Fissile Material--Toward a Price Prediction

I'm just beginning to study this.

This is a map of nuclear power use in the world. You can see that Europe is highly invested in nuclear power plants, especially for its small land area. The U.S. has as many plants, but a great deal more land mass. Europe's reliance on nuclear power, a lot of plants around a lot of people, also shows that nuclear power can be secure and useful to us.

The two big economies in South America have started building nuclear plants, although Brazil is a world leader in biofuels. The depressed economies of Africa, the Arab states, Central Asia and the Pacific have not invested. This may be good for security and non-proliferation, but mostly it represents disinvestment.

It's especially ironic that Central Asia has none. Several of those states are very rich in uranium. In some cases, the mines are abandoned and off-limits, which by no means tells us they are secure. I might add that Afghanistan is just south of those states, and Iran only a short sail across the Caspian Sea from Kazakhstan. In some ways, greater demand for the fuel could increase security. Those mines will be attended, and starving Tajiks will work for legitimate wages.

And here's a closer look at nuclear power plants in the United States.

Reactors are powered by nuclear fission. Eventually the fissile material degrades and must be removed. That's one issue with world-wide political ramifications world-wide and within nations. Here is a map of U.S. spent fissile material storage. So far, we are storing it where we use it, with the exception of New Mexico and Utah.     Both of those states have a great deal of defense-related waste.

The second issue is that nuclear material, once removed, must be replaced.

The rate of growth in nuclear power plants is high. Eventually the price of fissile material will create a cycle, just as oil prices do. That cycle will affect the boom and bust of uranium and plutonium-producing countries. e don't know the shape of that cycle yet--how gradual or constant the demand will be over time, but most plants need to refuel every twenty-five years. Chances are the price cycle for nuclear fuel will sometimes offset and sometimes heighten future tensions over oil and gas pricing.

Consumer countries that use this fuel will have a. a price cycle that coincides with b. a disposal cycle.  These two together will create their own price spike--as the fuel price goes up, so does the price for storing the spent fuel. Thus, there will be periods when end-use consumers feel as though it costs too much to operate nuclear plants. Between those times, we will still buy toasters and wide-screen televisions.

It's also good to note that the fuel is going to go up in price from high point to high point. But what is really going to cost, in the long run, is the price for storage of spent fuels. It can't just go anywhere. It can't go in just any way. That's something to think about over the long haul.  A plan now is best. I hope we have a comprehensive one. Otherwise, the world will be sending it to dubiously-attended storage facilities in, say, Central Africa.

Maps: Renewable Energy Articles blog; WikiInvest (oh yeah, definitely money to earn here); NEI (nuclear energy institute)