Madam, - David McGuinness (July 23rd) makes a very valid point about factoring in the increase in demand for uranium in the event that every coal/oil/gas-powered generating station were to be converted to nuclear use.
This would increase the demand for uranium five-fold and that possibility leads to an interesting economic question about whether natural resources are "Malthusian" (ie, they can run out), or "Ricardian" (ie, they are always available if the price is right).
Uranium is a nuclear fuel, not a chemical one requiring oxygen, so much smaller amounts are needed. Fortunately it is also a very common element, making up about 4 grammes per tonne of typical granite rock. Unlike petroleum or coal, it is found in all countries and in many geological formations. The total tonnage depends on what cut-off grade you wish to apply, which in turn depends on the price.
It seems to me that the more ubiquitous uranium is a Ricardian resource and if demand increases the price will rise and lower grade deposits can be exploited, so "peak uranium" will not occur.
Mr McGuinness is rightly concerned about my cavalier suggestion that one-third of Sweden be dug up. Lest I be banned from visiting that lovely country, I should add that the alum shales, containing about 200 grammes of uranium per tonne, are only eight to 20 metres thick They have been studied intensively by the Swedish Geological Survey and one particularly rich zone at Billingen was reckoned to contain about 1 million tonnes of uranium.
Regarding "ruinous mining", strip-mining of lignite (low-grade coal) is particularly destructive. By comparison, uranium mines are no different to any open-cast or underground metal mine and can be large or small. Natural - ie, unenriched - uranium is, surprisingly, not very radioactive but the more dangerous radon gas - which, incidentally, is released in any earthmoving operation - can be monitored by health and safety professionals. - Yours, etc,
GEORGE REYNOLDS,
Consulting Geophysicist,
Annamoe,
Co Wicklow.