Not that I have any expertise in this subject, but a cursory google search reveals there is some debate about when uranium will peak. The WSJ has a summary here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/19/peak-uranium-whats-going-to-fuel-all-those-nuclear-plants/

"...the World Nuclear Association figures that if uranium prices double, recoverable reserves will rise ten-fold."

Interesting article by the WSJ.  I find it so wildly different from the tone and content of the article here.  With the peacenik bit at the end of this article, it's not hard to see through to the real philosophy of its writer.

Dittmar is biased. Problems and errors with his four papers have been pointed out to him and he ignores it. Also, his work as a particle physicist:

He is famous for being obnoxious. The link being one of the top ten that comes up when we search his  name.
dittmar's particle physics presentation
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=54612
The Dorigo presentation (PHd, works at Tevetron and Harvard)
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/a-seminar-against-the-tevatron/

[dittmar physics talk] most definitely places a strong claim on the prize of the most obnoxious talk of the year. Unfortunately for all, it was just as much an incorrect, scientifically dishonest, and dilettantesque lamentation, plus a defamation of a community of 1300 respected physicists.

He ignored the interpretation of the people who wrote the papers he quoted in a presentation he was giving. He had a predetermined point of view and interpreted things to substantiate that view.

========

What are the points? The same as in all anti-nuke polemics.

1. /Nuclear energy = nuclear weapons./ This is demonstrably false, as numerous nations have made nuclear weapons without commercial nuclear energy.

by 1960 there were thirty thousand nuclear weapons but a handful on tiny commercial nuclear reactors.

2. /Nuclear energy is dangerous./ Since nuclear energy has the best safety record (and the best environmental record) of all the major energy sources. The author gets around this obstacle by detailing the qualities of the safety concerns without quantifying them.

compare the deaths per TWH.

Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). If the rooftop solar is part of the shingle so you do not put the roof up more than once and do not increase maintenance then that is ok too. Or if you had a robotic system of installation.

World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh.
In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh.
15 deaths per TWh.
In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh.
278 deaths per TWh.

Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.

Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996

Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh.


3. /Nuclear energy isn't developing rapidly./ Dittmar attributes it to technological failure, when even a casual observer can see that it's due to public policies that encourage cheap energy by condoning mass poisoning by fossil-burning utilities. The author reinforces his case by pointing to experimental facilities that didn't perform to commercial standards, a totally unreasonable requirement. What he neglects to mention is that no alternatives are growing any faster, and what growth they see is bought at huge cost through subsidies and legislated mandates.

4. /Nuclear energy has a limited fuel supply./ Dittmar's argument consists of a two very long, tendentious critiques of the Red Book data and makes no reference whatever to the size of the fuel supply. This is argument by diversion.

He claims that the increases in fuel supply at Khazakhstan could be false. Khazakhstan is heading to 18,000 tons per year.

Niger is heading to 10,000 tons per year
of uranium production. They are finding quality uranium mines in Niger using $5 million per year in exploration spending

Canada and Australia are also increasing uranium production and continue to develop and find new deposits.

Phosphate deposits have produced thousands of tons of uranium and could produce more again. Brazil is producing uranium from phosphate.

Enrichment can be used to turn depleted uranium into usable fuel.

Uranium is being taken from coal ash waste.

5. /Nuclear energy is expensive./ In this argument, as in the other arguments, the author makes no comparison with alternatives. In fact, all the alternatives are at least as expensive but this salient consideration is entirely absent.

Also, 75% of the new reactors are being built in non-OECD countries like China. China has a per kilowatt construction cost of $1500-1700 /KW.

In summary, Dittmar made a long biasd presentation that is fluffed up with extra  technical discussions while still ignoring key and obvious facts and aspects.

This isn't the first mention of this issue.  I wish I had saved the article from the early 2000's on diminished yellow cake extraction.  Apparently, like oil, all of the easy to get to material has been extracted.  We'll find that we need to go deeper and deeper with the attached technical challenges to get more.

Peak uranium has been bandied about almost as long as peak oil. And this is certainly not the first time folks have mentioned it. To wit:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=finding-fissile-fuel

Isn't uranium responsible for a large amount of the heat generated within the earth? Isn't it evenly distributed across the entire planet, with a large amount throughout due to this being a close terrestrial planet?

Can't even remotely imagine running low on the stuff, it's all over the place, if you dig deep.

A: Most of the current estimates brought up on when we will run out of uranium are based on no reprocessing, no use of U238 in fast or breeder reactors, and no use of a thorium fuel cycle.

B: Even using a once through fuel cycle, current uranium reserves will last upwards of a century.

C: As someone else mentioned, we are currently mining the easy to get uranium, by most conservative estimates we still haven't even scratched the surface on the worlds total uranium supply, mostly because we haven't been looking for any.

D: As the price of uranium goes up it will drive exploration into many of the less rich deposits, this is just simple economics.

E: Enrichment is easy, especially considering the new laser based enrichment methods being developed by GE, which the primary cost behind that is keeping the proliferation risk down because it is so incredibly easy to achieve extremely high enrichment.

F: Reprocessing is the easiest way to prolong uranium reserves. Currently the biggest issue with this is political, not technical.

The nuclear power currently has very very few technical challenges facing its growth. The primary reasons why nuclear power has not grown much is political. As previously stated, it is safe, it is clean, it is cheap after the initial costs (and even then a large portion of the costs is in the form of interest), and we do have the capability to sustain it for quite a while.

Says this blog: "The combined threats of climate change, energy security and fears over the high prices and dwindling reserves of oil are forcing governments towards the nuclear option."

Really? I know of one country between Canada and Mexico that doesn't give a @#$%! about building nuclear power plants (or coal plants, or anything else except giant windmills you can attach on the roof of your car.)

What a load of alarmist rubbish this article is. Australia has 1.2 MILLION tonnes of known recoverable uranium, 23% of the worlds total of 5.5 Million....

At a burn rate of 65,000 tonnes per annum that's ....85 years worth!!!!!!!!!! By which time, of course, more resources will have been discovered.

Don't let the FACTS get in the way of some loser report.

That's OK, it's word consumption (110 thousands tons of uranium concentrate) - enough to next ten years only.

"Federally insured loans do not reduce the overall cost of projects, they just shift part of the cost onto the taxpayer.  Learn some economics."

They reduce the insurance rate by reducing the risk that the finance institutions face when loaning a very large sum of money for a project. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything unless the project falls through. The idea is that by "insuring" the financial institutions against a large loss, they will not apply a large interest rate to the loan, which interest accrued over just the construction period can account for up to 30% of the cost of the project.

Recommendations for reducing the capital costs can be found:
In Chapter 4: http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/economics.pdf
In a report by MIT: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

"That's only spent fuel.  From National Geographic's nuclear waste article -  "91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized"

Most of the plutonium “waste” was created from the nuclear weapons program during the cold war.  This waste was a small price to pay for creating the nuclear deterrent which prevented WWIII.  It should not be used to argue again commercial nuclear power as commercial reprocessing is held to higher safety, proliferation, and environmental standards than the federal government operating a national security program.

- The waste from plutonium processing is not fully considered "High Level Waste" by the NRC. The activity of this waste is due to the presence of fission products that have been removed from spent fuel. The material that makes this waste high level can be removed and classified as HLW, the remaining, as in the bulk of the material is then considered low-level waste, and can be stored in a short term repository (monitored land fill).

- Contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, ect, are primarily activated low level waste, which has a short life, on the order of a few decades to a century, and can and already is being disposed of in LLW sites.

- Are you really going to bring up mining? Compared to many other mining operations, Uranium mining is by far the most environmental friendly. Even from a radiation standpoint, all of that stuff that you are complaining about was already in the ground, it hasn't been altered in a nuclear way at all, it has the same activity it did when it was in the ground. If you really want to be concerned with an industry releasing radioactive material into the environment go take a look at coal, which has no regulations on radioactive waste, yet has released more radioactive material into the environment than all of the nuclear power industry ever has.

"Yucca isn't happening.  And perhaps you aren't aware that all our nuclear testing contaminated the underneath aquifer and that radioactive water is now migrating toward the water sources of towns?"

- As I said before it is a political issue, not a technical one. Engineers could guarantee the integrity of the Yucca Mountain instillation, however, it was denied on a political basis.

"If that's what people in the field say, we should make it a point to never listen to them about anything.  There's no proven long term solution.  Right now the strategy is "rot in place"."

- Isn't that the solution for all man-made waste? As I have already stated, the long lived, High level waste, is made up of the spent fuel. The vast majority of this, 95% or so can be reprocessed, and with future technology, it is likely that it can all be burned through nuclear processes. Personally I would be more concerned with all of the heavy metals we have been dumping into landfills guaranteed to contain the waste for only a couple of decades before worrying about nuclear waste.

It's a complicated, highly technical business, every radio isotope is different, there are different types of waste, most of it can be recycled, some of it has to be stored. If handled properly it isn't an issue.

Now let's talk some numbers on the alternative power sources. Let's say that magically tomorrow you could get rid of all of the CO2 producing sources of electricity and replace them with one power source. But you have to know how much generating and storage you need when you replace this base power source. For an intermittent power source, the total generation capability that you need to use it as a base power source is given by:

(Design Power) = (Target Power)/(Cp*(Cp+(1-Cp)*Se))
where Cp is your capacity factor, and Se is your storage efficiency.
Looking at what it would take to replace all current Carbon producing electricity generation:

Total Power Generation in the US: 994,888 MW
Total CO2 Based Power Generation in the US: 770,699 MW
Median State Area (Illinois): 149,997 sq km

Wind:
Current Power: 16,515 MW
Capacity Factor: 33%
Storage Efficiency: 75%
Total Generation Required:  2,805,347 MW
Storage Capacity Required: 1,409,686 MW
% increase in Generating Capacity: 16,987%
Number of 1.5 MW units: 1,870,231
Total Area Required (6 units per sq km): 311705 sq km
Number of States: 2.07

Solar:
Current Power: 502 MW
Capacity Factor: 20%
Storage Efficiency: 75%
Total Generation Capacity Required: 4,816,868 MW
Storage Capacity Required: 2,890,121 MW
% increase in Generating Capacity: 959,536%
Conversion Efficiency (PV): 10% (up to a little over 20%)
Number of 1m^2 panels: 1.376*10^11
Total Area Required: 137,624 sq km
Number of States: .9

Nuclear:
Current Power: 100,266 MW
Capacity Factor: 95%
Storage Efficiency: 0%
Total Generation Capacity Required:  821,531 MW
Storage Capacity Required: 0 MW
% increase in Generating Capacity: 819%
Number of 2 GWE Plants: 410
Total Area Required: 1246 sq km
Number of States: .008

Now for looking at costs, here is a good paper where they calculate the current cost per kwh, however, with wind and solar they do not account for increased costs due to the need for storage.

Wind = 21.97 cents per kwh
Gas and oil = 12.28 cents per kwh
Nuclear = 11.06 cents per kwh
Hydro = 7.60 cents per kwh

source: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wind_not_the_answer.pdf
Scroll to the bottom to see the equations used in calculation.

So no, wind is not cheaper than Nuclear, not by a long shot. As for hydro, no you can't use smaller damns for pumped storage, as you would then be creating large fluctuations in the water flow. The primary design purpose of most of those damns is flood control. They do not have the capacity or the flow volume to run a hydro station.

" No, the numbers just don't work.  Wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, natural gas, biogas, and solar thermal are all cheaper than nuclear. "

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but well the numbers and equations that I have seen state the exact opposite of your conclusion. Nuclear is by far cheaper than all of those.

Great explanation of an issue that only concerns the idiots. If running out of nuclear fuel was a problem I'd agree with you.  Too bad - it ISN'T.

You know, there are fully capable nuclear powerplants that as a byproduct create more plutonium for nuclear fuel than it uses?

You've heard of that right?

So, what is the point of your article? All we need is to have ONE single breeder plant in this world, and we can use all the nuclear material on the plan sans that, and we can recover by using that excess, (eventually...it would take awhile if one place was our only source) into an amount that can EVENTUALLY power as many nuclear plants as we need. 1000, 10k, 1 million plants.  It doesn't matter. All you need is ONE PLUTONIUM BREEDER PLANT.

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12137

I seriously can't believe you just said this, and used it as a reason it cannot be used

""Their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant," he says. "

Huge construction costs? Who cares.  You build what you NEED, unless you are an idiot.  Too bad WALL STREET will always say it's TOO EXPENSIVE.  Just like WWII.  But FDR KNEW BETTER. 

Do we know better? Do we know that 'huge construction' costs, are an overgeneralization and exaggeration of the truth.

Build 1000 breeder plants, and the construction costs, would go far, far down.

Poor safety records is bunk.  You can't judge future nuclear power plants based on 30-60 year old designs. 

What we have now, or could build now, is 100x safer than any nuclear plant ever constructed in the USA.

So safe? Of course they are.

I guarantee you more people have been killed in the quest of oil, than in nuclear leaks.

Comercially significant? Again WALL STREET THINKING.  IMPERALISTIC THINKING

WE NEED ENERGY TO SURVIVE. 

It doesn't matter if some company doesn't think it can make money off it. 

IT DOESN"T NEED TO MAKE MONEY.

Jesus.  We really are going down, if the best and brightest are as dim as George W. Bush.

Seriously, not EVERYTHING has to have the PROFIT motive.  But I guess at 31, I'm one of a few bright people of my generation who has LEARNED THAT.

Jesus, when you need to survive, you do what you need to survive....or you don't.

Building a few thousand nuclear breeder plants is entirely possible. 

There only needs to be political will.

And remembering to ditch our self-limiting behaviors.

You're not as bright as you think you are if you let such self-limiting behaviors derail you.

Wall Street MUST not have anything to do with these plants.  Because it's their money wrangling that leads to shortcuts, which creates the potential self-fulfilling prophecy of nuclear accidents.

Besides, WALL STREET

SO where does the money come from? Simple silly rabbit, the gov't.

You know the place that was good to provide credit to great national projects up until 1913.

YOu want to know why we have an energy problem. Look no further.  It's the money interests.  The game is, keep supply tight for higher prices. 

Except, their way of keeping supply tight leads to human errors in production, and lead to shortages.  COmpletely unneccessary when you throw out the profit motive.

Don't be an effen idiot.  Nuclear BREEDER plants are our ONLY WAY OUT OF ENERGY CRISIS.

Even then, we must INVEST, not take out a small wall street loan, to do a half-measure job of funding fission research.

If I had my way 100 billion a year would go to fission research in GRANTS.

Now a few million in LOANS!

Why do we have a problem? Gee, I wonder why. As Red Foreman would say, 'because you're a dumbass'

Let's not be 'dumbasses'

Let's build a few thousand nuclear breeders, via government grants/loans. 

I guarantee you it can be done.  I guarantee you it would work well for most of this century.

But you see I think like FDR, I think like an AMERICAN. I know this can be done. 

But according to people who say it can't be done, their this generation's version of people saying we couldn't outmatch the German War Machine, yet we not only surpassed it, we made German production look like Cuba's in size compared to us.  All that was 'impossible' to most.

Same thing about our railways, our highways, even our space program.

If you keep listening to idiots who tell you that you can't do these sort of things, guess what, you won't ever do them. 

Imagine a world without railways, or highways, or even a space program.  It would be much worse off. 

But had wall street, had imperialists, had the closed minded thought that way, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE!

Too bad, when in comes to nuclear power replacing dwindling fossil fuels (that we can reach), it will be the case.  Because WALL STREET, the imperialists, see no MONEY in it.  Since they control everything, they downplay it.  Oh this can't be done. 

Bull.

So do you want REAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?  Do you?

Or do you want to line Wall Street's pockets, who will continue to inform you what you don't need or can't build nuclear breeder plants.

The choice is yours.  Remember YOU WILL FEEL THE PAIN of not making the right decision.  So will your line for the next 5-20 generations.

Make the right choice.  Choose ignorance, or choose enlightenment. 

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/

The link above goes to your Technology Review article on TRAVELING WAVE REACTORS that convert nuclear waste into usable energy.

Comments on this technology?

While the anti-nuke contingent in the US and in parts of Europe continues to rant about the economic infeasibility of nuclear power, France has had it working just fine for many years. When we collapse economically under the rising cost of oil, in France they will be zipping about in high-speed trains and electric cars.

This anti-nuke attitude is like a witch hunt except that it does a lot more damage.  The whole problem of nuclear waste can be attributed to the irrational fear that materials for bomb-making will be easy to obtain. Considering the immense economic value of reprocessed nuclear material it should be easily cost effective to protect it.

I,m glad that I won't be around to see the future squabble into energy generation and water resources.
May god bless and look after my grandchildren because they are in for a rough life.
I think nuclear power plants require water and lots of it.
In dry countries it will be the case of building the Nuclear plant to run the desalinator to run the Nuclear plant.
Thorium hardly gets a mention as a safer option, there is more thorium around than uranium.
Base load power from renewables?
Two standouts,storing energy in salt baths for 24 hour base load generation and geothermal.
Of course last but not least,energy conservation, there is always the talk of generating more power but little done about conservation of power we generate now.
Look at any city at night and useless lights glaring away in tall office buildings.
50% of power from the generator never gets to point of use due to transmission losses.
More localisation of power generation
We need to get smarter with what we generate now before tossing money at new nuclear plants.