Reply #47: Nope... it shows a GRAPHICAL "peak" in "Uranium For Inventory" [View All]

[FBaggins]

which has precisely zero to do with how much uranium is in the ground or mined on an annual basis.


The graph depicts his assumed scenario of a stable population and nuclear power ramping up to provide essentially all power needs... then plateauing NOT because of a "peak" in supply, but because you can't get above 100% of a fixed figure. The graphical peak you're looking at is how much uranium would be required annually to feed the inventory requirements of these new reactors. As the rate of new reactor construction declines, the amount of uranium necessary for the inventory of new reactors goes down. It goes to a figure close to zero NOT because uranium has run out (he expected it to last for many centuries), but because there were no more new reactors in that model.

An easy disproof of your errant assumption is found in figure 30. You can see that his presumed rate of consumption lasts for thousands of years. This wouldn't occur in an environment where uranium was no longer available for mining. Note that the graph still reflects and annual fuel burning rate that remains constant for centuries.

Hubbert assumed breeder reactors would generate an endless supply of fuel from that.

Which means that no more is needed, not that no more is obtainable at economically usable prices.