“Drowning” mangrove forests in Maldives signal global coastal threat

Researchers have found evidence that mangrove forests – which protect tropical and subtropical coastlines – are drowning in the Maldives.

Northumbria University

 

image: 

Drone image of the mangrove dieback on HDh. Neykurendhoo in the Maldives.

view more 

Credit: Maldives Resilient Reefs

Researchers have found evidence that mangrove forests – which protect tropical and subtropical coastlines – are drowning in the Maldives.

Their findings, published today (Tuesday 12 December) in Scientific Reports, indicate that rising sea level and a climate phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole have led to some Maldivian islands losing over half of their mangrove cover since 2020.

The research team, led by Northumbria University, warn that the findings have implications not only for the Maldives, but also for other island nations and coastal ecosystems around the world.

In 2020, more than a quarter of the Maldivian islands containing mangrove forests saw their trees experiencing a gradual deterioration before dying, a condition known as dieback.

Satellite imagery of both inhabited and uninhabited islands revealed the severity of this issue, showing that some islands lost over half of their mangrove cover.

Mangroves play an essential role in protecting coastal regions by acting as natural barriers against storms, erosion and flooding. As biodiversity hotspots they are vital nurseries for marine species such as crabs, prawns and fish making them crucial for food security and livelihoods in many coastal communities. They also provide valuable resources such as construction materials for housing.

A team of researchers, led by Lucy Carruthers and Vasile Ersek in Northumbria University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, combined evidence from sea level, climate data and remote sensing with field observations of sediment geochemistry and dendrology to investigate the mangrove dieback.

Their analysis of mangrove wood revealed that the dead trees showed greater signs of salinity stress compared to living trees.

This stress indicates that the roots of the trees were struggling to cope with increased salt levels, which was a key factor in their eventual death.  

The researchers found that sea levels around the Maldives rose at an accelerated rate of over 30mm per year between 2017 to 2020. Towards the end of this period, an unusually intense climate phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole occurred. This caused warmer sea surface temperatures and an increase in sea level in the Western Indian Ocean.

Although mangroves naturally build up their own sediment, allowing them to adapt to gradually rising seas, this rate of sea level rise was too fast for the mangroves to keep pace.

As tidal movements are more limited in the basin areas where many mangrove forests grow, the rising sea level meant that seawater effectively flooded the forests. This lack of tidal movement and flooding prevented the mangroves from building the sediment they needed to stay above water. They eventually lost their resilience and died off by drowning.

Dr Vasile Ersek, Associate Professor in Northumbria University’s Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences explained: “Dieback was first observed in the centre of low-lying basin areas before gradually spreading outwards. As these basin areas have something we call limited tidal flushing we saw evidence of the rising sea level inundating the forests with seawater. This prolonged exposure created higher concentrations of salt.

“As the mangroves’ build-up of sediment slowed down due to the pace of the rising sea level, the soil salinity increased beyond what even these salt-tolerant trees could handle. Essentially, the mangroves were drowning.

“The extreme magnitude of dieback seen in the Maldives is a vivid illustration of how climate change may push natural systems past their limits, with cascading consequences for both nature and people.”

Lucy Carruthers, now a postdoctoral scholar in East Carolina University’s Department of Coastal Studies, led the project whilst working at Northumbria University. She said: “Sea level in the region reached its highest point on tide gauge records when the dieback occurred in 2020. This coincided with an intense positive phase in the Indian Ocean Dipole which can induce climate extremes for countries within the Indian Ocean.

“As our planet continues to warm, we can expect to see the Indian Ocean Dipole occurring more frequently and at higher magnitude, meaning events like this mangrove die-off may become more common.

“These remarkable forests have thrived at the interface of land and sea for many centuries. Whether they can survive the rapid changes of the coming decades will depend largely on our actions in managing the climate crisis today.”

The researchers noted there was published evidence of mangrove die off in other areas of the Indian Ocean around the same period, including the Seychelles and Madagascar,

As mangrove forests store massive amounts of carbon – typically three to five times more carbon per equivalent area than tropical rainforests – the researchers raised concerns that the loss of mangrove forests could also release large amounts of stored carbon, further accelerating climate change.

She added: “Our findings reveal the vulnerability of mangrove ecosystems to rapid sea-level rise and highlight the need for urgent adaptive conservation strategies in small island developing states.

“This may sound like a local problem, but it's a warning for coastal areas worldwide. As climate change and extreme events intensify, some mangrove forests may struggle to keep up with sea level rise. The Maldives, as the world's lowest-lying nation, can therefore potentially be the canary in the coal mine.”

The study, Sea-level rise and extreme Indian Ocean Dipole explain mangrove dieback in the Maldives is now published in Scientific Reports.

Drone image of the mangrove dieback on HDh. Neykurendhoo in the Maldives.

Drone image of the mangrove dieback on HDh. Neykurendhoo in the Maldives.

Credit

Maldives Resilient Reefs

Journal

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-024-73776-z 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Sea-level rise and extreme Indian Ocean Dipole explain mangrove dieback in the Maldives

Article Publication Date

12-Nov-2024

 

New study links air pollution with higher rates of head and neck cancer

Wayne State University - Office of the Vice President for Research

DETROIT — A recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports correlates higher levels of pollutant particulate matter to higher occurrences of head and neck aerodigestive cancer.

The article, "Air Pollution Exposure and Head and Neck Cancer Incidence," is the work of a multi-institutional collaboration with researchers from Wayne State University, Johns Hopkins University and Mass General Brigham.

The study was led by John Cramer, Ph.D., associate professor of otolaryngology, and John Peleman, M.D., medical resident in the Department of Otolaryngology, in the Wayne State University School of Medicine. They collaborated with Mass General Brigham, an integrated academic health care system.

“There has been previous research on air pollution, but the effects mostly were connected to cancers within the lower respiratory system,” said Cramer. “Head and neck cancer is a harder link to show, and it has a much lower occurrence than lung cancers, but since they also occur as a result of smoking, similar to lung cancers, we wanted to explore any connections. Presumably, the link to head and neck cancer comes from what we breathe to that material affecting the lining in the head and neck. We see a lot of occurrences of where carcinogens touch or pool in the body to where cancers can occur.”

“While there has been substantial research investigating the effects of air pollutants on lung disease, few studies have focused on air pollution exposure as a risk factor for the upper airway, including the development of head and neck cancer,” said senior author Stella Lee, M.D., of the Center for Surgery and Public Health and Division of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, a founding member of the Mass General Brigham health care system. “These findings shed light on the significant role of environmental pollution in cancers of the upper aerodigestive tract, highlighting the need for further awareness, research and mitigation efforts.”

Their research used data from the U.S. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) national cancer database from the years 2002-12. Cramer observed the highest association between this type of pollution exposure with head and neck cancer after a five-year lag period. They focused on PM2.5, which is particulate matter measuring less than 2.5 microns, and its effect on head and neck aerodigestive cancer incidence.

“We are looking at a certain size of air pollution particulates,” said Cramer. “The size of the particles is relevant because the classic model for studying the upper airways is that the nose and throat act as filters before it gets into the lungs. Larger particles are being filtered out, but we are conceptualizing that different types of pollution hit different parts of the airways.”

Cramer hopes to expand their research by taking other data sets into account. He hopes that by showing this research to the public, it could help guide policy as well as aid treatment in the future.

“Environmental health and personal health are inextricably linked,” said co-author Amanda Dilger, M.D. of CSPH and Massachusetts Eye and Ear, a member of the Mass General Brigham health care system. “Our study highlights the need to improve air quality standards in order to decrease the risk of developing cancer, including head and neck cancer.”

# # #

About Wayne State University

Wayne State University is one of the nation’s pre-eminent public research universities in an urban setting. Through its multidisciplinary approach to research and education, and its ongoing collaboration with government, industry and other institutions, the university seeks to enhance economic growth and improve the quality of life in the city of Detroit, state of Michigan and throughout the world. For more information about research at Wayne State University, visit research.wayne.edu.

Wayne State University’s research efforts are dedicated to a prosperity agenda that betters the lives of our students, supports our faculty in pushing the boundaries of knowledge and innovation further, and strengthens the bonds that interconnect Wayne State and our community. To learn more about Wayne State University’s prosperity agenda, visit president.wayne.edu/prosperity-agenda.

---

Journal

Scientific Reports

DOI

10.1038/s41598-024-73756-3 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Air pollution exposure and head and neck cancer incidence

Article Publication Date

12-Nov-2024

SAY NO AB PENSION!

Former Canadian prime minister Harper eyed as Alberta pension chairman

By Paula Sambo, Layan Odeh and Dawn LimNovember 12, 2024 at 3:00PM EST

(Bloomberg) -- Alberta’s government has considered hiring former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to oversee its public pension fund manager, which is without a permanent board after all of its directors were fired last week, according to people familiar with the matter.

Harper’s name has been circulating as a potential chair for Alberta Investment Management Corp. for a number of months, the people said, asking not to be named discussing private matters.

The role would give Harper influence to reshape an organization managing some C$169 billion ($121 billion) of public pension and other government money and with offices from Edmonton to London and New York. The former Conservative politician governed Canada from 2006 to 2015 and lives in the western province.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government is seeking major changes at Aimco and sacked Chief Executive Officer Evan Siddall and the board last week, saying the firm’s headcount and costs have swelled even as it managed a smaller portion of funds with its own staff. Aimco has more than 200 investment professionals and more than 600 employees in total, according to publicly available information.

Finance Minister Nate Horner is temporarily acting as Aimco’s chairman and sole director, and long-serving bureaucrat Ray Gilmour is interim CEO of the firm, which invests for dozens of pensions and government accounts, including the province’s sovereign wealth fund.

“Alberta’s government will be announcing the new chair of Aimco within the next couple weeks,” Ashley Stevenson, a government spokesperson, said in an emailed statement without commenting further.

Harper now runs Harper & Associates, which provides advice to businesses in the financial services, technology and energy sectors. The firm touts access to Harper’s global network and his experience as a former Group of Seven leader, according to his website. His office did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

Aimco has been through several significant changes in recent years. The firm began a leadership overhaul after a bad bet against market volatility cost it C$2.1 billion when the pandemic roiled markets in 2020. The changes included appointing former BlackRock Inc. executive Mark Wiseman as chair later that year.

Wiseman then led the recruitment of new leadership, including Siddall as CEO. Wiseman stepped down at Aimco at the end of 2023. Chief Investment Officer Marlene Puffer left in September after less than two years in the job.

Under Siddall’s watch, Aimco’s investment team beat its benchmark in the three-year period ended Dec. 31, with its balanced fund returning 6.2% annualized, according to its annual report. The firm outperformed its benchmark in 2021 and 2022 but underperformed last year.

Aimco’s balanced fund earned a 5.6% net return in the first six months of this year.

Harper was first elected to Canada’s House of Commons in 1993, then later left politics to run a conservative organization before returning to seek the leadership of the Canadian Alliance party. That group later merged with another right-leaning party, and Harper ultimately led the Conservative Party of Canada to three straight election victories.

Siddall said on LinkedIn that he is “tying up loose ends, smelling wildflowers, reading, writing, playing guitar (badly), restoring my health and focusing on Sonia, our family and friends.” Siddall is married to Sonia Verma, a prominent Canadian journalist.

Nuclear energy will play a vital role in Europe’s clean energy mix

Nuclear energy can reduce the need for costly power grid expansions and energy storage

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

 

image: 

• Europe isn't the only place in the world that is considering investments in nuclear energy. The photo shows a US Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector at the Vogtle Unit 4 plant on the Savannah River in Georgia, as it generated just enough electricity to connect to the grid for the first time. Vogtle Unit 4 came on line in late April 2024. The four units are now the single largest source of nuclear energy in the United States. Photo: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CC By 2.0

 

view more 

Credit: Photo: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CC By 2.0

We are now witnessing an energy revolution. We live in an age of electrification amid a climate crisis that demands clean energy solutions. Nuclear energy, an energy source that has faced skepticism for decades, might be key in solving this issue in conjunction with renewable energy sources.

The growing interest in nuclear energy signals a clear shift in the energy sector.

For instance, Microsoft is exploring a deal to reopen Unit 1 at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant at a price of around $100 per megawatt-hour for its electricity. While this price is higher than the levelized costs of solar and wind, it underscores the growing value of stable, year-round power.

This follows a trend among tech giants entering the nuclear energy space, driven by the desire for stable, emission-free power year-round.

A bigger role than previously anticipated

In a recent study of the European Power system to 2050, researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) found that even costly nuclear energy can lead to a more affordable energy system overall. Most importantly, nuclear energy can reduce the need for costly power grid expansions and energy storage.

Moreover, it would lower environmental impacts, by reducing the amount of land needed for wind farms and solar energy farms, and can reduce air pollution. At the same time, nuclear energy can increase the value of renewable energy sources like solar and wind.

With more nuclear energy in the system, wind and solar resources are better utilized, reducing the share of renewable energy lost through curtailment. Moreover, solar power reaps higher returns on its electricity. Essentially, nuclear energy increases the value of installed renewables.

Toward the cheapest energy mix

Based on projected energy demand for achieving net-zero emissions through electrification, the NTNU researchers identified the optimal mix of technologies to minimize energy costs through 2050. They found that it didn't matter if Europe successfully builds cheap, standardized nuclear energy, or if Europe continues on a path of sluggish nuclear power plant construction because in both scenarios, nuclear energy will grow and play a crucial role in the green transition.

"A consumption pattern that requires increasing amounts of stable power will make nuclear energy more valuable as a part of the energy mix," the researchers said.

Standard reactor designs can reduce costs

Affordable nuclear energy means Europe succeeds with the kind of development seen in Abu Dhabi (Barakah).

Costs were minimized by selecting a standard reactor design before construction to prevent cost and schedule overruns. Additionally, building multiple reactors at the same site further reduced costs by leveraging significant learning gains between the first and fourth unit

If Europe could learn to deploy nuclear in this way, nuclear energy can continue to be the largest single source of zero-emission energy in Europe for years to come.

Learn from earlier mistakes

"Expensive nuclear energy will result if society fails to learn from recent projects like the Olkiluoto 3 project in Finland, which took 18 years to construct and bring on line," said Martin Hjelmeland, a  postdoctoral fellow in NTNU's Department of Electric Energy and first author of the study. "It also cost significantly more than anticipated."

In this first-of-a-kind project, only half of the design was completed before construction began, as well as regulatory intervention during construction that contributed to cost and time overruns. In the conservative scenario, where Europe does not manage to achieve the typical 6 to 8 years construction time, large volumes of nuclear energy will be outcompeted by onshore wind power, Hjelmeland said. However, nuclear energy will still maintain a prominent role in Europe’s energy landscape.

"Our research also shows that nuclear energy could even become relevant in hydropower-abundant countries like Norway," said Jonas Kristiansen Nøland, an associate professor in NTNU's Department of Electric Energy and a co-author of the paper. "This will depend on several uncertain factors. Cost levels will be critical, but it also hinges on the extent of onshore wind development and the need for stable power driven by the electrification of heavy industry or the establishment of energy-intensive data centers for artificial intelligence."

Europe faces significant energy challenges, and nuclear energy may play an important role in solving many of these issues, the researchers say. For this to happen, Europe must reconsider its approach to nuclear energy, learn from past mistakes, and adopt a balanced energy policy that treats nuclear energy on par with other low-carbon energy sources. By doing so, we can ensure we have the tools necessary to tackle the challenges that lie ahead effectively.

Reference: Martin Hjelmeland, Jonas Kristiansen Nøland, Stian Backe, Magnus Korpås. The role of nuclear energy and baseload demand in capacity expansion planning for low-carbon power systems, Applied Energy, Vol. 377, Part A, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124366.

  

The Barakah nuclear power plant in the United Arab Emirates, under construction in 2017. Photo: Wikiemirati. CC BY-SA 4.0

Journal

Applied Energy

DOI

10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124366 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Article Title

The role of nuclear energy and baseload demand in capacity expansion planning for low-carbon power systems

The Future of Nuclear Power is Wrought with Challenges

By Gail Tverberg - Nov 12, 2024

The world is facing a growing shortage of uranium, the essential fuel for nuclear power plants.

The US is heavily reliant on Russia and its allies for enriched uranium, creating geopolitical risks.

Recycling spent nuclear fuel is expensive, complex, and faces significant environmental and security challenges.


It is easy to get the impression that proposed new modular nuclear generating units will solve the problems of nuclear generation. Perhaps they will allow more nuclear electricity to be generated at a low cost and with much less of a problem with spent fuel.

As I analyze the situation, however, the problems associated with nuclear electricity generation are more complex and immediate than most people perceive. My analysis shows that the world is already dealing with “not enough uranium from mines to go around.” In particular, US production of uranium “peaked”about 1980 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Chart prepared by the US Energy Information Administration showing US production of uranium oxide.

For many years, the US was able to down-blend nuclear warheads (both purchased from Russia and from its own supply) to get around its uranium supply deficit.Figure 2. Chart from ArmsControl.org showing estimated global nuclear warhead inventories, 1945 to 2023.

Today, the inventory of nuclear warheads has dropped quite low. There are few warheads available for down-blending. This is creating a limit on uranium supply that is only now starting to hit.

Nuclear warheads, besides providing uranium in general, are important for the fact that they provide a concentrated source of uranium-235, which is the isotope of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. With the warhead supply depleting, the US has a second huge problem: developing a way to produce nuclear fuel, probably mostly from spent fuel, with the desired high concentration of uranium-235. Today, Russia is the primary supplier of enriched uranium.

The plan of the US is to use government research grants to kickstart work on new small modular nuclear reactors that will be more efficient than current nuclear plants. These reactors will use a new fuel with a higher concentration of uranium-235 than is available today, except through purchase from Russia. Grants are also being given to start work on US production of the more highly enriched uranium fuel within the US. It is hoped that most of this highly enriched uranium can come from recycling spent nuclear fuel, thus helping to solve the problem of what to do with the supply of spent fuel.

My analysis indicates that while advanced modular nuclear reactors might theoretically be helpful for the very long term, they cannot fix the problems of the US, and other countries in the West, nearly quickly enough. I expect that the Trump administration, which will start in January 2025, will see this program as a boondoggle.
[1] Current problems with nuclear electricity generation are surprisingly hidden. World electricity generation from nuclear has been close to flat since 2004.Figure 3. World Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

Although there was a dip in world generation of nuclear electricity after the tsunami that affected nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, otherwise world production of nuclear electricity has been nearly flat since 2004 (Figure 3).Figure 4. US Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

US nuclear electricity production (Figure 4) shows a similar pattern, except that production since 2021 is down.
[2] The total amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants is limited by the amount of uranium fuel available to them.

I believe that a major reason why the electricity supply from nuclear has been quite flat since 2004 is because total nuclear electricity generation is limited by the quantity of uranium fuel that is available for the nuclear reactors that have been built.


The price of uranium can perhaps rise, but this doesn’t necessarily add much (or any) supply very quickly. It takes several years to develop a new uranium mine.

In theory, reprocessing of spent fuel to produce uranium and plutonium is also possible, but the amount of that has been performed to date is small. (See Section [6].)
[3] The World Nuclear Association (WNA) published Figure 5 that hints at the world’s uranium supply problem:Figure 5. World uranium production and reactor requirements (metric tons of uranium) in a chart by the World Nuclear Association.

The black line showing “reactor requirements” (Figure 5) is in some sense comparable to world generation of nuclear electricity (Figure 3). Both figures show fairly flat lines since about 2004. This relationship hints that there has not been a significant improvement in the efficiency of electricity generation using uranium fuel in the past 20 years.

Figure 5 shows a huge gap between the production of uranium from the various countries and “reactor requirements.” The single largest source of additional supply has been down-blended uranium from nuclear bombs. The EIA reports that the US purchased a large number of nuclear warheads from Russia between 1995 and 2013 for this purpose under the Megatons to Megawatts program. The EIA also reports that for the period 2013 to 2022, a purchase agreement was put in place allowing the US to purchase commercial origin low-enriched uranium from Russia to replace some of down-blended nuclear warhead material. In addition, the US had some of its own nuclear warheads that it could blend down. It was the availability of uranium supply from these various sources that allowed US nuclear electricity generation to remain relatively flat in the 2004 to 2023 period, as shown on Figure 4.

The US’s own uranium extraction reached a peak about 1980 and is now close to zero (Figure 1). The world’s supply of warheads is now over 85% depleted, leaving very little stored-away, highly enriched uranium to blend down (Figure 2)


A hidden problem is the fact that uranium production available today is largely from Russia and its close affiliates. The data underlying Figure 5 shows that uranium production in 2022 is dominated by close allies of Russia (55% of the total coming from Kazakhstan (43% of total), Uzbekistan (7% of total), and Russia (5% of total)). The US (at almost 0%), plus production of its close affiliates, Canada and Australia, provided only 24% of world uranium. This imbalance between Russia and its affiliates, and the US and its affiliates, should be of concern.
[4] The current conflict between the US and Russia adds to nuclear problems.

The US is trying to impose sanctions on Russia. The EIA reports:

“The origin of uranium used in U.S. reactors will likely change in the coming years. In May [2024], the United States banned imports of uranium products from Russia beginning in August [2024], although companies may apply for waivers through January 1, 2028.”

This seems to imply that a transition away from Russian uranium dependence must be made in only a little over three years. This is a short time frame, given the difficulty in making such a transition.

EIA data show that in the year 2023, the US sourced only 4.6% of uranium supplies from the US. (This could be partly or mostly down-blended nuclear warheads). Material purchased from Russia comprised 11.7% of uranium. Kazakhstan provided 20.6% of uranium purchased, and Uzbekistan provided 9.5%. Among US allies, Canada provided 14.9%, and Australia 9.2%.
[5] The WNA does not hint at any uranium supply problems.


The WNA is an advocate for nuclear energy; it cannot suggest that there is any problem with uranium supplies. WNA has the opinion that if there is a shortage of uranium, prices will rise, and more will become available. But even if prices rise, it takes several years to bring new mines into operation. Prices need to stay high, or companies will not pursue what appear to be opportunities.Figure 6. Historical uranium prices in chart by Trading Economics.

Readers of OurFiniteWorld.com have seen that oil prices tend to spike and collapse. They don’t stay high for very long because if prices stay high, the end products made with oil tend to become unaffordable. I expect a similar problem occurs with uranium.

The necessary price threshold for high uranium extraction that is mentioned by the WNA is $130/kg in 2021. By coincidence, when a translation is made to dollars per pound using 2024$, this corresponds quite closely to the current price line on Figure 6. Indeed, prices do sometimes bounce high. The problem is getting them to stay as high as the dotted line for long enough to support the multi-decade life of a mine. Economists were forecasting a price of $300 per barrel oil a few years ago, but they have been disappointed. The price is under $75 per barrel now.

The country with the most potentially recoverable uranium is Australia. It produced only 9% of the world’s uranium in 2022, but is reported to have 28% of the world’s remaining reserve. Consistently higher prices would be needed for Australia to start opening new mines.

It is also possible that more uranium supply might become available if improved extraction techniques are developed.


The world seems to be past peak crude oil. By itself, the peak oil issue could limit new uranium extraction and transport.
[6] Recycling of spent fuel to recover usable uranium and plutonium has been accomplished only to a limited extent. Experience to date suggests that recycling has many issues.

It is possible to make an estimate of the amount of recycling of spent fuel that is currently being performed. Figure 3 in Section [1] shows about 65,000 metric tons of uranium are required to meet the demands of existing nuclear power generation, and that as of 2022, there was about an annual shortfall in supply of about 26%. Based on what information I have been able to gather, existing recycling of uranium and plutonium amounts to perhaps 6% of the overall fuel requirement. Thus, as of 2022, today’s recycling of spent fuel could perhaps shave this shortfall in uranium supply to “only” 20% of annual nuclear fuel requirements. There is some recycling of spent fuel, but it is small in relation to the amount needed.

There seem to be several issues with building units to recover uranium from spent fuel:Higher cost than simply mining more uranium
Pollution problems from the recycling plants
Potential for use of the output to make nuclear warheads
Potential for nuclear accidents within the plants
Remaining radioactivity at the site at the end of the reprocessing plant’s life, and thus the need to decommission such plants
Potential for many protestors disrupting construction and operation because of issues (2), (3), (4), and (5)

The US outlawed recycling of spent fuel in 1977, after a few not-very-successful attempts. Once the purchase of Russian warheads was arranged, down-blending of warheads was a much less expensive approach than reprocessing spent fuel. Physics Today recently reported the following regarding US reprocessing:

“A plant in West Valley, New York, reprocessed spent fuel for six years before closing in 1972. Looking to expand the plant, the owners balked at the costs required for upgrades needed to meet new regulatory standards. Construction of a reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, was halted in 1977 following the Carter administration’s ban.”

Japan has been trying to build a commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant at Rokkasho since 1993, but it has had huge problems with cost overruns and protests by many groups. The latest estimate of when the plant will actually be completed is fiscal year 2026 or 2027. The plant would process 800 metric tons of fuel per year.

The largest commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant in operation is in La Hague, France. It has been in place long enough (since 1966) that it has run into the issue of decommissioning an old unit, which was started as a French military project. The first processing unit was shut down in 2003. The International Atomic Energy Administration says, “The UP2-400 decommissioning project began some 20 years ago and may be expected to continue for several more years.” It talks about the huge cost and number of people involved. It says, “Decommissioning activities represent roughly 20 per cent of the overall activity and socio-economic impact of the La Hague site, which also hosts two operating spent fuel recycling plants.”

The cost of the La Hague reprocessing units is probably not fully known. They were built by government agencies. They have gone through various owners including AREVA. AREVA has had huge financial problems. The successor company is Orano. The currently operating units have the capacity to process about 1,700 metric tons of fuel per year. The 1700 metric tons of reprocessing of spent fuel from La Hague is reported to be nearly half of the world’s operating capacity for recycling spent fuel.

I understand that Russia is working on approaches that quite possibly are not included in my figures. If so, this may add to world uranium supply, but Russia is not likely to want to share the benefits with the West if there is not enough to go around.
[7] The concentration of the isotope uranium-235 is very important in making fuel for the proposed new modular nuclear reactors.

Uranium-235 makes up 0.72% of natural uranium. Wikipedia says, “Unlike the predominant isotope uranium-238, it [uranium-235] is fissile, i. e., it can sustain a nuclear reaction.” In most reactors used today, the concentration of uranium-235 is 3% to 5%.

According to CNN, the plan in building advanced modular small reactors is to use fuel with a 5% to 20% concentration of uranium-235. Fuel at this concentration is called high assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. The expectation is that power plants with this type of fuel will be more efficient to operate.

Producing higher concentrations of uranium-235 tends to be problematic unless nuclear weapons are available for down-blending; warheads use high concentrations of uranium-235. Now, with reduced availability of nuclear warheads for down-blending, other sources are needed in addition. CNN reports that the only commercial source of HALEU is Russia. The EIA reports that the Inflation Reduction Act invested $700 million to support the development of a domestic supply chain for HALEU.
[8] The US is trying to implement many new ideas at one time with virtually no successful working models to smooth the transition.

Strangely enough, the US has no working model of a small-scale nuclear reactor, even one operating on conventional fuel. A CNBC article from September 2024 says, Small nuclear reactors could power the world, the challenge is building the first one in the US.

The new small-scale nuclear projects we do have are still at a very preliminary stage. In June 2024, Bill Gates wrote, “We just broke ground on America’s first next-gen nuclear facility. Kemmerer, Wyoming will soon be home to the most advanced nuclear facility in the world.” The plan is for it is to become operational by 2030, if it has access to HALEU fuel.

With respect to how far along the ability to make HALEU from spent fuel is, an October 2024 article in Interesting Engineering says, “US approves new facility design concept to turn nuclear waste into reactor fuel:”

“The facility whose conceptual design has been approved will be located at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It will help turn used material recovered from DOE’s former Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II reactor) into usable fuel for its advanced nuclear power plant. . . The plan is to recover approximately 10 metric tons of HALEU from EBR-II fuel by December 2028 using an electrochemical process that was perfected over the years at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).”

Assuming this can be done, it will be a step forward, but it is nowhere near being an at-scale, commercial project that can be done economically by other companies. The volume of 10 metric tons is tiny.

Starting at this level, it is difficult to see how reactors with the new technology and the HALEU fuel to feed them can possibly be available in quantity before 2050.
[9] It is difficult to see how the cost of electricity generated using the new advanced modular nuclear reactors and the new HALEU fuel, created by reprocessing spent fuel, could be low.

As far as I can see, the main argument that these new modular electricity generation plants will be affordable is that they will only generate a relatively small amount of electricity at once —about 300 megawatts or less, or about one third of the average of conventional nuclear reactors in the US. Because of the smaller electricity output, the hope is that they will be affordable by more buyers, such as utility companies.

The issue that is often overlooked by economists is that electricity generated using these new techniques needs to be low cost, per kilowatt-hour, to be helpful. High-cost electricity is not affordable. Keeping costs down when many new approaches are being tried for the first time is likely to be a huge hurdle. I look through the long list of problems encountered in recycling spent fuel mentioned in Section [6] and wonder whether these issues can be inexpensively worked around. There are also issues with adopting and installing the proposed new advanced modular reactors, such as security, that I have not even tried to address.

The hope is that somehow, the whole process of building the advanced modular nuclear reactors and creating the HALEU fuel can be standardized and can be organized in such a way that economies of scale will set in. It seems to me that reaching this goal will be difficult. In theory, perhaps such a goal can be reached in 2060 or 2070, but this is not nearly soon enough, given the world’s current shortage of uranium from mines.
[10] The Trump administration will likely drop or substantially change the current program for advanced modular nuclear reactors.

The US plan that is discussed in this post has been developed under the Biden administration. This group was voted out of power on November 5. The Democratic administration will be replaced by a new Republican administration, headed by Donald Trump, on January 20, 2025.

I would not be surprised if the advanced modular nuclear generation plan disappears, almost as quickly as the currently subsidized offshore wind program, which Trump has vowed to end. The two programs have many things in common: Both programs provide an excuse for more US debt; they provide many jobs for researchers; and the devices that they relate to can be purchased in fairly small increments. But the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity is likely to be high with either program. In some sense, as they are currently envisioned, they will not efficient ways to produce electricity. A major problem is the lack of fuel for the new modular reactors, and the slow ramp-up time to obtain this fuel.

I expect that under Trump, the sanction against purchasing HALEU from Russia might be replaced with a tariff. That way the US could have the benefit of HALEU, purchased from Russia, but at a higher price. This would allow research to continue, if desired.
[11] If solutions cannot be found, electricity generation from nuclear is likely to gradually disappear.

Over time, the world’s self-organizing economy tends to eliminate its more inefficient parts. When I look at the past experience with nuclear, what I see seems to be another example of the self-organizing economy squeezing out the inefficient parts of the economy (Figure 8):Figure 7. Nuclear electricity generation by part of the world, based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.

In this chart, “Advanced Economies, ex US” are defined as members of the Organization for Economic Development (OECD), excluding the US. “Later Entrants” are non-OECD members, excluding Russia and Ukraine. They include China, India, Indonesia, and many other lower-income countries. Many of these countries are in East Asia.

What I see is that the relatively “flat” overall nuclear electricity production has been accomplished, to a significant extent, by the “Advanced Economies, ex US” dropping back in their use of nuclear electricity at close to the same time the “Later Entrants” have rapidly been increasing their use of nuclear electricity. The Later Entrants can make goods for sale in international markets much more cheaply than the Advanced Economies, ex US through their efficient use of cheap energy (often from coal) and their lower wages. This more efficient approach gives the Later Entrants an “edge” in buying the uranium that is available.

I expect to see more of this pattern of squeezing out in the future. In fact, new and recently re-opened nuclear plants will need to compete existing nuclear generation units for available uranium.

Given the way squeezing out takes place, very few people will realize that there is a problem with uranium fuel. It will just be that leaders of some parts of the world, as well as some parts of the US, will start emphasizing stories about how dangerous nuclear energy is. Instead of nuclear, they will emphasize electricity generation from wind and solar and allow these approaches to “go first” when they are available. The result will be wholesale electricity prices that will be far too low for nuclear power plants, much of the time. It will be these low wholesale electricity prices that push nuclear power out.

Thus, unless there truly are breakthroughs in recycling spent fuels, or in uranium mining, electricity generation using nuclear energy may gradually slip away from many parts of the world currently using it.

By Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World

Canadian Oil Stands To Profit From Trump's Energy Agenda

By Irina Slav - Nov 12, 2024

Canada is the biggest foreign supplier of crude oil to U.S. refiners.

Canada’s energy exports to the United States were worth close to $160 billion—most of that in the form of crude oil, refined products, and natural gas.

Trump is unlikely to point the tariff weapon north.

Donald Trump’s victory in last week’s elections has worried many people. The reason they are worried is the word tariffs. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on every country he sees as having an unfair trade advantage over the United States. One country is lucky, however. That county really does have an advantage—and tariffs will not erase this advantage.

Canada is the biggest foreign supplier of crude oil to U.S. refiners. Canadian supply is especially vital in heavy crude, which U.S. oil companies do not produce anywhere near the necessary volumes for refineries along the Gulf Coast. American crude is light and sweet. A lot of Canadian crude is heavy and sour. And U.S. refiners need both—at low prices.

“We import a lot of energy from Canada. I can’t imagine that the president would want to tax that because all it would do would be to raise our costs and not help anything with more American jobs,” former Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross told CBC this week, “So I think it’s easy to have the fears be overblown.”

Indeed, per Bloomberg, Canada’s energy exports to the United States were worth close to $160 billion—most of that in the form of crude oil, refined products, and natural gas. A year later, crude oil exports alone hit a record of some 4 million barrels daily. Of those, 97% went to the U.S., the Canada Energy Regulator reported in August. All that because the U.S. may be the biggest producer of crude oil but it does not produce the full variety of grades that its refineries need in order to churn out petroleum products.

It is a symbiotic relationship, really. Canada has all this heavy crude and a neighbor that needs all the heavy crude it can get its hands on, especially after it sanctioned the other two big heavy crude producers: Venezuela and Russia. The United States has all these refineries configured to work with light and heavy crude, and a neighbor with some of the biggest oil sands reserves in the world. That neighbor has been eager to diversify its export outlets, but it mainly has increased shipments south of the border.

Spring 2024 in Canada marked a historic moment. The Trans Mountain pipeline put into operation its expanded capacity of close to 900,000 barrels daily. That’s up from just 300,000 bpd, meaning the Trans Mountain can now carry three times what it could carry previously. Numerous attempts were made to cancel the project, but in the end, demand for energy won and TXM was completed—and thanks to that, Canadian oil exports to the United States broke their record this year, hitting 4.3 million barrels daily in July, per U.S. Energy Information Administration data.

U.S. refiners need Canadian crude and have nothing to replace it with, not in the necessary volumes. Even if some future U.S. administration decides to lift all sanctions from Venezuela and Russia, Canadian heavy crude will likely remain the cheapest, most convenient sort of heavy crude for U.S. refiners. Unless that is, the Trudeau government pushes its draconian emissions cap through and makes local crude oil production a lot more expensive.

Until this happens, however, Trump is unlikely to point the tariff weapon north. Tariffs only work from a position of power. They don’t really work in a symbiotic relationship where the partners need each other equally.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Norway Moves to Take Control Over Natural Gas Export Network

By Charles Kennedy - Nov 12, 2024





The Norwegian government has agreed to buy from private companies the majority of the natural gas export network of Western Europe’s biggest oil and gas producer, the Energy Ministry said on Tuesday.

The government laid out plans in 2023 to take full ownership of the gas export network, which it considers an asset of national interest and importance.

The government launched talks last year with the private companies that hold interests in the three joint ventures operating the export network, Gassled, Nyhamna, and Polarled. Norway has sought to take full state ownership over the network before many concessions expire in 2028.

The government has now reached purchase agreements with seven companies to buy their interests in key parts of the infrastructure, for a combined $1.64 billion (18.1 billion Norwegian crowns).

The purchase is considered to be value-neutral for the state of Norway, the energy ministry said.

The government has reached agreements with Equinor, Shell, CapeOmega, Hav Energy, Silex Gas Norway, Orlen, and ConocoPhillips to buy their stakes in the Gassled, Nyhamna, and Polarled joint ventures.

However, agreements have not been reached with all owners in the system. North Sea Gas Infrastructure AS and M Vest Energy AS did not accept the state’s offer for their interests in Nyhamna and Polarled, respectively.

But Norway aims to have full ownership in Nyhamna JV and Polarled JV, too.

“The State aims to take over the remaining interests in these two joint ventures when the license periods expire or through an agreement prior to this,” the Energy Ministry said.

The government’s rationale for the takeover is that “Ensuring low tariffs, right capacity, and high regularity in the gas infrastructure best facilitates good resource management and high-value creation from the petroleum resources on the Norwegian continental shelf.”

Norway is now Europe’s single largest natural gas supplier after Russian deliveries collapsed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com