Talk:Uranium depletion

Uranium supply
The uranium market has been characterized by a large disparity between global reactor requirements and mine production Kgrr (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reserves / Production ratio
If the proven reserves remaining at the end of any year are divided by the production (consumption) in that year, the result is the time that those remaining reserves would last if production were to continue at the then-current level. Like the fossil fuels, uranium is also one of the depletable natural resources. If uranium is only used in a once-through cycle where it is burned in a reactor only once and disposed as a waste thereafter, confirmed reserves are destined to be depleted in the next 60 years. Kgrr (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Reserves / Production ratios are often used to mislead the public into thinking we have much more of a resource than we actually do because the rate of production goes down over the life of oil fields.Kgrr (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all uranium has been discovered. In fact, known reserves are rising faster than they are consumed. Dividing the reserves by consumption is what's misleading. --Tweenk (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

POV fork
This is a POV fork of Peak uranium. --JWB (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More of an anti-POV fork, without the assumption that 'peak uranium' is a live issue.
 * —WWoods (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At the least a lot of text is duplicated. Both are somewhat redundant with Uranium market too.--JWB (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Uranium depletion
"Many countries are not able to supply their own uranium demands anymore. Eleven countries have already exhausted their uranium resources: Germany, the Czech Republic, France, DR Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal" it's not true from what concerns to Portugal. Portugal only has one nuclear reactor and it's for research proposes and it doesn't use uranium. And the uranium mine was closed due to company policies and government lobbing. when it ended it still had many uranium to be explored. nowadays it's discussed if the mine should reopen. most of the uranium would be to export to Spain. therefore I removed Portugal because it's simply false. 1-Portugal is able to supply their own uranium demand (which is zero anyway). 2-the uranium resources are not exhausted.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.140.41.17 (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
View: Manual of Style (lead section)

Revision as of 20:22, 15 January 2011

"Uranium depletion is the result of extracting and consuming uranium, a nonrenewable natural resource. However, uranium resources may never be fully depleted as the economically-recoverable reserves (including those in seawater) may be effectively inexhaustible."

'''The large-scale economic viability of these tests for recoverable reserves or bioremediation have not been proven, therefore it is speculation. The uranium element may be reclaimed, although the energy contained can only be extracted once and is not by any means inexhaustible.'''

The comparison of revisions is clear, the 13th of June 2009 is a comprehensive overview and introduction, with citation.

Reverted to 23:24, 13 June 2009

"Uranium depletion is the result of extracting and consuming uranium, a non-renewable resource. The availability of high-grade uranium ore will deplete over time making the fuel more environmentally and economically expensive to extract."

Reference: Uranium not a magic bullet, says new study. from Mines and Communities. Published 2008-04-27. Retrieved 2008-05-13.

Reference: Supply of Uranium - Depletion and sustainability form World Nuclear Association. "The exhaustion of mineral resources during mining is real. Resource economists do not deny the fact of depletion, nor its long-term impact - that in the absence of other factors, depletion will tend to drive commodity prices up."

— RW Marloe (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
There's a longstanding (by Wikipedia standards) merge proposal with Peak uranium that seems to have never made it onto the talk page here. I'm not sure who initially proposed it, but I'll pick up the torch. Both pages seem to be referring to the same concept. I don't claim the expertise or familiarity necessary for me to label one or another POV, although my gut tells me "Uranium depletion" is more neutral. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm all for the merger, but I think it should be done under Peak uranium. Peak oil is a commonly used neutral term, so I don't see why peak uranium isn't also. Uranium depletion also seems more vague. Karmos (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)