The current cost of yellowcake uranium is ~$50/lb, that’s equivalent to ~$1 per barrel of oil if you consume only 1% of the energy(a modern LWR) or ~1 cent per barrel if you consume 100% of the energy content. Uranium is very widely distributed in the crust, with most of the uranium in lower grade deposits(see Deffeyes and mcGregor, “World uranium resources”). Fuel is a small part of the cost of operating a nuclear reactor, and of that cost yellowcake is just a small part(you pay mostly for the conversion, enrichment, deconversion and fabrication of fuel elements).

The 5.5 million tonne estimate is predicated on a price of yellowcake less than $130 per lb, but even a light-water reactor can support a much higher cost of yellowcake than this without significantly hurting its economics.

Eventually one of the alternative approaches(deep burn pebble beds, lead-bismuth cooled fast breeder reactors, molten salt epithermal breeder reactors etc.) will be well developed enough and uranium expensive enough that it makes sense make the switch over.

The uranium and thorium in a tonne of average crust(just your typical rock) is equivalent to over 100 barrels of oil when fully fissioned(which will require a combination of different reactor technologies).

It will take the better part of an eon to work our way down to such poor ore-grades absent a huge expansion into energy intensive space exploration(even this has the potential to yield more energy resources). During this unimaginable stretch of time it is likely that we’ll develop compact, cheap nuclear fusion or some other alternative that is just plain better than nuclear fission. First generation fusion reactors may not have sufficiently high Q to make it on their own; they might be fusion-fission hybrids that produce energetic neutrons from D-T fusion, which can directly fission just about any actinide.

No, YOU are the one perpetrating a fraud Branedy.

Here’s the EPD for that’s ~10 miles from my location: http://www.environdec.com/reg/021/ , Go to EDP content tab -> 3.4.

If you passed 6th grade introduction to physics you’ll know how to convert units. Even comparing apples to oranges(i.e. adding the heat from the fossil fuels as if it was equivalent to electricity from a nuclear plant, which is unfair to the nuclear plant), the energy gain is ~80. If you try to be a bit more fair and convert the fossil fuels to electricty at the relevant efficiency(super critical coal plants, CCGT for oil and gas etc.) you get an energy gain of ~200.

In other words, you’re full of shit.

From the mining of the uranium to the shutdown of a energy reactor. The production of energy is a net ZERO proposition. It’s a fraud, with the dirty secret that you will have to live with the contaminated waste for hundreds of years.

What you put into the ’system’ fossil fuels, manpower etc, will ‘gain’ you nothing and could better be used to forward other energy development. EVEN the carbon footprint that might be saved from the actual reactor will be wasted in the ore refinement processes that lead up it it.

The only way this technology could be useful, is when Fusion can be made productive.

I know you have been drinking the Koolaid, so don’t believe me, do the due diligence. An hour with Google will tell you more than you can believe.

FYI: Stewart Brand was also kind enough to endorse my book “Rad Decision: A Novel of Nuclear Power”.
One thing most pundits, activists, scientists and reporters have in common is a lack of understanding regarding how this power source is operated in the real world. Nuclear is not The Simpsons and it’s not Star Trek. To provide some clarity, I’ve written a novel aimed at the general reader, based on my 20+ years in the US nuclear industry. My book covers the people, politics and technology of this controversial topic, looking at both the good AND the bad (Chernobyl, TMI, etc.) “Rad Decision” is free online, and is also in paperback. See the homepage for reader comments – they seem to like it for both its story and information. I think there are many possibilities for our future, both with and without nuclear power, but I also believe we’ll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com

“I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.” – Stewart Brand