“My projections simply envisioned nuclear energy growing from supplying 6% of world energy needs today to one third of the energy demand in 2050, which was taken to grow by about a factor of 3 from 2000. But, of course, that begs the question: Can fossil fuels continue to provide energy at or slightly above present levels, to produce about one third of the energy demand in 2050? And is it likely that hydro, wind energy, and other alternatives can provide the other third, which is also the equivalent of 100% of today’s total energy use?

So, nuclear power in 2050 would be roughly 18 times its current use. This requires fewer than the number of plants I projected in 1997, and is equivalent to about 5,100 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) plants.”

“A plan for rapid growth to a level long-term production capacity to support long-term energy growth and replacement of old plants and fossil fuels, would result in producing roughly 200 new units per year. We can plan for 6,000 equivalent units, taking our present operating plant capacity as about 300 1,000-MWe equivalent units (from about 440 actual units).”(1)

4. What are the numbers for the world’s current nuclear fuel sources? What will they be in the future?

“A nuclear power station of 1000 megawatt electrical generation capacity (1000 MWe or 1 gigawatt electrical = 1GWe) requires around 200 tonnes (metric tons) of uranium per annum. For example, the United States has 103 operating reactors with an average generation capacity of 950 MWe expected to consume over 22,000 tonnes of uranium in 2005.

Uranium production is subject to the same “Hubbert” cycle which characterised US oil production, which peaked in 1970. In spite of improved extraction technology it has declined since then, so in that in 2005 around 65% of US oil demand will be imported. An individual uranium mine provides a rapid build-up followed by uniform production over 5 –10 years after which it declines and is closed. To maintain supply a series of mines have to be opened in succession. The aggregate of the individual mine supply curves produces a world “Hubbert” peak in uranium production which will eventually limit the level of “once-through” nuclear power generation, whereby spent fuel is not re-cycled.

This limit was recognised from the inception of nuclear power resulting in several abortive attempts to develop fast breeder reactors and waste recycling processes. In December 2002 ten nations produced “A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” which concluded that to extend the nuclear fuel supply into future centuries it will be necessary to recycle used fuel and convert depleted uranium rejected from the enrichment process to new fuel. Six types of fast reactor were considered, each requiring US$ 1 billion to take to a demonstration phase in 2025. The authors found it impossible to choose between the six options and recommended “crosscutting R&D” between rival participants.
MIT’s study “The future of nuclear power” opted for the “once-through” mode in which discharged spent fuel is sent directly to disposal. The team believe that “the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half-century”. In an appendix (5.E) they argue that the extraction of low concentrations of uranium in phosphate deposits will suffice for a programme ending with a “1500 GWe scenario” by mid-century.”(2)

5. What impact does uranium mining and reprocessing have on the environment, workers, etc.?

” # Nuclear energy is not clean. All parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining to reprocessing, contribute to the creation of long-lived radioactive wastes.
# Nuclear energy is not cheap. In many places renewable energy sources are as cheap or significantly cheaper than nuclear energy. When the electricity utilities were privatised in the United Kingdom the market refused to purchase or support nuclear utilities.
# Nuclear energy is not the answer to global warming. Extensive studies have shown that each dollar invested in end-use energy efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in nuclear power.
# Nuclear power is not safe. Nuclear reactors routinely release radiation into the surrounding environment. Incidents, accidents, releases and leaks plague the industry in every country where it operates.
# Uranium mining is not safe. According to the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, uranium mining has been responsible for the largest collective exposure of radiation to workers. One estimate puts the number of workers that have died of lung cancer and silicosis due to mining and milling alone at 20,000. It is widely agreed that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
# The threat posed by nuclear weapons is not over. More than 40,000 nuclear warheads still exist. Nuclear proliferation continues and there is a growing global trade in smuggled nuclear materials.
# The problems of nuclear waste have not been solved. Despite industry assurances, nuclear waste remains a very real and very potent danger. It needs to be isolated from people and the wider environment for up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.” (3)

(1) http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html
(2)http://www.hubbertpeak.com/nuclear/WhyNuclearNotSustainable.htm
(3)http://www.sea-us.org.au/acfuconf97.html