Questioning nuclear power's ability to forestall global warming

April 21, 2008
Uranium Mill
In a new study, scientists question the sustainability of nuclear power because of anticipated declines in high-grade uranium ore. Above is Australia's Ranger uranium mill. Credit: Gavin M. Mudd

Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a study in the April 1 issue of ACS’ Environmental Science & Technology.

In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel's environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say.

“These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”

Source: ACS

Explore further: Is your fear of radiation irrational?

Related Stories

Is your fear of radiation irrational?

July 14, 2015

Bad Gastein in the Austrian Alps. It's 10am on a Wednesday in early March, cold and snowy – but not in the entrance to the main gallery of what was once a gold mine. Togged out in swimming trunks, flip-flops and a bath ...

Recommended for you

A cataclysmic event of a certain age

July 27, 2015

At the end of the Pleistocene period, approximately 12,800 years ago—give or take a few centuries—a cosmic impact triggered an abrupt cooling episode that earth scientists refer to as the Younger Dryas.

Researchers find reasons behind increases in urban flooding

July 27, 2015

Scientists at the University of South Florida's College of Marine Science investigating the increasing risk of 'compound flooding' for major U.S. cities have found that flooding risk is greatest for cities along the Atlantic ...

6 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2008
Guess these guys never heard of Thorium.
gopher65
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2008
I also guess they have never heard of reactors that burn U238 instead of a mixture of U235 and U238. If you look at our likely supplies of enriched uranium we are headed for serious shortfalls in the short term (well, worse shortfalls. We already have supply shortages). If you look at reactors that can burn pure U238 then we have at least 1000 years of economically extractable fuel left. It all depends on the reactor type you are choosing to investigate. And of course, what types you choose to ignore in order to give your article the correct political spin.
barakn
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2008
Whether they're mining for U238 or U235 there will be environmental consequences. And I'm sure they've heard of thorium and are well aware that there are numerous technical hurdles before thorium becomes a viable nuclear option.
plaasjaapie
5 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2008
Oh course there are consequences. However, if you use uranium efficiently in breeder reactors instead of the way they use it now in light water reactors a little uranium goes many magnitudes further than it does at present.

Basically, the environutjobs are going to put down as unworkable ANY technology that could get us out of the conundrum that they've invented with "global warming". The reason they're doing that is that they want the world to be top-down run by creeps like themselves who know best what the rest of us should be doing.

Sadly, what they think that we should be doing, all six billion of us, is starving in some opium dream of a pre-industrial nirvana that they have.
superhuman
5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2008
I think nuclear power is the best answer for now, besides hopefully after next 50 years fusion juice will finally flow!
Rametarin
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2008
You guys are great. This is why internet messageboards and news boards are superior to newspapers; it's like immediate editorials.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.