Collapse, the new documentary starring investigative reporter and panic guru, Michael Ruppert, features — among other theories — the claim that oil resources will run out soon.

Ruppert is certainly not alone in that belief, and “peak oil” is a theory no longer held just by conspiracy theorists. Back in 2005, the French government issued a report on the global oil industry forecasting a possible peak in world production as early as 2013.

In the same year, a U.S. House energy subcommittee met to discuss the possibility of oil shortages. While the committee stated that the planet is unlikely to run out of oil any time soon (though this meeting occurred four years ago,) the government admitted oil was likely to become “very expensive” in the absence of lower-cost alternatives.

Interestingly, though many discuss oil shortages, few mention another finite resource — uranium. Technology Review recently published an article titled, “ The Coming Nuclear Crisis” that basically states, while the world makes vast investments in nuclear technology, big questions (such as waste storage, safety, the proliferation of nuclear technology, and the limited supply of uranium) go unaddressed. (h/t Naked Capitalism)

Perhaps the most worrying problem is the misconception that uranium is plentiful. The world’s nuclear plants today eat through some 65,000 tons of uranium each year. Of this, the mining industry supplies about 40,000 tons. The rest comes from secondary sources such as civilian and military stockpiles, reprocessed fuel and re-enriched uranium. “But without access to the military stocks, the civilian western uranium stocks will be exhausted by 2013, concludes [Michael Dittmar, from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich].

It’s not clear how the shortfall can be made up since nobody seems to know where the mining industry can look for more. [emphasis mine]

Anyone ready to invest in solar panels yet?

When faced with uranium criticism, many energy industrialists bring up fission breeder reactors — a “solution” that doesn’t impress Dittmar because of “their huge construction costs, their poor safety records and their inefficient performance give little reason to believe that they will ever become commercially significant.” And nuclear fusion isn’t any better, says Dittmar:

No matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors.

A Technology Review commenter points out that peak uranium has entered the mainstream as illustrated by this Wall Street Journal article from last year.

Japan’s Kansai Electric Power — which accounts for nearly a third of the country’s total uranium demand — says it plans to buy uranium mines to ensure its long-term supply of the fuel. Its chief manager says he worries that in coming years he won’t be able to buy what he needs “no matter how much you are willing to pay.”

According to the WSJ, the IAEA and Nuclear Energy Agency  report there’s enough uranium to power existing plants for 100 years. However, there are supply issues. About 40% of current uranium supplies come from stockpiles and old weapons—not from uranium mines—so new sources need to be developed soon to avoid “uranium supply shortfalls.”

Therein lies the potential good news. As Technology Review states, there’s a chance that the possibility of uranium shortages will force governments to release military stockpiles of weapons grade uranium and plutonium for civilian use.

Could it be possible that the coming nuclear energy crisis could rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons?

Let’s hope so.

Source: Unreported