Uranium Supply

One aspect of nuclear energy that has been touched on, is the availability of uranium. It is all good promoting zero-carbon and economic opportunity – but how long can these benefits be expected to continue? In an earlier post, Kidd (2011) suggested uranium would be accessible for another 80 years – this post will look at other suggestions and go into the finer details behind such predictions.

Map of the proportional uranium resources on a global scale (OECD NEA 2014).

The current (2013) known resources are geographically variable (WNA 2015) – this suggests certain countries may benefit to a greater extent from the nuclear sector. For one they receive the export funds, but also the nuclear economy can remain internal. Which, as mentioned can protect them from international trade fluctuations and allow for stable costs. Despite having the largest global store, there is no current nuclear power in Australia (WNA 2015)! The favoured energy supply appears to be coal – yet with continued carbon reduction regulations being proposed on the international stage it is likely that a shift to nuclear is a probable prospect. The initial stages of the change have already been established with the South Australian Government setting up a commission this year (2015), about the potential for starting a nuclear energy project.

Known recoverable resources in 2013 (WNA 2015).

Currently known resources will have the potential to change over time – future technological changes in the extraction process as well as the sustainability of fuel use (WNA 2015), will vary the longevity of the resources. Both through improving reprocessing, as well as the introduction of new mining technologies will mean that previously unknown or unreachable resources become usable – or through the reclassification of previously unattainable resources as economically recoverable (WNA 2015). This is exemplified by uranium resources increasing 7% from 2011 to 2014 (OECD NEA 2014). However, an issue being the low economic sustainability of the process, with 36% of the uranium recovered valued less than $80/kgU, due to the higher mining costs that have been required to access this latest uranium source (OECD NEA 2014).

There is some disparity in the longevity of uranium, with 80 (Kidd 2011), 90 (WNA 2015) and 120 years (OECD NEA 2014) suggested by multiple sources. If the latter OECD value is taken then it displays uranium's ability to “out-live” other mineral energy resources. For example, coal reserves in 2014 are suggested to be capable of providing another 110 years (BP 2014) – however with the upcoming COP 21 conference, coal is unlikely to be promoted in the long-term due to the environmentally detrimental emissions. Oil has around 53 years remaining  and natural gas 54 years (BP 2014) – highlighting nuclear’s potential to be a mainstay in a longstanding progression to a cleaner energy future.

These predictions may be extended if current trends in increased exploration continue. A 23% increase in uranium exploration and mine creation spending occurred between 2010 and 2012 (OECD NEA 2014). Some areas declined – yet the overall boost was supported by vast increases in expenditure particularly within Brazil, China, Kazakhstan and Turkey to name a few (OECD NEA 2014).

Trends in exploration and development expenditure (OECD NEA 2014).

More nuclear programmes around the globe will increase the demand – this could be positive in regards to increasing investment to technology and gaining greater resource access. However, larger uranium requirements may result in the finite resource being depleted quicker than predicted. Therefore, a balance needs to be made – reprocessing and greater sustainability is likely to be the way in which a nuclear expansion can be maintained on a long-term basis.