U.S. drillers are idling rigs at a record pace

The U.S. rotary rig count from Baker Hughes was down 48 at 1,310 for the week of February 20, 2015. It is 461 rigs (26.0%) lower than last year. The number of rotary rigs drilling for oil was down 37 at 1,019. There are 406 fewer rigs targeting oil than last year. Rigs drilling for oil represent 77.8 percent of all drilling activity.

Three months after Saudi Arabia made clear it was going to let oil prices keep tumbling, the strategy is showing signs of working. U.S. drillers are idling rigs at a record pace, gutting investment plans and laying off thousands of workers.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reduced its 2015 U.S. crude production forecast to 9.3 million barrels a day in February from 9.42 million in November. The EIA projects output will fall in the third quarter for the first time in four years.

Oil has rebounded 14 percent in February, following a drop of more than 50 percent since June, in part because of the decline in drilling, which signaled supply growth will slow. Lower prices also spurred demand from bargain hunters, putting European benchmark Brent crude on track for its first monthly gain since June.

The U.S. rotary rig count from Baker Hughes was down 48 at 1,310 for the week of February 20, 2015.

Fossil fuels still being heavily subsidized

Many people think that renewable energy sources are the ones being heavily subsidized but the latest study published by Worldwatch institute says that global support for fossil fuels have generated estimates that range from $523 billion to over $1.9 trillion, depending on the calculation and what measures are included.

These numbers mean that the level of support for fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has rebounded to 2008 levels following a decrease in 2009-10 when there was major global financial crisis, which as a result also caused significant dip in all kind of investments.

Traditional calculations on how much fossil fuels are subsidized say that they account for two kinds of energy subsidies. Production subsidies lower the cost of energy generation through preferential tax treatments and direct financial transfers (which refers to grants to producers and preferential loans). There are also consumption subsidies that lower the price for energy users, primarily through tax breaks or underpriced government energy services.

It has been said that production subsidies predominate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, while consumption subsidies are favored in developing countries because they are able to reduce the burden on poor households' income, as poor people have to use a greater share of their income to buy fossil fuel products.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) recently estimated that coal, oil, and natural gas consumption subsidies in 38 developing economies were somewhere around $523 billion in 2011. It has to be said though that these IEA figure includes subsidies that bring the price of fossil fuels below the international benchmark and subsidies that lower the price just to the international level or slightly above it are not captured.

There was also a parallel study conducted by the OECD, which focused on support measures for the production and consumption of fossil fuels in its 24 member countries. Their study was much broader as it also included direct budgetary transfers and tax expenditures, and support for fossil fuels in OECD countries alone averaged $55-90 billion per year between 2005 and 2011.

Why so many different studies on the same subject? The answer for this is that the lack of a clear definition of "subsidy" makes it hard to compare the different methods used to value support for fossil fuels, but the varying approaches nevertheless still clearly show global trends. Fossil fuel subsidies declined in 2009 due to financial crisis, increased in 2010, and then in 2011 reached almost the same level as in 2008. The decrease in subsidies was due almost entirely to fluctuations in fuel prices rather than to policy changes as some would believe due to the bigger emphasis on renewable energy development.

If we focus only on developing countries we can see that the total of around $285 billion¬-more than 50 percent of all fossil fuel consumption subsidies went to oil in 2011. Natural gas consumption received significantly less ($104 billion) in support while coal received only $3 billion in direct consumption subsidies in these countries, but there was another $131 billion which went to public underpricing of electricity, much of which is generated from burning coal.

In industrial countries, using the broader definition of consumption subsidies, the support for oil was valued at roughly $38 billion in 2011. Natural gas support in these countries totaled around $10 billion while coal was supported the least in industrial countries, receiving only $7 billion in subsidies.

Support for renewable energy sources is still small in comparison to fossil fuels subsidies-$88 billion in 2011, compared with the support for fossil fuels estimated by the IEA and OECD. The support is however constantly growing and has grew by 33 percent in 2011, more than the 28 percent increase for fossil fuel subsidies. Of the $88 billion support for renewable energy sources, two-thirds went toward the electricity and the remaining third to biofuels.

Some factors have not been included into the calculation of subsidies, such as the additional costs associated with increased resource scarcity, the environment, and human health, all of which are significant. Without factoring in these factors, renewable subsidies' cost between 1.7¢ and 15¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh), higher than the estimated 0.1-0.7¢ per kWh for fossil fuels. If these factors were included, estimates indicate that fossil fuels would cost 23.8¢ more per kWh, while renewable energy sources would cost around 0.5¢ more per kWh.

From an amount of carbon emissions, 15 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions receive $110 per ton in support, while only 8 percent are subject to a carbon price, effectively nullifying carbon market contributions as a measure to reduce emissions. It has been also reported that accelerating the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 360 million tons in 2020, which is 12 percent of the emission savings that are needed in order to keep the increase in global temperature to threshold of 2 degrees Celsius.

The renewable energy industry has just started developing and therefore needs subsidies to achieve better cost-competitiveness with currently dominant fossil fuels. Nuclear energy and fossil fuels were given much larger subsidies when being in nascent phase of their development so there really shouldn’t be so much fuss about renewable energy subsidies, particularly when you consider that renewable energy industry is currently one of the fastest job creators in many countries of the world.

Renewable energy does not only create new jobs but also has positive environmental impact and doesn't contribute to climate change impact like fossil fuels do. So why shouldn't then governments from all around the world continue to boost renewable energy with even more money.

In UK for instance, the latest report by the UK's TaxPayers’ Alliance says that renewable energy subsidies will rise from just under £2 billion in 2013 to over £5 billion by 2018/19.

Fossil fuels, energy use, climate change and new technologies

World will still rely on fossil fuels this century - New technologies desperately needed to halt climate change impact

Climate change is seen by many scientists as the biggest environmental threat of our time, the one that could result in not just major environmental, but also major economic and social catastrophe if nothing is done to prevent the further increase in carbon emissions. However, as long as fossil fuels such as coal and oil remain dominant source of global energy consumption the emissions are likely to rise, adding more impact to our climate and putting the lives of our future generation in jeopardy.

There is a group of scientists who believe that the future availability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology will be major factor in reaching ambitious climate targets, and preventing the worst possible climate change scenario.

The brand new comprehensive study of future energy technologies from IIASA, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change, the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum which is published in a special issue of the journal Climatic Change deals with this issue.  The researchers have provided a major research project combining 18 different global energy-economy models from research teams around the world.

What makes this study special is the fact that it examines the role of technology in future climate mitigation, studying different technologies to decide which one will be needed and when in order to reach different climate targets, and prevent.

The reference year for this study was 2010, and in this year fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) supplied more than 80% of the world's total primary energy supply.

It has been estimated that the global demand for energy will likely increase by 2 to 3 times by 2100. The world clearly needs more clean energy if it really wants to mitigate the adverse effect of climate change but this cannot be achieved without the new policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What this means is that without political will and new policies fossil fuels will remain the major energy source in 2100, which will of course result in further increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

So the world desperately needs new policies to tackle climate change. But where should policymakers focus their efforts, which technology should be a primary option and which one holds the most promise to be succesfuly used against climate change?

The researchers believe that there are some technologies are more valuable than others, and as an example they point out that the CCS and bioenergy technologies are not more valuable compared to wind, solar, and nuclear energy, because the combination of the two can lead to negative emissions, which would only would allow us to compensate for short term delays in tackling climate change by later taking carbon out of the atmosphere.

CCS technology, despite getting plenty of talk is is a yet-unproven technology that has the potential to remove carbon from fossil fuel or bioenergy combustion and store it underground. If we combine CCS with bioenergy it results in carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, the term that is frequently referred to as "negative emissions".

The major questions related to CSS technology are still the same, namely whether and when it will become available for practical purposes, and how quickly it could be deployed and with what costs.

The researchers argue that the future availability of bioenergy and CCS technologies would certainly help take some pressure off other sectors, in terms of required mitigation effort. They point out that „unless stringent mitigation action in transport and other end-use sectors is implemented almost immediately, the only way to still achieve the 2 degrees of Celsius target will be to rely on carbon dioxide removal technologies such as the combination of bioenergy with CCS."

Bioenergy is sometimes ignored when talking about the best possible energy solutions to tackle climate change impact but this is in fact an especially valuable energy resource because, unlike other renewable energy sources (solar, wind, and hydropower), it can be converted into liquid and gaseous fuels which are afterwards easily storable and can be readily used by current transportation systems. The other renewable technologies would require electric or hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure in order to power transportation and thus cannot be used by currently dominant transportation system.

The electrification of the transport system would free up limited, and therefore valuable, supplies of biomass across the globe by reducing the need for biofuels. The researchers believe that freeing up of biomass is one of the key system-wide consequences of electrifying transport after which available biomass could be used for various purposes and by various industries, for example, in plastics manufacturing or steel production, which are otherwise very challenging in terms of decarbonization.

The aditional interesting conclusion from this study was that fossil fuels won't disappear by the end of this century. Some scientists have argued that there's an upper limit to how much climate change impact will actually happen by the end of this century simply because the world will run out of available coal, oil, and gas supplies by the year 2100. However, this latest study shows that fossil resource constraints are unlikely to limit greenhouse gas emissions in this century.

Conclusion

It's no doubt that world will stay dependent on fossil fuels for foreseeable future, even despite the massive growth in renewable energy use. What this means is that scientists will have to develop technology that would allow cleaner use of fossil fuels. Renewable energy sector still isn't strong enough to dominate global energy market, and this is the reason why researchers need to make better use of technologies such as CSS.

The right kind of technology has to not only reduce the total amount of harmful greenhouse gas emissions, it also needs to be cost-effective, and there hasn't been that much proposed technological solutions that are both effective as well as economically viable.

On the negative note, climate change isn't exactly leaving us with plenty time to fully develop this technologies meaning that science will have to act rapidly in order to avoid the worst possible climate change scenario, if of course currently dominant climate change predictions are right.

New technological solutions are perhaps are only way to mitigate climate change and make this world safe for our future generations.

Nuclear energy still extremely important to Japan

Fukushima is still fresh in heads of many Japanese but this doesn't mean that nuclear energy has started seriously losing popularity in the Land of the rising sun. Nuclear energy plays extremely important role in delivering electricity and Japan currently has 54 operational nuclear reactors with a total generating capacity of 49 gigawatts. According to the Japan's 2010 plan (that still looks likely to be fulfilled) eight more nuclear reactors should be built by 2020, increasing total generating capacity to around 60 gigawatts. Japan currently gets around quarter of its electricity from nuclear power, and by 2020 third of Japan's electricity should come from nuclear power.

In order to contribute to global fight against climate change Japan plans to reduce carbon emissions by 25% by 2020, and many top state officials still believe that one of the key components that could make all the difference between success and failure in reaching this goal is nuclear power. Nuclear power should also improve Japan’s energy independence and energy security. Japan currently heavily relies on foreign fuel import (import of foreign fuels currently satisfies more than 80% of Japan's total energy needs), and therefore intends to significantly reduce this energy dependence to foreign import (to just 30% by 2030).

While nuclear energy certainly has the potential to not only reduce carbon emissions but also to ensure bigger energy independence, it will be very interesting to see what Japanese public will say about these plans. In the last decade there have been several accidents related to nuclear power which have convinced many Japanese that nuclear power may indeed have some serious safety issues. The year 2007 when a magnitude-6.8 earthquake caused a shutdown of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata after radioactive cooling water leaked into the sea is nothing compared to 2011 Fukushima accident and Japan's nuclear program still may somewhat struggle to get the necessary public support in years to come.

Some of Japan's energy experts even argue that new nuclear power plants cost too much and that they would not be commercially viable, suggesting Japanese government to seek some other clean energy solutions like geothermal and wind energy.

But the Japanese government still doesn’t give up on nuclear power. The government has already begun a review of the safety of 54 nuclear reactors in the country. And in order to further ease the safety concerns government is also planning new nuclear recycling program aimed at solving the nuclear waste disposal issue.

Not only that, last year Japan made energy deal with Kazakhstan, country that holds the world's second-largest uranium reserves and mines about 20% of the world's uranium ore. According to this deal Japan has promised to supply nuclear energy technology to Kazakhstan, and Kazakhstan should in return ensure Japan a stable supply of uranium.

Whether this will be enough to convince Japanese public to accept yet another surge of nuclear power still remains to be seen. 

Greenhouse emissions growing - World not doing enough

Climate change still remains one of the most pressing environmental and social issues and world leaders are yet to do anything meaningful about it. It's sadly all talk and very little action as the latest climate change talks in Warsaw, Poland showed. The disappointing climate conference in Warsaw, Poland ended without laying the groundwork for a global climate agreement in 2015, which was something that was hoped from many environmentalists and scientists from all over the world.

And in the meantime there is the continued growth in emissions of greenhouse gases. Both negotiators and activists confront not only the fact that carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions reached the highest annual total to date, but also a shifting geographic distribution of emissions. The logical conclusion of this would be that the international community should take rapid and decisive action but sadly we do not live in a logical world.

The latest data by the Global Carbon Project shows that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production reached staggering 9.7 gig tons of carbon (GtC) in 2012, with a ±5 percent uncertainty range, and with the currently expected growth they will likely 9.9 GtC in 2013. In comparison, the 2012 value is 58 percent higher than emissions in 1990, the year often used as a benchmark for measuring the increases in emissions.

Coal (attributing with 43 percent) and oil (attributing with 33 percent) accounted for the majority of these emissions, with natural gas (18 percent), cement production (5 percent), and flaring (1 percent) making up the remainder of the total percentage. The good news in the whole story is that both the U.S. government as well as World Bank is making efforts to limit international financing for new coal projects signal a desire to shift away from this particularly carbon-intensive resource and switch to other, cleaner energy sources.

Regardless of these efforts coal still remains a major culprit behind the increase in CO₂ emissions, accounting for 54 percent of the emissions increase in 2012. Coal use is rising in countries currently undergoing energy sector transitions. Coal-related emissions increased in not only developing countries but also in countries such as Germany (4.2 percent) and Japan (5.6 percent)-both of which are phasing out nuclear power plants. Oil, gas, and cement accounted for 18 percent, 21 percent, and 6 percent of the global increase in 2012 respectively.

Although CO₂ is the primary greenhouse gas emitted mostly through human activities, it is not the only one with negative effects on global warming and climate change. There are bunch of other greenhouse gases that cannot be ignored. They include methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The total contribution of each of these gases to climate change depends on such factors as the length of time it remains in the atmosphere, how strongly it absorbs energy, and its atmospheric concentration.

Fossil fuel burning when coupled with deforestation and land use change, has pushed the total atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to approximately 393.9 parts per million (ppm) in 2012, an increase of more than 40 percent since 1750 and of 24 percent since the Scripps Institution of Oceanography began keeping detailed records in 1959.

There seems to be a global scientific consensus that the CO₂ concentration will need to be reduced to at least 350 ppm if we hope to maintain a climate similar to that which has supported human civilization to date and avoid worst possible climate change scenario. Atmospheric CO₂ concentration increased by 2.2 ppm in 2012 alone, exceeding the average annual increase over the past 10 years. The bad news is also that the Scripps Institution's measurements indicate an average of 396.2 ppm for the period of January to September 2013, implying an even greater increase this year, and further negative impact on global warming and climate change.

Although the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed in 2010 that the increase in average global temperature since the pre-industrial period must be kept below 2 degrees Celsius, many scientific projections now put the climate on track for warming that is significantly higher than this set mark. For instance, the Global Carbon Project predicts a likely increase in temperature of 3.2-5.4 degrees Celsius while World Bank in its latest report projects an approximate 20 percent likelihood that our planet will get warmer by about 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 if world continues business as usual scenario and fails to mitigate the increase in carbon emissions.

Emissions data also highlight the shifting geographical and historical complexity that makes international negotiations so contentious. The global distribution of emissions in 2012 is very different than it was in 1990, when the Kyoto Protocol was established as the first meaningful global agreement aimed to reduce carbon emissions. In 1990,  industrial countries accounted for 62 percent of emissions; by 2012, that figure had dropped to 37 percent, reflecting rapid industrialization and development in emerging economies such as china and India and shifting patterns in production and consumption.

And despite the fact that the international climate negotiations have focused traditionally on the role and responsibility of nation states new analyses also points to the significant role of different corporations in emitting greenhouse gases. Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute said in Warsaw that the investor-owned corporations have been responsible for 21.7 percent of CO₂ and CH₄ fossil fuel and cement emissions since 1750, with state-owned corporations responsible for an additional 19.8 percent.

The next stop for climate negotiators, experts, and activists after the Warsaw is Paris in 2015, where there will be yet another hope on forging a global deal to tackle climate change and global warming.

Interesting global greenhouse gas emissions facts from latest reports:

• It has been reported that the methane is now the third most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, after CO₂ and water vapor, on a per molecule basis. Although atmospheric methane levels declined during 1983-99 and remained relatively constant during 1999-2006, they have been increasing since 2007. Methane is 21 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
• China is currently the world's largest CO₂ emitter and its emissions increased by 5.9 percent in 2012, an increase that accounted for 71 percent of that year's global increase. Another major emitter such as United States and Australia, although both still major emitters, experienced reductions of 0.05 percent and 11.6 percent respectively.
• In 2012, the top four emitters of CO₂ on global level were China (2,626 million tons of carbon, or MtC), the United States (1,397 MtC), India (611 MtC), and the Russian Federation (492 MtC). 

Shale gas in Europe – Good as geothermal energy?

Shale gas is natural gas found in shale rock. It has been reported that according to the latest estimates North America has around 1,000 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas which is enough to supply U.S. natural gas needs for almost 50 years. The shale gas has taken United States with the storm and it is no wonder that EU is also considering this option when weighing new options for more diversified energy portfolio.

The possibility of producing shale gas in some European countries has caused very heated debate among several different EU industries. There has been plenty of talk about the environmental and social impacts of the technique used to extract gas from shale rocks used in North America, and widely known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

The differences between shale gas and geothermal industry

There have been several different opinions on this matter with part of the gas industry claiming that fracking for shale gas is comparable to the hydraulic stimulation process used for geothermal exploration and that the granting of geothermal exploration permits whilst those for shale gas are rejected is creating a double standard.

Though there are certain well noticeable similarities between these two it is also important to understand the major differences between the two technologies that set these two aside.

First of all, an Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) is an underground reservoir that has been created or improved artificially.  As many of you already know most of today’s geothermal power plants were constructed in areas with highly permeable rocks and high underground temperatures, with the most widely known example being Iceland. Enhanced Geothermal System, on the other hand, allow us to increase the permeability of rocks, which means we can harness the geothermal resources across much wider areas, even in areas where temperatures aren't as high.

Both EGS and shale gas extraction technologies use stimulation techniques based on the high pressure injection of water in order to extract as much mass flow as possible. The end product however, differs greatly, either heat for geothermal or gas for shale rock. Shale gas is locked in rocks, typically with low permeability in sedimentary basins, in a dispersed form without fluid while geothermal power extraction targets semi-permeable rocks, so the pressure of the required injection is lower.

There are also some notable differences in terms of the fluid used for extracting. EGS does not require any specific additives; the fluid includes water, which only may have certain minerals added so that the water’s composition matches that already existing in the subsurface. The advantage of this technology is therefore in the fact that the artificial reservoir is self-sustaining and does not require further stimulation and so the stimulation fluid does not have to be pumped back up to the surface since it eventually becomes an integral part of the newly created reservoir.

This however isn't the case with shale gas extraction as there is always a need to create new fractures. Not only that, in order to keep the fractures open, additives and sand need to be mixed with the water. Since the mix of these fluids can reduce the production efficiency, they need to be pumped back to the surface. What this means is that this absence of a natural fluid in the underground requires the supply of water from the surface. As a result of this, a large quantity (10.000–20.000 m3/well) is required, which doesn't make this process sustainable.

Public has also been concerned about micro-seismic in relation to hydraulic stimulation and because of this the monitoring protocols have been established by the industry, which means that the geothermal drillers install seismometers and use special purpose software to map the faults and assess the local geology. This protocol enables them to monitor what will happen during the stimulation, which is necessary to create a risk management plan, and to control micro-seismic activity.

The latest study by British scientists also studied the difference between geothermal energy and shale gas production. Fracking rock to get out shale gas is different from geothermal energy as it also has unintended effects that can be critically harmful to our environment.

It has been reported that when rocks are fractured to release natural gas so it can be extracted and used, the gas leaks up through the soil and around the pipes for years after the well has ceased production, and from the pipes during extraction. The problem is that natural gas is largely compounded of methane and the leakage of methane is very bad thing for our climate because methane is between 20 and 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2).

Carbon dioxide and methane are the main greenhouse gases causing global warming. There are various negative impacts connected with global warming and climate change such as sea level rise, floods, droughts, wildfires, ocean acidification.

Conclusion

Geothermal power is one of these safer, alternative energy industries while the same cannot be said for shale gas extraction, especially not in relation to climate change and global warming.

When natural gas is burned, it produces about half as much CO2 as burning coal and about 70% as much as burning diesel, which makes it somewhat positive from the environmental point of view However, one has to include potentially massive warming effect of leaks from the drilling process and also from old pipelines, which could in the end mean that the actual use of natural gas is no better for the climate than coal or oil. Current field studies show that there is leakage into the atmosphere of between 4% and 15% of the natural gas processed and sold.

In this sense, it is difficult to fully support the idea of increased shale gas extraction and development throughout the Europe. Geothermal energy still remains significantly better energy option, because it is both renewable and sustainable source of energy. Currently used shale gas extraction technologies have some major deficiencies that need to be fixed before shale gas can be put in the same sentence with geothermal energy.

Nuclear fuel facts

Uranium is a relatively common element that is found throughout the world. It is mined in a number of countries and must be enriched before it can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor or in nuclear weapons. Uranium enrichment is process of increasing U-235 isotope concentration from uranium ore which contains only 0.711% of U-235.

Nuclear fuels are widely used: nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs and other weapons, medical applications, nuclear submarines and carriers, space probes and robots, research, ...

There are two major types of currently active reactors: Pressurized water reactors (PWR) and Boiling water reactors (BWR). Those reactors need uranium to be enriched from 3.5% to 5%.

As mentioned, uranium is relatively common element and currently confirmed uranium reserves will last at least 200 years at current rates of consumption according to predictions from Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA).

Another element used in nuclear power plants and weapons is plutonium. Plutonium is very rare element and it is found only in trace quantities in nature so there is no plutonium mining. Plutonium is produced as byproduct in PWR and BWR nuclear reactors. A 1000 MWe light water reactor produces up to 25 tonnes of used fuel per year, containing up to 290 kilograms of plutonium. If the plutonium is extracted from used fuel it can be used as a direct substitute for U-235 (mainly P-239).

Thorium is also element which can be used as nuclear fuel, but currently it is not used in mainstream reactors. A thorium fuel cycle offers several advantages: much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced nuclear waste production. However, it suffers from higher production and processing costs, and lacks significant weaponization potential.

Uranium, plutonium and thorium are nuclear fuels for nuclear fission (splitting atoms). For fusion (joining atoms) number of light elements can be used, but currently deuterium-tritium (D-T) reaction has been identified as the most efficient for fusion devices. Deuterium and tritium are hydrogen isotopes (H-2 and H-3).

Typical uranium mine

Fuel removed from a reactor, after it has reached the end of its useful life, can be reprocessed to produce new fuel. Used fuel typically has around 0.9% of unused U-235 isotope and this can be used in CANDU nuclear power plants. CANDU is short for CANada Deuterium Uranium and those reactors can use natural (0.711% U-235) or low enriched uranium as fuel.  CANDU is also known as Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR).

Uranium mining is the process of extraction of uranium ore from the ground. The worldwide production of uranium in 2012 amounted to 58,395 tonnes. Kazakhstan, Canada and Australia are the top three producers and together account for 64% of world uranium production.

According to World Nuclear Association China plans huge expansion in nuclear energy sector. They plan to extend number of nuclear reactors from 17 currently in operation to over 200 reactors in next decades. This new demand for uranium will make huge impact on nuclear fuel markets, possibly increasing electricity price from nuclear power plants.

Little known fact is that space probes Voyager 1, Voyager 2 and some others use nuclear fuel to generate electricity to run instruments. They use plutonium-238 powered batteries in which radioactive decay generates heat needed to generate electricity.  Those batteries are also known as radioisotope thermoelectric generators – RTGs.

The United States stopped producing plutonium-238 in 1988 and since 1993 all of the plutonium-238 used in American spacecraft has been purchased from Russia. Russia is also no longer producing plutonium-238 and their supply is reportedly running low. For new robotic space missions someone will have to restart plutonium-238 production because all other battery types are not even close to replace RTGs.

Used nuclear fuel after all processing is called radioactive/nuclear waste. Radioactive wastes are wastes that contain radioactive material. Radioactive wastes are usually by-products of nuclear power generation and other applications of nuclear fission or nuclear technology, such as research and medicine. Radioactive waste is hazardous to most forms of life and the environment.

Nuclear bombs use high enriched uranium with more than 90% of U-235. After negotiations between Russia and USA part of nuclear arsenal was dismounted and nuclear fuel has been converted to low enriched uranium and made available for nuclear power plants.

First nuclear bomb used in warfare was uranium based bomb called Little Boy. Little Boy was dropped and exploded over Hiroshima, directly killing 90,000 – 166,000 people. Second (and fortunately last) nuclear bomb used in war was plutonium (6.2 kilograms, 14 lb) based bomb called Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki directly killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. Also a lot died in following months.

Some relevant nuclear fuel data:

Uranium production (2012) - table:

	Tonnes	Pounds (x1000)	%
Kazakhstan	21,317	46,996	36.50%
Canada	8,999	19,839	15.41%
Australia	6,991	15,412	11.97%
Niger (est)	4,667	10,289	7.99%
Namibia	4,495	9,910	7.70%
Russia	2,872	6,332	4.92%
Uzbekistan	2,400	5,291	4.11%
USA	1,596	3,519	2.73%
China (est)	1,500	3,307	2.57%
Malawi	1,101	2,427	1.89%
Ukraine (est)	960	2,116	1.64%
South Africa	465	1,025	0.80%
India (est)	385	849	0.66%
Brazil	231	509	0.40%
Czech Republic	228	503	0.39%
Romania (est)	90	198	0.15%
Germany	50	110	0.09%
Pakistan (est)	45	99	0.08%
France	3	7	0.01%
World total:	58,395	128,739	100.00%

Uranium world reserves (2011) - Table:

	Tonnes	Pounds (x1000)	%
Australia	1,661,000	3,661,874	31.18%
Kazakhstan	629,000	1,386,706	11.81%
Russia	487,200	1,074,091	9.15%
Canada	468,700	1,033,305	8.80%
Niger	421,000	928,145	7.90%
South Africa	279,100	615,309	5.24%
Brazil	276,700	610,018	5.19%
Namibia	261,000	575,406	4.90%
USA	207,400	457,238	3.89%
China	166,100	366,187	3.12%
Ukraine	119,600	263,673	2.25%
Uzbekistan	96,200	212,084	1.81%
Mongolia	55,700	122,797	1.05%
Jordan	33,800	74,516	0.63%
Others	164,000	361,558	3.08%
World total:	5,326,500	11,742,908	100.00%

World uranium consumption (2013) - Table:

	Tonnes	Pounds (x1000)	%
USA	19622	43,259	30.16%
France	9320	20,547	14.32%
China	6711	14,795	10.31%
Russia	5090	11,222	7.82%
Korea RO (South)	4218	9,299	6.48%
Ukraine	2352	5,185	3.61%
Germany	1889	4,165	2.90%
United Kingdom	1828	4,030	2.81%
Canada	1764	3,889	2.71%
Sweden	1505	3,318	2.31%
Spain	1357	2,992	2.09%
India	1326	2,923	2.04%
Taiwan	1232	2,716	1.89%
Finland	1127	2,485	1.73%
Belgium	1017	2,242	1.56%
Slovakia	675	1,488	1.04%
Czech Republic	574	1,265	0.88%
Switzerland	521	1,149	0.80%
Japan	366	807	0.56%
Hungary	357	787	0.55%
Brazil	321	708	0.49%
Bulgaria	317	699	0.49%
South Africa	305	672	0.47%
Mexico	270	595	0.41%
Argentina	212	467	0.33%
Romania	177	390	0.27%
Iran	172	379	0.26%
Slovenia	137	302	0.21%
Pakistan	117	258	0.18%
Netherlands	103	227	0.16%
Armenia	86	190	0.13%
World total:	65,068	143,450	100.00%

Uranium enrichment levels and uses:

Quick introduction to energy sources

The energy can take many different forms and this is the main reason why there is a variety of different energy sources. The first thing you need to know about energy sources is the fact that fossil fuels, namely oil, coal and natural gas are still dominant sources of energy, despite the growing popularity of renewable energy sources.

There are two main differences between renewable energy sources and fossil fuels. First of all renewable energy sources are as their name suggests renewable, meaning that they can be constantly replenished unlike fossil fuels that are finite energy resources that will eventually become exhausted. The other difference refers to environmental impact where renewable energy sources do negligible environmental damage when compared with fossil fuels and the fact that the burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to climate change phenomenon.

The renewable energy sources list includes these energy sources: solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, geothermal energy and biomass. Hydropower is the most widely used form of renewable energy because of its very long history.

Solar and wind energy are the most popular renewable energy sources. Solar energy is the most abundant form of energy available on our planet. The main reason why we don't use more of solar energy is because solar panels and other solar technologies are still connected with significant costs, and people do not want to pay higher energy bills, even if this means helping our environment.

Wind energy has more acceptable costs compared to solar energy though it is still far from being able to challenge the dominance of fossil fuels in terms of electricity generation. Wind energy and solar energy are not suited for all areas because they require plenty of wind/sunshine throughout the year.

Geothermal energy on the other hand is available 24-7 because it refers to heat within the Earth's core. However, considering the current technological level of geothermal drilling, geothermal power plants are economically viable only in areas near the tectonic plate boundaries where drilling demands aren't that great.
Biomass as an energy source has excellent potential because biomass material is available in all corners of the world. However, there have bee fears, that using more land for biomass production (instead of growing food crops) would lead to more hunger of the world so biomass as an energy option is still connected with significant level of controversy.

It is very realistically to accept that fossil fuels will remain dominant energy sources throughout this century. The share of renewable energy sources will no doubt significantly increase over the years but fossil fuels should still have the edge because the transition to renewable energy sources doesn't go as fast as some people have expected.

The downside of this prolonged dependence on fossil fuels is big damage to our environment, and the strengthening of the climate change impact.

Energy diversification between US and EU

It is a well known fact that United States and Europe have been following different energy policies over the past 20 years or so. The diversification in their energy goals sees the US leading 'the shale gas revolution' while on the other hand Europe continues to invest heavily in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. This diversification is according to Marianne Haug of the University of Hohenheim, a good thing for the development of both energy sources.

In her latest study she argues that although the United States and European Union continue to be committed to common energy goals which include energy security, environmental sustainability and economic competitiveness, there is also the relative priority given to each which has changed substantially since the early 1990s. The reasons for these changes include domestic issues, geopolitical concerns, resource diversification, emerging energy markets, new government policies, public opinions and the choices of investors.

Investments in renewable energy. US investments dropped significantly after shale gas resources become viable solution for energy production challenges.

In order to further confirm her conclusion Haug pointed to the example of the Kyoto Protocol, describing it as a turning point for the differences in energy policy. Before the 1997 agreement in Kyoto, which US failed to ratify, energy security was considered the most important of all energy goals. However, after the Kyoto protocol, European countries gave higher, if not equal, priority to environmental concerns and have entered into partnerships beyond the United States in efforts to develop low-carbon technologies, which include windmills, photovoltaic units, solar thermal hot-water installations and rapeseed biofuel. The EU also developed emission-trading systems, biofuel targets, energy-efficiency guidelines and standards, which all contributed to stimulating the market for renewable energy sources.

In the United States, the general public is not that committed to the potential dangers of continued fossil-fuel use which partially explains why public and private investors have spent heavily on shale gas extraction, mostly building on existing fossil-fuel technology. Many energy experts argue that the ability to extract shale gas efficiently could be an “energy game changer” for the US and other countries by not only contributing to energy security but also accounting for lower prices. On the other hand, the shale gas industry is still in its infancy in Europe, though there are some signs that this might soon change, particularly in UK.

US natural gas production: current and projections. Shale gas will be very important part of natural gas production in US in the future. 

Those two completely different approaches in fulfilling energy demands obviously results with different market prices for energy sources. Paolo Scaroni, chief executive of the Italian oil and gas group ENI, warned that European economies face a long-term structural challenge of competing with industrial operators in the US, which now enjoy far cheaper gas and electricity prices than those prevailing across the EU.

Widely available shale gas is much cheaper energy option and some European countries are already concerned that some industries could move from EU into US to take advantage of cheaper energy sources. This is mainly focused on chemical, steel and fertilizer producers which are particularly exposed to high gas prices across Europe. There are predictions that import of liquefied shale gas from US into EU will reduce gas prices in EU for 20-30%, but those prices will still be much bigger than in US.

This parallel development of shale gas in the US and renewable energy source in Europe diversifies and enriches the world's energy-supply choices. On global level, this means that there are complementary technology pathways that enable limiting import dependence for both EU and United States and contribute to secure, affordable and sustainable energy for all. It is also expected that further cooperation between the transatlantic partners would scale up the development of both forms of alternative energy for the benefit of the global energy supply. 

Hybrid solar-gas power plants

Natural gas is becoming increasingly popular energy option because of its recent low prices, mostly due to the recent shale gas discoveries. In this sense, there are many ongoing talks about ageing coal power plants to be replaced by new natural gas fired power plants, mostly because natural gas fired power plants emit significantly less greenhouse gases as compared to coal fired ones.

The further reductions in natural gas fired power plants can be achieved by involving solar energy in the whole story. The latest study by the Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has proved that natural gas fired power plants can use about 20 percent less fuel when the sun is shining by injecting solar energy into natural gas with a new system that converts natural gas and sunlight into a more energy-rich fuel called syngas, which power plants can burn to make electricity.

What this means is that by using this new system, the existing power plants would use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make and the another benefit is that at the same time, the system lowers a plant's greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that is said to be competitive with the traditional fossil fuel power.

The United States is becoming increasingly reliant on inexpensive natural gas for energy, and this system can have its practical use in reducing the carbon footprint of power generation. The recent DOE estimates say that natural gas will make up 27 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020 and making it cleaner would certainly account for much greener economy. These new systems would be best suited for power plants located in areas with plenty of sunshine such as the American Southwest.

By installing this new system in front of natural gas power plants turns these plants into hybrid solar-gas power plants. The system uses solar heat to convert natural gas into syngas which is a fuel that contains hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The generated syngas has significantly higher energy content, meaning that a power plant equipped with this system needs around 20 percent less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity.

This reduced fuel usage is made possible with concentrating solar power, which uses a reflecting surface to concentrate the sun's rays like a magnifying glass. The tested system used a mirrored parabolic antenna to direct sunbeams to a central point, where a specially developed device absorbs the solar heat in order to generate syngas.

The next step for researchers is to keep the system's overall cost low enough so that the electricity produced by a natural gas power plant equipped with the system would cost no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. Achieving this price would make hybrid solar-gas power plants lot more competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants while in the same time reducing the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal and gas usage continues to grow on global level

The oil is still the world's most important energy source but the use of coal and natural gas continues to grow in significance, according to new study conducted by the Worldwatch Institute. According to recent numbers the global usage of coal increased 5.4 percent in 2011, to 3.72 billion tons of oil equivalent, while natural gas use grew 2.2 percent, to 2.91 billion tons of oil equivalent.

Both coal and natural gas remain primary sources for electricity generation worldwide and they are also often used as substitutes for one other, meaning that in order to get more precise numbers their trends need to be examined together. The large part of total coal consumption is used for electricity generation, with smaller amounts being used in steelmaking industry. The global coal consumption primarily grew because of rising demand in China and India. 

The coal share in the global primary energy consumption was 28 percent in 2011 which represents the highest percentage since the International Energy Agency began keeping statistics in 1971.

China, the fast rising economic giant, alone accounted for nearly half of all coal usage in 2011. India is the second largest contributor to rising coal demand and is the world's third largest coal consumer, after surpassing the European Union in 2009. The United States remains the second largest coal consumer, though it has to be said that U.S. demand decreased by around 5 percent in 2011 and its decline continued in 2012, particularly because of the shale gas popularity and the abundance of cheap natural gas.

Coal production, as well as consumption, is concentrated mainly in China because coal still remains the main fuel behind the China's rapid economic growth.  The United States however still holds the largest proved coal reserves in the world, with 28 percent of the global total, followed by Russia at 18 percent, and China at 13 percent.

Global consumption of natural gas grew at a slower rate than coal - 2.2 percent - to reach 2.91 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2011. Natural gas consumption grew in all regions except in the European Union, which experienced a 9.9 percent decline in natural gas consumption, mostly because of the struggling economy and high natural gas prices.

Natural gas accounted for nearly 23.7 percent of global primary energy consumption in 2011, experiencing a very slight decline from 23.8 percent in 2010. The natural gas consumption increased most significantly in East Asia, primarily in China (21.5 percent) and Japan (11.6 percent).

Natural gas production increased at a higher rate than consumption, by 3.1 percent, reaching 2.96 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2011. The United States and Russia are largest natural gas producers in the world, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the world's output in 2011.

Whether the strong growth in the global coal and natural gas sectors will continue depends on several different factors. Demand for coal would likely decline with the introduction of new technologies in the power sector, or with the adoption of clean energy policies aimed to reduce the environmental and health impacts of coal combustion. Also, the increasing global concern about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change would likely lead to a greater transition from coal to natural gas. In relation to natural gas there have been environmental and other concerns about hydraulic fracturing as well as the possibility that cheap shale gas might prevent the further development of renewable energy sector.

Carbon capture and storage can lead to less CO2 emissions

Burning fossil fuels releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, a harmful greenhouse gas which is held mostly responsible for climate change and global warming. This is the main reason why fossil fuels are labeled as the "dirty fuels", and why so many people around the globe want to see them being replaced with renewable energy source such as solar and wind energy. Fossil fuels are oil, carbon and natural gas.

However, there is still a significant number of energy experts who believe in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) as the key technology in reducing the amount of carbon emissions from fossil fuel fired power plants, and thus making fossil fuels usage less damaging to our environment. In the ideal scenario, carbon capture and storage technology would even lead to CO2-free power plants, though this scenario is still far from reality.

Carbone capture technology sounds excellent in theory but scientists have plenty of work ahead of them in order to find solutions that would make this technology efficient and commercially viable. Greatly increased operational costs have been the most frequent result of currently tested CCS solutions, and this is something that science will need to improve in years to come before this technology can be implemented on global scale.

Scientists are currently researching several different CCS technologies, and currently most intriguing CCS project is the pilot fossil fuel plant at the TU Darmstadt's Institute for Energy Systems and Technology that is being utilized for investigating two brand new methods for CO2 capture. If successful these new CCS methods will allow nearly totally eliminating CO2 emissions and require virtually no additional energy input and entail only slight increases in operating costs. Both of these methods employ natural substances and reduce the energy presently required for CO2 capture by more than half.

The first method is called "carbonate looping" method, and the working principle of this method is based on utilizing the naturally occurring limestone to initially bind CO2 from the stream of flue gases transiting power plants' stacks in a first-stage reactor. The resultant pure CO2 gets reliberated in a second reactor and can then be stored. The main advantage of the carbonate-looping method is that even existing power plants can be retrofitted with this new method.

The other method is called "chemical looping" method. This method should allow capturing CO2 with hardly any loss of energy efficiency. Under this method, a dual-stage, flameless, combustion yields a stream of exhaust gases containing only CO2 and water vapor. The CO2 can then be captured and stored.

The pilot plant has already demonstrated its ability to bind CO2 in conjunction with initial trial runs. The further investigation of these two methods should be done over the next couple of years.

The outlook for nuclear energy in France

Despite the fact that nuclear energy has lost much of its appeal in the last ten years or so, and especially after the Fukushima accident in Japan, France still gets approximately 77% of its electricity from nuclear energy, which is around 47% of nuclear electricity generated in the entire EU.

France has the very long nuclear energy tradition, and the key event that played the most important role in development of powerful nuclear power industry in France was large global oil crisis in 1973. The volatility of oil price market made French government realize that relying solely on fossil fuels isn't the best long-term option for French economy, and that country will be in need of some other energy source, some that doesn't depend on oil, and this is how nuclear power became one of the main forces of modern French industry.

However, even despite the very powerful nuclear energy sector, France still somewhat depends on foreign oil, and therefore isn't totally immune to global oil price fluctuation. There were these interesting results from one study in 2008 that have pointed out that France consumes more oil than non-nuclear Italy or even the almighty Germany, meaning that nuclear energy hasn't exactly offered total "energy independence" when it comes to relying on foreign oil.

Electricity from the nuclear energy (characterized by low cost of generation, though recently electricity generated from nuclear power plants has been steadily growing in prices) has significantly contributed to the fact that France is today the world's largest net exporter of electricity.
In the end of 2009 France had 59 operating nuclear reactors with total the capacity of over 63 GWe. The recent EU studies say that in the last 20 years France has invested more than $160 billion in development of the domestic nuclear power industry.

In terms of total nuclear power generation France is ranked second behind the United States, though of course U.S. is much bigger in size compared to France. France's share in the world’s nuclear electricity is currently around 16%.

French government isn't relying solely on currently built nuclear power stations and has already started building new modern nuclear power plants, that should not only have better efficiency as compared to older plants but should be also equipped with the most advanced safety programs and measures. Five years ago, in 2007, France started building its first third generation nuclear power plant in Flamanville, Normandy.

Large scale nuclear power industry is the main reason why France has low level of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. For instance United States produces about 17 metric tons of CO2 per capita while France produces about six metric tons of CO2 per capita annually.

France also has advanced programs for treating nuclear waste. Used fuel from French nuclear reactors is sent to Areva NC's La Hague plant in Normandy for reprocessing. Areva NC's La Hague plant has the capacity to reprocess up to 1700 tonnes of used fuel per year.