How much nuclear fuel is available to the world?

Question

Let me start my question by saying I really like the idea of nuclear energy. It's a great energy source and I love it way more than coal, oil or even solar for a variety of reasons.

That said, I can easily find rough estimates on how much oil our world has available, how many square miles of land we'd have to cover with solar panels for solar energy and our coal reserves... But I can't find anything about how much nuclear fuel there is available to be mined.

Is this because it is a non-issue due to the sheer amount or is it because of ignorance the question hasn't been asked in the media?

How much nuclear fuel is available to the world? Is it a practical amount that would satiate our energy desires for a significant amount of time? What public studies are available concerning the practicality of mining, refining and processing ore into nuclear fuel?

Big question but I couldn't find an answer on Wikipedia. Thanks!

I checked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle

and a few other articles.

Didn't think about checking the Uranium article, thanks.

Oh, and I'd gladly take a nuclear reactor in my back yard if it meant saving a coal plant in 100 of my friends back yards. :)

Answer 1

Actually, uranium is surprisingly common.

Uranium is about 40 time more abundant in the earth's crust than silver, about twice common as tin or mercury, and only slightly less common than molybdenum. Deposits of uranium ore can be found on every continent.

But how much is actually available depends on how much are you willing to pay to get it out of the ground.....

This source:
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/u/uranium-reserves.htm
states that at around US$80 per kg, the world reserves of economically mineable uranium is around 2 million metric tons. This is an energy equivalent of around 30 *billion* t of coal. Wikipedia states that if one were to increase the price or uranium by ten times, the amount of uranium that could be economically mined would increase by about 300 times.

It is worthwhile to note, that unlike fossil fuel power plants, which are extremely sensitive to fuel prices, the cost of nuclear fuel only contributes about 2~3% of the price of electricity produced thereby. Thus if one were to increase the cost of fuel by 10 times, the price of nuclear electricity would only increase by a few cents per kWh, at most. If "fast breeder reactors" and the use of "mixed oxide fuel" (MOX) were to become common practice, nuclear power would be almost immune to changes in the cost of uranium. Thus, nuclear energy can easily be sustained for centuries to come. If the cost of fossil fuels were to *double*, most "conventional" power plants would be rendered quite unprofitable.

~W.O.M.B.A.T.

P.s.On a personal note, I would not mind having a nuke plant in my backyard at all. I would not want a coal plant. I am not partial to breathing soot, fly ash, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, or mercury.

P.p.s: It is an open secret that the oil, coal, and gas industries *vastly overestimate* the amount of usable reserves of fossil fuels! This is to encourage investment in an otherwise doomed industry.

Answer 2

You have an excessively legitimate factor. Nuclear vigor is a 2 edged sword given that for those who move a step forward of creating gasoline for energy crops, you'll be able to with ease have a nuclear gadget which is able to forged lethal shadows for the hundreds of thousands. But at the complete nuclear vigor is some thing of a need because the fossil gasoline reserves within the earth are speedy depleting. Energy has grow to be synonymous with growth and there is not any enterprise or dwelling which is able to declare to outlive with out vigor in a few or the opposite kind. As for the risks of waste disposal and lack of animal existence and threats to environment, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has taken cast and strict measures in formulating regulations and laws for the correct and nontoxic disposal of radioactive wastes. Those international locations which produce or desire to provide vigor by way of atom are sure to signal the ones treaties. Regular checkup and great guarantee is saved through the IAEA and different tracking groups (each countrywide and global). Searching for Uranium is not any nice threat as its like several different metals which we extract from earth. Hope this may occasionally aid you in determining which aspect to take:)

Answer 3

You can't find any answer on Wikipedia?????

Did you try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Maybe not? Of course, that's only a useful number if you really want to go nuclear until the end of the world. It is really a total non-issue.

And since you like nuclear so much, maybe you can convince your representative to put the next reactor into YOUR back yard, not mine? Thanks!

:-)