fbpx
01 / 05
Stuff of Progress, Pt. 12: Uranium

Blog Post | Environment & Pollution

Stuff of Progress, Pt. 12: Uranium

Uranium is highly versatile and has vast potential to revolutionize the clean energy industry.

Uranium has been a relative newcomer to the story of human progress. Yet this element still has a vast amount of untapped potential to contribute toward global prosperity. We tend to think of uranium as a glowing green rock; however, pure uranium is a silvery-grey radioactive chemical element. 

The first pre-industrial use for uranium was as a coloring agent in the manufacture of pottery. Naturally-occurring uranium oxide was ground into a yellow powder and applied as a pottery glaze as early as 79 CE. The discovery of the element uranium has been credited to the German chemist Martin Heinrich Klaproth. Klaproth was the first to isolate an oxide of uranium and is responsible for naming the element. However, it would take another fifty-two years to isolate metallic uranium and a further 55 years before the French engineer and physicist Henri Becquerel would unlock uranium’s radioactive significance in 1896. 

Built in 1943, the X-10 Graphite Reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the United States became the first artificial uranium powered nuclear reactor designed and built for continuous operation. Just eight years later, a nuclear reactor, the EBR-1 at the Atomic Energy Commission’s National Reactor Testing Station near Arco, Idaho, became the first reactor to produce electricity in 1951. On December 20, 1951, the Experimental Breeder Reactor, provided enough energy to light four 150 watt light bulbs. Today’s reactors are much more powerful.  

Human civilization uses uranium for thousands of applications, including the production of plutonium, vehicle armor, radiation shielding, medicine, gamma sterilization and much more. But nowhere in civilian use does uranium have a greater impact than in the production of clean, ultra low-carbon electrical energy. 

Uranium is enormously energy-dense, roughly a million times as energy-dense as low-grade hydrocarbon fuels. A gigawatt of electricity produced in a coal-fired power plant requires approximately 9,000 tons of fuel. An equivalent amount of clean energy sourced from uranium requires just 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of uranium fuel. 

From humble beginnings to a modern powerhouse, roughly 10 percent of global electricity production is now derived from approximately 440 uranium powered nuclear reactors, with another 50 reactors currently under construction. In 2018 these reactors combined to produce an astonishing 2,700 terawatt hours of clean, ultra low-carbon electricity. To put the scale of that contribution in perspective, one terawatt-hour of energy is about the same as the annual energy consumption of 27,000 citizens in the European Union.

The general zeitgeist is that nuclear energy is a dangerous and unnecessary part of the energy production mix. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The production of nuclear power is one of the safest forms of electricity production. Where hydrocarbons eject their contaminants into the atmosphere, nuclear energy centralizes waste to an astonishingly small space and, in doing so, prevents its release into the atmosphere. 

Between 1965 and 2018, global primary energy consumption derived from uranium powered nuclear reactors climbed over 196 percent. All the while, nuclear power remained civilization’s safest form of centralized electrical energy production. Consider death rates from energy production per TWh (i.e., death rates from air pollution and accidents related to energy production, measured in deaths per terawatt hour). Nuclear energy’s death rate comes at 0.07 per TWh. Energy production from brown coal has a death rate of over 32 per TWh. Put differently, for every trillion watt-hours of energy production from brown coal, roughly 32 lives are lost. 

Electricity production via nuclear energy remains one of the cleanest forms of energy production, even after taking nuclear waste into account. Conventional energy produced with hydrocarbons is far from harmless, as it expels the waste of combustion into the community and the greater environment. The resulting air pollution is a significant source of mortality and illness, particularly in developing countries. By contrast, nuclear waste storage is currently resulting in little or no mortality and illness, as the majority of nuclear waste is sitting securely within the grounds of the nuclear power plants themselves or in approved medium term storage. The key challenges to the safe and effective long term storage of nuclear waste are political and cultural, not technical. The Onkalo Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository in Finland is set to begin the secure sealing of spent nuclear fuel this year, demonstrating that the responsible management of nuclear waste is both possible and practical. No matter how you slice the data, uranium powered nuclear energy comes out as one of the safest, cleanest, and most reliable sources of high capacity baseload electrical energy. 

Unfortunately, while the true cost-benefit analysis of nuclear energy is dramatically favorable to its use, people remain unjustifiably apprehensive. To meet the growing demand for clean, low-carbon energy, we will need to embrace reason and develop and deploy new and innovative modes of using uranium as a fuel for the production of electricity. 

CBS News | Energy Prices

Gas Prices Recede and Could Continue Dropping in 2025

“Motorists can expect modestly lower U.S. gas prices in 2025 as inflation eases and amid booming domestic oil production.

After accelerating for much of the first half of the year, prices at the pump dipped in the second half of 2024, AAA data shows. Nationwide, a gallon of regular gas now averages $2.98 a gallon, down nearly 12 cents from a year ago, according to tracking service GasBuddy.”

From CBS News.

Curiosities | Energy Prices

Bad News Bias in Gasoline Price Coverage

“Very few TV programs mention gas prices when the nominal price is below $3.50 per gallon. Above this level, TV mentions of gas prices ramp up linearly, with each 50-cent increase in gas prices raising the coverage rate by 7.5 percentage points (p.p.). Alternatively put, while only 2.7 percent of transcriptions mention gas prices on average, 10.4 percent mention gas prices when the price hits $4.00, and 18.2 percent mention gas prices when the price hits $4.50.”

From Briefing Book.

Blog Post | Energy & Natural Resources

The Simon Abundance Index 2024

The Earth was 509.4 percent more abundant in 2023 than it was in 1980.

The Simon Abundance Index (SAI) quantifies and measures the relationship between resources and population. The SAI converts the relative abundance of 50 basic commodities and the global population into a single value. The index started in 1980 with a base value of 100. In 2023, the SAI stood at 609.4, indicating that resources have become 509.4 percent more abundant over the past 43 years. All 50 commodities were more abundant in 2023 than in 1980.

Figure 1: The Simon Abundance Index: 1980–2023 (1980 = 100)

Graph highlighting the increase in the SAI over time, as resources have become 509.4 percent more abundant.

The SAI is based on the ideas of University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Simon, who pioneered research on and analysis of the relationship between population growth and resource abundance. If resources are finite, Simon’s opponents argued, then an increase in population should lead to higher prices and scarcity. Yet Simon discovered through exhaustive research over many years that the opposite was true. As the global population increased, virtually all resources became more abundant. How is that possible?

Simon recognized that raw materials without the knowledge of how to use them have no economic value. It is knowledge that transforms raw materials into resources, and new knowledge is potentially limitless. Simon also understood that it is only human beings who discover and create knowledge. Therefore, resources can grow infinitely and indefinitely. In fact, human beings are the ultimate resource.

Visualizing the Change

Resource abundance can be measured at both the personal level and the population level. We can use a pizza analogy to understand how that works. Personal-level abundance measures the size of an individual pizza slice. Population-level abundance measures the size of the entire pizza pie. The pizza pie can get larger in two ways: the slices can get larger, or the number of slices can increase. Both can happen at the same time.

Growth in resource abundance can be illustrated by comparing two box charts. Create the first chart, representing the population on the horizontal axis and personal resource abundance on the vertical axis. Draw a yellow square to represent the start year of 1980. Index both population and personal resource abundance to a value of one. Then draw a second chart for the end year of 2023. Use blue to distinguish this second chart. Scale it horizontally for the growth in population and vertically for the growth in personal resource abundance from 1980. Finally, overlay the yellow start-year chart on the blue end-year chart to see the difference in resource abundance between 1980 and 2023.

Figure 2: Visualization of the Relationship between Global Population Growth and Personal Resource Abundance of the 50 Basic Commodities (1980–2023)

Between 1980 and 2023, the average time price of the 50 basic commodities fell by 70.4 percent. For the time required to earn the money to buy one unit of this commodity basket in 1980, you would get 3.38 units in 2023. Consequently, the height of the vertical personal resource abundance axis in the blue box has risen to 3.38. Moreover, during this 43-year period, the world’s population grew by 3.6 billion, from 4.4 billion to over 8 billion, indicating an 80.2 percent increase. As such, the width of the blue box on the horizontal axis has expanded to 1.802. The size of the blue box, therefore, has grown to 3.38 by 1.802, or 6.094 (see the middle box in Figure 2).

As the box on the right shows, personal resource abundance grew by 238 percent; the population grew by 80.2 percent. The yellow start box has a size of 1.0, while the blue end box has a size of 6.094. That represents a 509.4 percent increase in population-level resource abundance. Population-level resource abundance grew at a compound annual rate of 4.3 percent over this 43-year period. Also note that every 1-percentage-point increase in population corresponded to a 6.35-percentage-point increase in population-level resource abundance (509.4 ÷ 80.2 = 6.35).

Individual Commodity Changes: 1980–2023

As noted, the average time price of the 50 basic commodities fell by 70.4 percent between 1980 and 2023. As such, the 50 commodities became 238.1 percent more abundant (on average). Lamb grew most abundant (675.1 percent), while the abundance of coal grew the least (30.7 percent).

Figure 3: Individual Commodities, Percentage Change in Time Price and Percentage Change in Abundance: 1980–2023

Graph of the 50 basic commodities and there percentage change in time price vs abundance, where abundance has increased significantly as time price falls.

Individual Commodity Changes: 2022–2023

The SAI increased from a value of 520.1 in 2022 to 609.4 in 2023, indicating a 17.1 percent increase. Over those 12 months, 37 of the 50 commodities in the data set increased in abundance, while 13 decreased in abundance. Abundance ranged from a 220.8 percent increase for natural gas in Europe to a 38.9 percent decrease for oranges.

Figure 4: Individual Commodities, Percentage Change in Abundance: 2022–2023

Graph of the percentage change in abundance of the 50 commodities.

Conclusion

After a sharp downturn between 2021 and 2022, which was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, government lockdowns and accompanying monetary expansion, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the SAI is making a strong recovery. As noted, since 1980 resource abundance has been increasing at a much faster rate than population. We call that relationship superabundance. We explore this topic in our book Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet.

Appendix A: Alternative Figure 1 with a Regression Line, Equation, R-Square, and Population

Graph showing that even with population growth, the resource abundance shown by SAI has increased significantly.

Appendix B: The Basic 50 Commodities Analysis: 1980–2023

Appendix C: Why Time Is Better Than Money for Measuring Resource Abundance

To better understand changes in our standard of living, we must move from thinking in quantities to thinking in prices. While the quantities of a resource are important, economists think in prices. This is because prices contain more information than quantities. Prices indicate if a product is becoming more or less abundant.

But prices can be distorted by inflation. Economists attempt to adjust for inflation by converting a current or nominal price into a real or constant price. This process can be subjective and contentious, however. To overcome such problems, we use time prices. What is most important to consider is how much time it takes to earn the money to buy a product. A time price is simply the nominal money price divided by the nominal hourly income. Money prices are expressed in dollars and cents, while time prices are expressed in hours and minutes. There are six reasons time is a better way than money to measure prices.

First, time prices contain more information than money prices do. Since innovation lowers prices and increases wages, time prices more fully capture the benefits of valuable new knowledge and the growth in human capital. To just look at prices without also looking at wages tells only half the story. Time prices make it easier to see the whole picture.

Second, time prices transcend the complications associated with converting nominal prices to real prices. Time prices avoid subjective and disputed adjustments such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the GDP Deflator or Implicit Price Deflator (IPD), the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index (PCE), and the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). Time prices use the nominal price and the nominal hourly income at each point in time, so inflation adjustments are not necessary.

Third, time prices can be calculated on any product with any currency at any time and in any place. This means you can compare the time price of bread in France in 1850 to the time price of bread in New York in 2023. Analysts are also free to select from a variety of hourly income rates to use as the denominator when calculating time prices.

Fourth, time is an objective and universal constant. As the American economist George Gilder has noted, the International System of Units (SI) has established seven key metrics, of which six are bounded in one way or another by the passage of time. As the only irreversible element in the universe, with directionality imparted by thermodynamic entropy, time is the ultimate frame of reference for almost all measured values.

Fifth, time cannot be inflated or counterfeited. It is both fixed and continuous.

Sixth, we have perfect equality of time with exactly 24 hours in a day. As such, we should be comparing time inequality, not income inequality. When we measure differences in time inequality instead of income inequality, we get an even more positive view of the global standards of living.

These six reasons make using time prices superior to using money prices for measuring resource abundance. Time prices are elegant, intuitive, and simple. They are the true prices we pay for the things we buy.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) track and report nominal prices on a wide variety of basic commodities. Analysts can use any hourly wage rate series as the denominator to calculate the time price. For the SAI, we created a proxy for global hourly income by using data from the World Bank and the Conference Board to calculate nominal GDP per hour worked.

With this data, we calculated the time prices for all 50 of the basic commodities for each year and then compared the change in time prices over time. If time prices are decreasing, personal resource abundance is increasing. For example, if a resource’s time price decreases by 50 percent, then for the same amount of time you get twice as much, or 100 percent more. The abundance of that resource has doubled. Or, to use the pizza analogy, an individual slice is twice as large. If the population increases by 25 percent over the same period, there will be 25 percent more slices. The pizza pie will thus be 150 percent larger [(2.0 x 1.25) – 1].