6 reasons why nuclear energy is not the way to a green and peaceful world

Demolition of the two cooling towers of the Philippsburg nuclear power plant near the river Rhine. The site of the now decommissioned Philippsburg Nuclear Power Plant is located in Philippsburg, near Karlsruhe, Germany. © Bernd Hartung / Greenpeace

Nuclear power is often hailed as a magic bullet solution for the rapid and large-scale decarbonisation of our societies which we all know needs to happen if we have any hope of mitigating the worst effects of the unfolding climate emergency. Among politicians and industry groups, it is consistently favoured over meaningful investment in renewable energy systems, bolstered with misleading claims of its safety, efficiency, stability, and speed of deployment.

With the costs and efficiency of renewable energy solutions improving year on year, and the effects of our rapidly changing climate accelerating across the globe, we need to take an honest look at some of the myths being perpetuated by the nuclear industry and its supporters. Here are six reasons why nuclear power is not the way to a green and peaceful zero carbon future.

1. Nuclear energy delivers too little to matter

According to scenarios from the World Nuclear Association and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (both nuclear lobby organisations), doubling the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in 2050 would only decrease greenhouse gas emissions by around 4%. But in order to do that, the world would need to bring 37 new large nuclear reactors to the grid every year from now, year on year, until 2050.

The last decade only showed a few to 10 new grid connections per year. Ramping that up to 37 is physically impossible – there is not sufficient capacity to make large forgings like reactor vessels. There are currently only 57 new reactors under construction or planned for the coming one-and-a-half decade. Doubling nuclear capacity – different from the explosive growth of clean renewable energy sources like solar and wind – is therefore unrealistic. And that for only 4% when we already need to reduce 100%.

2. Nuclear power plants are dangerous and vulnerable

Nuclear factories and plants are easy targets for malevolent acts: terrorist threats, the risk of unintentional or voluntary airliner crashes, cyberattacks or acts of war. The enclosures of plants and certain ancillary buildings containing radioactive materials are not designed to withstand this type of attack or shock.

Nuclear power plants present unique hazards in terms of the potential consequences resulting from a severe accident. Nuclear reactors and their associated high level spent fuel stores are vulnerable to natural disasters, as Fukushima Daiichi showed, but they are also vulnerable in times of military conflict.

For the first time in history, a major war is being waged in a country with multiple nuclear reactors and thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel. The war in southern Ukraine around Zaporizhzhia puts them all at heightened risk of a severe accident.

Nuclear power plants are some of the most complex and sensitive industrial installations, which require a very complex set of resources in ready state at all times to keep them operational. This cannot be guaranteed in a war.

This can’t be guaranteed in a time of climate crisis and extreme weather events either. Nuclear power is a water-hungry technology. Nuclear power plants consume a lot of water for cooling. They are vulnerable to water stress, the warming of rivers, and rising temperatures, which can weaken the cooling of power plants and equipment. Nuclear reactors in the United States and France are often shut down during heatwaves, or see their activity drastically slowed.

3. Nuclear energy is too expensive

To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost and in the least time.

The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt-hour (MWh), the World Nuclear Industry Status Report said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189 per MWh.

Over the past decade, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates levelised costs – which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output – for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%. According to the same report, these costs have increased by 23% for nuclear.*

According to a November 2021 study released by Greenpeace France and the Rousseau Institute, power from the under-construction European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) at Flamanville in France would be 3 times as expensive as the country’s most competitive renewable sources.

4. Nuclear energy is too slow

Stabilising the climate is an emergency. Nuclear power is slow.

The 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by the World Nuclear Association (WNA) industry body of between 5 and 8.5 years.

The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution. The construction of a nuclear plant is a long and complex process that obviously releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned nuclear sites.

Uranium extraction, transport and processing is obviously not free of greenhouse gas emissions either. All in all, nuclear power stations score comparable with wind and solar energy. But this latter can be implemented much faster and on a much bigger scale. We cannot wait for another decade for emissions to go down. They need to go down now. With clean renewable sources and energy efficiency, we can do that.

5. Nuclear energy generates huge amounts of toxic waste

The multiple stages of the nuclear fuel cycle produce large volumes of radioactive waste. No government has yet resolved how to safely manage this waste.

Some of this nuclear waste is highly radioactive and will remain so for several thousand years. Nuclear waste is a real scourge for our environment and for future generations, who will still have the responsibility of managing it in several centuries.

Countries like France are pushing hard for nuclear power at the EU level, hoping that when it comes to waste, out of sight is out of mind. But nuclear waste will never go away, and will never be sustainable.

This is one of the obvious reasons why nuclear power shouldn’t be eligible for green funding nor marketed as ‘sustainable’, as pointed out recently by countries like Austria, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg, and Spain, who spoke against the inclusion of nuclear power in the EU’s green finance taxonomy. This is also one of the reasons why, on 9 March 2020, the EU Commission’s Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance (TEF) rejected nuclear energy because it did not meet the EU’s ‘Do No Significant Harm’ principle and recommended excluding nuclear power from the green taxonomy.

Nuclear waste management is costing taxpayers absurd amounts of money, costs for storage projects reaching into the billions. This is true both for Europe and North America. In 2019, a US Energy Department report showed the projected cost for long-term nuclear waste cleanup jumped more than $100 billion in just one year.

6. The nuclear industry is falling short of its promises

 

The EPR nuclear reactor technology has been showcased by the French government and French nuclear operator EDF as a revolutionary technology announcing the dawn of a nuclear renaissance. The reality is that this technology isn’t any kind of technological leap. More importantly, the French EPR reactor located in Flamanville is more than 10 years overdue and nearly four times over budget.

This so-called “next-generation nuclear reactor”, has also sustained multiple problems, delays and cost overruns in France, the United Kingdom, Finland and China.

Hypothetical new nuclear power technologies have been promised to be the next big thing for the last forty years, but in spite of massive public subsidies, that prospect has never panned out. That is also true for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).

And for nuclear fusion, an idea that is as old as the nuclear industry, which somehow always seems to be fifty years away. The cost and uncertainty of fusion mean investing in thermonuclear reactors at the expense of other available clean energy options. This technology won’t arrive in time, if ever, and the money would be better invested elsewhere.

Let’s exert the utmost caution when presented with pro-nuclear opinions coming from experts and organisations regularly working with stakeholders from the nuclear sector and potentially tainted by vested interests. Nuclear energy has no place in a safe, clean, sustainable future. It is more important than ever that we steer away from false solutions and leave nuclear power in the past.

Fonte: Greenpeace

Nuclear é verde?

Ler mais:Espanha recusa incluir energia nuclear e gás na taxonomia verde europeia: "Não são energias verdes ou sustentáveis"

Entrevista - « L'uranium de la colère »

Segunda-feira, hoje, 7 de março, às 21h (hora de França), a France 5 transmitirá uma nova série documental inédita “Vert de Rage” de Martin Boudot: “O urânio da raiva”.
Enquanto a Comissão Europeia acaba de conceder o rótulo “verde” à energia nuclear, “O urânio da raiva”, inédito na France 5, permite entender como as centrais nucleares são abastecidas com urânio.
Em Narbonne, no Aude, os cidadãos denunciam a poluição da maior central de conversão de urânio da Europa, gerida por Orano, o novo nome da Areva. Abastecido com urânio da África em particular, o local despeja dezenas de milhares de toneladas de resíduos, a três quilómetros do centro da cidade.
Em Arlit, no Níger, em uma região assolada por ataques terroristas, perto de uma enorme mina de urânio, os moradores vivem em áreas que excedem a radioatividade da zona proibida de Chernobyl.
Apesar das proibições, Martin Boudot e a equipa Vert de Rage, auxiliados por cientistas, estão a investigar nos dois países e a coletar dezenas de amostras para saber mais sobre a poluição de urânio que alimenta nossas centrais nucleares.
Os resultados de sua investigação serão divulgados pela mídia francesa e nigeriana. As suas revelações farão parte do debate político e servirão de evidência para que os cidadãos preservem seu meio ambiente e sua saúde. Cidadãos nigerianos apresentaram queixa, enquanto em Narbonne uma nova rede de vigilância cidadã está se formando em torno da central de conversão de urânio.

Austria ready to sue EU over nuclear’s inclusion in green finance taxonomy

Austria’s energy and climate minister Leonore Gewessler told EURACTIV in an exclusive interview that her country was ready to go to court if the EU decides to include nuclear power into the bloc’s taxonomy on sustainable finance.

In October, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that the EU executive would soon table proposals on gas and nuclear as part of the bloc’s sustainable finance taxonomy, a set of rules designed to provide investors with a common definition of what is green and what is not.

A group of twelve EU countries, led by France and Finland, want nuclear energy included, arguing it is a low-carbon energy source and that radioactive waste can be handled safely if appropriate measures are taken.

But Austria would be ready to challenge that decision in front of the European Court of Justice said Leonore Gewessler, the Austrian minister for climate protection and energy.

“There is no legal basis for including nuclear power in the EU taxonomy,” Gewessler said adding that, “Yes, if the EU taxonomy includes nuclear energy, we are ready to challenge that in court.”

Austria is at the centre of a five-country alliance bringing together Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal, which seeks to prevent the inclusion of nuclear energy in the EU’s green finance rules. The alliance was launched during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow.

In face of a French-led push to revive nuclear power in Europe, a group of five EU countries led by Germany have banded together to urge the European Commission to keep nuclear out of the EU’s green finance taxonomy.

Legal analysis

For Gewessler, “the credibility of the taxonomy is at stake” when deciding how to classify nuclear under the EU’s green finance rules.

The Austrian energy and climate ministry commissioned a legal analysis earlier this year, which found that “that the inclusion of nuclear energy is not compatible with the legal basis of Article 10 of the Taxonomy Regulation,” she said.

“We have a great responsibility here, in terms of taxonomy, to remain consistent and coherent” with the ambitions of the European Green Deal and maintain trust in the financial markets, she argued.

“The considerable damage caused by nuclear energy is well documented historically,” she explained, citing “the dangers of nuclear power itself” as evidenced by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters.

The safe disposal of spent radioactive fuel is also a matter of concern. “We have not yet found a global solution for…the question of final storage,” she said.

Besides, nuclear power “is much too expensive and much too slow to make a contribution” to the bloc’s climate goals, Gewessler continued.

The next-generation French reactor currently being built at Flamanville, whose construction started in 2007, has been massively delayed, with completion now scheduled in 2023 while costs have increased fivefold, she remarked.

Earlier this month, leading French EU lawmaker Pascal Canfin proposed letting nuclear energy and gas in the taxonomy as “transition” energy sources while the bloc pursues its long-term switch to renewable energy sources.

Canfin’s suggestion is to label gas a “transition” investment when it replaces coal and provided strict emission thresholds are met.

But Gewessler rejected that proposal too. “Just because something is less bad than coal doesn’t make it good or sustainable. It is still fossil energy,” she said.

With proper safeguards in place, both gas and nuclear power can be included in the “transition” category of the EU’s green finance taxonomy, says Pascal Canfin, a leading lawmaker in the European Parliament.

According to Gewessler, Austria will be able to count on the support of Germany and Spain in case it goes to court over the matter.

“Spain shares Austria’s position one-to-one. Spain sees neither nuclear energy nor fossil gas in the taxonomy and has made this very clear before,” she said.

While Spain has been absent from the five-country alliance announced at COP26, it “sent a joint letter [with Austria and others] on nuclear energy to the Commission months ago. There is no room between us,” explained Gewessler.

And Austria’s neighbour Germany can always be counted on in the fight against nuclear power.

“Nuclear power cannot be a solution in the climate crisis, it is too risky, it is too slow, it is too expensive,” explained her German counterpart Svenja Schulze, caretaker minister of the environment, on 11 November.

“No climate activist should rely on nuclear power,” she added.

A proposal to bring both nuclear power and natural gas into the bloc’s green finance taxonomy is circulating in Brussels. The paper has been branded as a “scientific disgrace” by campaigners who warned it would damage the EU’s credibility on green finance.

LEAKED: Paper on gas and nuclear’s inclusion in EU green finance rules

Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate?

Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?

The latest figures on global carbon dioxide emissions call into question the world's efforts to tackle the climate crisis. CO2 emissions are set to soar 4.9% in 2021, compared with the previous year, according to a study published earlier this month by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), a group of scientists that track emissions.

In 2020, emissions dropped 5.4% due to the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns. Most observers expected a rebound this year — but not to such an extent. The energy sector continues to be the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, with a share of 40% — and rising.

But what about nuclear? Supporters of the controversial energy source say it's a climate-friendly way to generate electricity. At the very least, it's something we could use until we're able to develop comprehensive alternatives. In recent weeks, particularly during the COP26 climate summit, advocates have been creating a stir online with statements like "if you're against nuclear energy, you're against climate protection" and "nuclear energy is about to make a comeback." But is there anything to it?

Is nuclear power a zero-emissions energy source?

No. Nuclear energy is also responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, no energy source is completely free of emissions, but more on that later.

When it comes to nuclear, uranium extraction, transport and processing produces emissions. The long and complex construction process of nuclear power plants also releases CO2, as does the demolition of decommissioned sites. And, last but not least, nuclear waste also has to be transported and stored under strict conditions — here, too, emissions must be taken into account.

And yet, interest groups claim nuclear energy is emission-free. Among them is Austrian consulting firm ENCO. In late 2020, it released a study prepared for the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy that looked favorably at the possible future role of nuclear in the Netherlands.

"The main factors for its choice were reliability and security of supply, with no CO2 emission," it read. ENCO was founded by experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it regularly works with stakeholders in the nuclear sector, so it's not entirely free of vested interests.

At COP26, environmental initiative Scientists for Future (S4F) presented a paper on nuclear energy and the climate. The group came to a very different conclusion. "Taking into account the current overall energy system, nuclear energy is by no means CO2 neutral," they said.

Ben Wealer of the Technical University of Berlin, one of the report's authors, told DW that proponents of nuclear energy "fail to take into account many factors," including those sources of emissions outlined above. All the studies reviewed by DW said the same thing: Nuclear power is not emissions-free.

How much CO2 does nuclear power produce?

Results vary significantly, depending on whether we only consider the process of electricity generation, or take into account the entire life cycle of a nuclear power plant. A report released in 2014 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for example, estimated a range of 3.7 to 110 grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

It's long been assumed that nuclear plants generate an average of 66 grams of CO2/kWh — though Wealer believes the actual figure is much higher. New power plants, for example, generate more CO2 during construction than those built in previous decades, due to stricter safety regulations.

Studies that include the entire life cycle of nuclear power plants, from uranium extraction to nuclear waste storage, are rare, with some researchers pointing out that data is still lacking. In one life cycle study, the Netherlands-based World Information Service on Energy (WISE) calculated that nuclear plants produce 117 grams of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour. It should be noted, however, that WISE is an anti-nuclear group, so is not entirely unbiased.

However, other studies have come up with similar results when considering entire life cycles. Mark Z. Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere / Energy Program at California's Stanford University, calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables.

How climate-friendly is nuclear compared to other energies?

If the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant is included in the calculation, nuclear energy certainly comes out ahead of fossil fuels like coal or natural gas. But the picture is drastically different when compared with renewable energy.

According to new but still unpublished data from the state-run German Environment Agency (UBA) as well as the WISE figures, nuclear power releases 3.5 times more CO2 per kilowatt-hour than photovoltaic solar panel systems. Compared with onshore wind power, that figure jumps to 13 times more CO2. When up against electricity from hydropower installations, nuclear generates 29 times more carbon.

Could we rely on nuclear energy to help stop global warming?

Around the world, nuclear energy representatives, as well as some politicians, have called for the expansion of atomic power. In Germany, for example, the right-wing populist AfD party has backed nuclear power plants, calling them "modern and clean." The AfD has called for a return to the energy source, which Germany has pledged to phase out completely by the end of 2022.

Other countries have also supported plans to build new nuclear plants, arguing that the energy sector will be even more damaging for the climate without it. But Wealer from Berlin's Technical University, along with numerous other energy experts, sees takes a different view.

"The contribution of nuclear energy is viewed too optimistically," he said. "In reality, [power plant] construction times are too long and the costs too high to have a noticeable effect on climate change. It takes too long for nuclear energy to become available."

Mycle Schneider, author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, agrees.

"Nuclear power plants are about four times as expensive as wind or solar, and take five times as long to build," he said. "When you factor it all in, you're looking at 15-to-20 years of lead time for a new nuclear plant."

He pointed out that the world needed to get greenhouse gases under control within a decade. "And in the next 10 years, nuclear power won't be able to make a significant contribution," added Schneider.

"Nuclear power is not being considered at the current time as one of the key global solutions to climate change," said Antony Froggatt, deputy director of the environment and society program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House in London.

He said a combination of excessive costs, environmental consequences and lack of public support were all arguments against nuclear power.

Nuclear funding could go toward renewables

Due to the high costs associated with nuclear energy, it also blocks important financial resources that could instead be used to develop renewable energy, said Jan Haverkamp, a nuclear expert and activist with environment NGO Greenpeace in the Netherlands. Those renewables would provide more energy that is both faster and cheaper than nuclear, he said.

"Every dollar invested in nuclear energy is therefore a dollar diverted from true urgent climate action. In that sense, nuclear power is not climate-friendly," he said.

In addition, nuclear energy itself has been affected by climate change. During the world's increasingly hot summers, several nuclear power plants have already had to be temporarily shut down or taken off the grid. Power plants depend on nearby water sources to cool their reactors, and with many rivers drying up, those sources of water are no longer guaranteed.

The much vaunted "renaissance of nuclear power" is anything but when all the facts are taken into consideration, Mycle Schneider told DW. He said the nuclear industry has been shrinking for years.

"In the last 20 years, 95 nuclear power plants have gone online and 98 have been shut down. If you take China out of the equation, the number of nuclear power plants has shrunk by 50 reactors in the last two decades," Schneider added. "The nuclear industry is not thriving."

Fonte: DW

China acusa EUA de “manipulação” após relatório sobre capacidade nuclear de Pequim

A China denunciou esta quinta-feira o que classificou de “manipulação” por parte dos Estados Unidos, após a publicação de um relatório do Pentágono sobre a aceleração mais rápida do que o previsto do programa nuclear chinês.

O Departamento de Defesa norte-americano (Pentágono) estimou que Pequim está a desenvolver o seu arsenal nuclear muito mais rápido do que o antecipado e que já pode lançar mísseis balísticos armados com ogivas nucleares a partir do mar, terra e ar.

A China está a modernizar o seu exército para “enfrentar os Estados Unidos da América (EUA)” na região do Indo-Pacífico e facilitar a reunificação de Taiwan, notou o documento.

Pequim considera a ilha de Taiwan parte do seu território, apesar de esta funcionar como uma entidade política soberana.

Wang Wenbin, o porta-voz do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros da China, acusou os Estados Unidos de tentar “puxar” pela tese da ameaça chinesa.

“O relatório, divulgado pelo Pentágono, como os anteriores, ignora os factos e está cheio de preconceitos”, disse Wang aos jornalistas, criticando Washington por “manipulação”.

Na edição anterior deste relatório entregue no Congresso norte-americano, e publicado no início de setembro de 2020, o Pentágono estimou que a China tinha “cerca de 200” ogivas nucleares, mas anteviu que este número podia duplicar nos próximos dez anos.

Com 700 ogivas nucleares, até 2027, e 1.000, até 2030, as novas projeções dos militares dos EUA mostram uma forte aceleração da capacidade atómica de Pequim.

“A China provavelmente já estabeleceu uma 'tríade nuclear' nascente, ou seja, a capacidade de lançar mísseis balísticos nucleares a partir do mar, terra e ar”, lê-se no documento.

Os autores do relatório basearam-se, em particular, em declarações das autoridades chinesas na imprensa oficial e em imagens de satélite que mostram a construção de um número significativo de silos nucleares.

Apenas parte deste documento foi tornado público, sendo o restante classificado como segredo da Defesa dos EUA.

“É muito preocupante para nós”, admitiu um responsável norte-americano, acrescentando que esta aceleração “levanta questões sobre as intenções” da China.

Mesmo com 1.000 ogivas nucleares, o arsenal chinês estaria longe de se igualar ao dos Estados Unidos e da Rússia, que juntos possuem mais de 90% das armas nucleares mundiais.

Em outubro de 2020, o Partido Comunista Chinês estabeleceu como meta modernizar a organização, o pessoal, o armamento e o equipamento do seu exército, até 2027, lembrou o relatório.

O Presidente norte-americano, Joe Biden, afirmou recentemente que os Estados Unidos têm o “compromisso” de defender militarmente Taiwan no caso de um ataque chinês.

O Pentágono acrescentou este ano ao seu relatório anual um capítulo sobre as pesquisas químicas e biológicas do país asiático, que considera “preocupantes”.

“A China envolveu-se em atividades biológicas potencialmente aplicáveis” no campo militar, disse o documento norte-americano.

“Com base nas informações disponíveis, os Estados Unidos não podem garantir que a China cumpra a Convenção Internacional de Armas Químicas”, frisou.

Nuclear Power in the European Union

Texto e tabelas aqui

 

Quem são os 10 senhores mundiais do urânio

Estoque para gerar energia em reatores nucleares chega a 7,1 biliões de toneladas. Segundo a Agência Internacional de Energia, as reservas identificadas podem suprir a procura atual por um século. Veja os países com as maiores reservas.

Carga atómica 

São Paulo – No começo do ano, a China anunciou a retomada da construção da maior central de energia nuclear do mundo. Em paralelo, outros países também estão desenvolvendo um apetite voraz por essa fonte – seja para alcançar segurança energética ou para diminuir a pressão sobre combustíveis fósseis. É o caso dos Emirados Árabes, Indonésia e até do Brasil, que voltou a discutir a instalação de novas centrais nucleares. Não é só a procura que cresce. O estoque de urânio, matéria-prima necessária para gerar energia em reatores nucleares, aumentou 12,5% entre 2008 e 2010, para 7,8 bilhões de toneladas. E o Brasil é um dos que lidera em novas descobertas. Para se ter uma ideia, as reservas nacionais de urânio cresceram 357%, entre 2001 e 2011, segundo dados do World Nuclear. Conheça a seguir, onde estão as maiores reservas de urânio do mundo.

1. - Austrália zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 1,66 biliões de ton Participação mundial: 31% Produção em 2011: 5,98 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 7,75 mil toneladas .Variação em 10 anos: - 30%

2. - Cazaquistão zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 629 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 12% Produção em 2011: 19,45 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 2 mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 848%

3. - Rússia zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 487,7 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 9% Produção em 2011: 3 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 2,5 mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 19,7%

4. - Canadá zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 468,7 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 9% Produção em 2011: 9,2 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 12,5 mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: - 27%

5. - Nigéria zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 421 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 8% Produção em 2011: 4,35 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 2,9 mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 50%

6. - África do Sul zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 279,1 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 5% Produção em 2011: 582 toneladas Produção em 2001: 873 toneladas Variação em 10 anos: - 33,3%

7. - Brasil zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 276,7 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 5% Produção em 2011: 265 toneladas Produção em 2001: 58 toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 357%

8.- Namíbia zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 261 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 5% Produção em 2011: 3,25 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 2,24 mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 45,5%

9.- Estados Unidos zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 207,4 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 4% Produção em 2011: 1,53 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: mil toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 52%

10. - China zoom_out_map

Reservas comprovadas: 166,1 milhões de ton Participação mundial: 3% Produção em 2011: 1,5 mil toneladas Produção em 2001: 655 toneladas Variação em 10 anos: 130%