Uranium: The Metal of Tomorrow

Nuclear power is a clean energy source that will be used well into the future to help meet the world’s growing energy requirements. Here we highlight uranium’s history, properties, and fundamentals moving forward.

Infographic sponsored by Kivalliq Energy.

Uranium, the Metal of Tomorrow

Join our free mailing list Like us on Facebook Follow us on TwitterCheck out our new premium content - VC+

Recommended content:

The Athabasca Basin: The World's Highest Grade Uranium

Uranium: The Metal of Tomorrow

Nuclear power accounts for 5.7% of the world’s energy and 13% of the world’s electricity. Uranium, used in nuclear power, is a relatively clean source of energy that does not produce greenhouse emissions.

Uranium is extremely dense – it is nearly as heavy as gold. It is, however, about 500 times more common than gold in the earth’s crust.

This infographic covers the history of uranium, its properties, the supply and demand forecasts, the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power, uranium as an energy source, and military applications.

15 Responses to “Uranium: The Metal of Tomorrow”

  1. Brian Keaveney says:

    Congratulations on an excellent infographic. How about more coverage of the energy space ?
    Would be great to see similar infographics for oil & gas, coal, etc.

  2. Steven Prediletto says:

    Superb infographic. I agree with Brian; more about fossil fuels and renewables.

  3. Alamanjani says:

    Nice presentation.

    I disagree with uranium as future fuel.
    Thorium is the one!

    - there is more thorium in the soil
    - it yields much more energy
    - it can’t blow up
    - it’s waste is less dangerous
    - it can even use depleted uranium as part of fuel intake
    …and there is more that goes for it

    Watch thorium!

    • VC-Jeff says:

      Thorium-based nuclear power is definitely something to watch – agreed. However, in the short-term, from an investment perspective, there aren’t a lot of good thorium opportunities out there.

      I could be wrong, but I suspect any type of widespread implementation of thorium reactors are still a ways away.

    • Marko says:

      Thorium is pain in ass, There are no operational power plants on Thorium. They are operational nightmare.

    • C says:

      Indeed…watch Thorium, but do so patiently, as you’ll be waiting upwards of 20-25 years to see any commercially viable options based on the current pace of development.

  4. Cameron says:

    Another superb graphic by the Visual Capitalist revealing the compelling story about making a timely investment in the uranium industry. Thanks!

  5. DirkH says:

    Boys, you completely missed the Japanese experiments fishing Uranium out of sea water with plastic sponges. Huge amounts of Uranium are dissolved in sea water. Google for it. Completely low tech solution.

  6. Olivier says:

    “Uranium is a relatively clean energy source”
    You wouldn’t mind going to clean up that mess in Japan then?
    They will pay you very well …
    I wouldn’t be surprised if tens of millions die from it.
    And that’s just six reactors!

    • Lane says:

      Uranium is a carbon free energy source. Most estimates for radiation induced death from the Fukushima accident are very small (less than a person). Do you have any sources to provide basis for your claims?

    • Please check your facts on this — see the UNSCEAR report on projected health effects of tyhe Fukushima mess. That committee is as independent as the IPCC.

    • Lois Lane says:

      Totally NOT true. You need to check your facts. See http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-commentary.html?goback=%2Egde_117546_member_264649369#%21 for a factual summary of what is going on at the site, and an assessment based on facts. It turns out that little, if any water is making it to the Pacific. None of the leakage that is being highlighted in the press is contaminated with cesium, strontium, or other fission products. The contaminant is a low level of tritium. All of the leakage over the last 27 months is less than the limit. As for tritium, the leakage is about a million times less than what goes into the Pacific all the time from natural sources.

  7. “Radioactive waste produced is extremely hazardous and difficult to dispose of:”: Radioactive waste is routinely safely handled and disposed of. We know how to dispose of spent fuel. furthermore, with spent fuel recycling, used fuel is not waste at all — it is a vast energy resource.

    “Small accidents and nuclear weapons provide high risk situations.”: Not one person in the US (public or nuclear plant worker) has ever died or been seriously injured during the 50 years of nuclear electricity generation due to radiation from a nuclear power plant, including during the Three Mile Island accident. And that was a very large accident. No member of the Japanese public will have been harmed due to radiation releases from the Fukushima tsunami aftermath.

    “Nuclear energy is not a renewable energy resource.”: With recycling used nuclear fuel in fast neutron reactors such as Experimental Breeder Reactor II (1964-1994), the US could produce all of its electricity from used fuel from our current reactors for a thousand years. As the earlier part of your graphic shows, the amount of material needed to produce large amounts of electricity is tiny. If this is not renewable, what is?

    • C-Lussier says:

      I am pro-nuclear power. Very much so.

      But you are incorrect.

      First, there are 3 deaths related to the Idaho Falls reactor incident of 1961. There are other radiation poisonning incidents such as the Slotin experiment. I conceed that the numbers are low – which is why I’m still behind it, on a per kWh basis, nuclear is safer than ALL other forms of generating electricity – but your suggestion over evaluates the safety of nuclear plants.

      There is a definition of renewable whereby the source of the electrical production is replenished faster than it is used. Ergo, solar is renewable, so is wind and hydro…coal cannot be produced by nature faster than it is consumed. On the other hand, as much as I am a fan of nuclear, it does not fit this criterion of ‘renewable’.

      I make these comments to be critical of the mechanisms and discourse you present to others, not to dissuade you of your opinion.

  8. Jason says:

    If this was done in SVG it would look good on my iPad, but unfortunately it’s all pixelated :(

Leave a Reply


Sorry, you can not to browse this website.

Because you are using an outdated version of MS Internet Explorer. For a better experience using websites, please upgrade to a modern web browser.

Mozilla Firefox Microsoft Internet Explorer Apple Safari Google Chrome