[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')
To actually prove that this can be done, we need hundreds to thousands of years and cannot afford to make mistakes along the way during that time period.

[funzone36]

A forum will always be a forum. You have to trust the experts:

" Presentations at the IAEA symposium underlined that the known uranium resources of 4 million tonnes should last for about 65 years at present consumption rates without reprocessing. "

"The meeting included specialists from about 40 countries, in addition to the Arab Atomic Energy Agency, European Commission, OECD/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), Office of Supervising Scientist (OSS)/Environment Australia, United Nations, Uranium Institute, World Bank, the World Energy Council and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)."

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressRel ... 2600.shtml

Experts from 40 countries agree that at current consumption rates, uranium supplies will be exhausted in 65 years. But no. We will not stay at our current consumption rate so 25 years is a fair guess at when our uranium supplies will run out.

That's why I don't do research in forums. Individuals here can honestly write whatever they want.

It'll wait until you dig up the other solar energy thread.

Sustainable growth will occur if there is a larger predator that feeds on humans as prey. Eg. Dinosaurs

I define growth as an increase in the number of species.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat's why I don't do research in forums. Individuals here can honestly write whatever they want.

[orz]

Please finish reading your own articles:

"Presentations at the IAEA symposium underlined that the known uranium resources of 4 million tonnes should last for about 65 years at present consumption rates without reprocessing. Estimates of potential, yet undiscovered resources would add 16 million tonnes, increasing the time period to almost 300 years. However, substantial exploration efforts are required to discover and transfer these resources into reserves. Reported uranium production has remained steady at some 35 000 tonnes annually over the past decade with roughly 50% from Australia and Canada. In these two countries, operations began in 1999 at the high grade McArthur River deposit in Canada with expected production of 4200 tonnes in 2000, and in Australia permission was granted to exploit the low grade Beverly deposit. During 1999, the uranium market spot price continued to fall and it remains low."

Even in the very article you posted, they point out that these are only known reserves. Unknown traditional reserves by themselves posit a 4fold INCREASE on known reserves. So even if you quadruple world consumption rates you have an estimated 75 years worth of traditional uranium. Now why aren't these reserves being touched? Well the Uranium price is "low and falling." What economic sense would it make to extract even more uranium and dampen the price further?

Of course the beauty of this argument is that if you are going to consider future consumption rates, you should also consider future technology. Reprocessing, for example could double this tiimespan or take it even further. Furthermore it is a well known fact that the uranium in the seas could fuel us for millenia if we could find an energy positive way to extract it. Why hasn't it been done already? Nuclear for the past couple decades has been a dead field. Many of the best nuclear scientist around the world have gone unemployed since the cold war with all the regulations and environmental groups hampering nuclear power from growing and with the military shying away from the cold war nuclear buildup. It's only begun to pick up in pace again now. To not expect further technological growth in this area is ridiculous. Not to mention that this is only needed as long as we don't have commercial fusion available which will power us indefinitely.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ustainable growth will occur if there is a larger predator that feeds on humans as prey. Eg. Dinosaurs

I define growth as an increase in the number of species.

[funzone36]

Ok. I finally got my head out of the sand about the uranium supply issue.

But wait a minute. Do you expect we can build enough nuclear reactors so that we can have a smooth transition from oil to nuclear when peak oil hits?

See, this is what I always say. I'm not saying that alternative energies can't provide us with electricity. I'm just saying they won't help prevent peak oil.

[orz]

Nope I think it's very unlikely there will be a smooth transition, unless peak oil is a decade or more away(unlikely). I don't like to think about what is going to happen, because the future is so uncertain that ever scenario from a 95% die off to a cornucopian, silver bullet is all possible and trying to see the future is IMO a waste of time. I just don't want people to rule out possibilities prematurely.

[Caoimhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('funzone36', 'O')k. I finally got my head out of the sand about the uranium supply issue.

[funzone36]

With uranium supplies out of the way, these are my remaining arguments as to why it won't help prevent peak oil by building reactors on a large scale:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')In a nuclear world of 8-10 billion rich people we’d have to bury many thousands every year, perhaps one per hour."

http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/ ... clear.html

"keeping the bulk of radioactive waste in stainless steel tanks "

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

But we don't have a lot of steel left.

"Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

You can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.

You need to worry about nuclear accident from cracks:

"We're facing reactors deteriorating, cracking and leaking as they get older," says David Lochbaum, who was a safety engineer in the US nuclear industry for 17 years but now works for the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 924071.100

And finally, it's vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorists attacks that can release the radioactivite stuff to the environment.

[DigitalCubano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.

[funzone36]

I found info about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmutation

Yep, I agree it does solve the waste issue. Thanks for the contribution.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('funzone36', 'W')ith uranium supplies out of the way, these are my remaining arguments as to why it won't help prevent peak oil by building reactors on a large scale:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')In a nuclear world of 8-10 billion rich people we’d have to bury many thousands every year, perhaps one per hour."

http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/ ... clear.html

"keeping the bulk of radioactive waste in stainless steel tanks "

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

But we don't have a lot of steel left.

"Uranium extraction has resulted in more than 6 billion tonnes of radioactive tailings, with significant impact on human health [2]."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DTNPM.php

You can use plutonium but plutonium extraction will also result in billion tonnes of radioactive tailings.

Nuclear fission is non-renewable so eventually, you won't be able to use it anymore just like oil.

You need to worry about nuclear accident from cracks:

"We're facing reactors deteriorating, cracking and leaking as they get older," says David Lochbaum, who was a safety engineer in the US nuclear industry for 17 years but now works for the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists"

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... 924071.100

And finally, it's vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorists attacks that can release the radioactivite stuff to the environment.

[funzone36]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not sure if the sources you cite above are very objective.

[DigitalCubano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('funzone36', 'R')iding bicycles is way cheaper than nuclear. The capital costs for nuclear is 5 billions dollars and you need to build thousands of them. Even the developed nations don't have that much money without going in debt.

[funzone36]

What opportunity are you talking about? You say that building a nuclear infrastructure will save money. How much money are we going to save? How can we save money from building nuclear reactors?

[DigitalCubano]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('funzone36', 'W')hat opportunity are you talking about? You say that building a nuclear infrastructure will save money. How much money are we going to save? How can we save money from building nuclear reactors?

[funzone36]

If B = nuclear then I don't see any opportunity it provides. If B = renewables then I see an opportunity to improve the environment. Saving makes sense now when you're better off investing in renewables.

Compare the costs:

"A gas-fired plant can be built for $350 per kilowatt (kW); wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000/kw. A nuclear plant costs $3,000 to $4,000 per kw to build."

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

I still don't know what opportunity cost nuclear provides.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Caoimhan', 'S')o... the more we can shift to a nuk-electric economy, the easier the peak will be on us when it finally arrives.

But nuclear alone isn't the answer. Nuclear + biofuels + efficiency + wind/solar/geo... anything helps.

But nuclear is already in a position to change things.

[Optimist]

Funzone,
I do believe encouraging conservation is a good thing. I do not believe that civilization as we know it, is about to come to an end - not due to the end of cheap oil, anyway.

I believe there is sufficient energy in the waste we currently send to landfill (~8 billion tons per year of industrial waste in the US alone). See "The Mother of All Biofuel Debates" p11 & 12 for some of my arguments. See also ES' diagram on p13. For reference, current worldwide oil consumption is about 5.5 TW. Think we'd be able to make that up out of the 55 TW of "untouched biomass" marked as "decay"? Heck, it would only require an overall efficiency of 10%!

You dismiss TDP, as many posters on this board as needing oil to produce the waste it runs on. That is incorrect thinking, in my view. In a sustainable world we would collect our energy from the sun and convert a part of it to the liquid fuels that are so convenient. We don't need oil to produce the waste, we need the sun. In photosynthesis we have the perfect way of collecting dilute solar energy and concentrating it in chemical energy.

And no, we don't need to plough under the country to make it work: we are already producing the bulk of the waste to make this work. We just need to redirect waste from landfill to oil plant.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Optimist', '
')And no, we don't need to plough under the country to make it work: we are already producing the bulk of the waste to make this work. We just need to redirect waste from landfill to oil plant.

[Optimist]

I guess the academics are lagging behind on this one, no studies on this particular point, that I am aware of. But I am aware of this reference, that gives an indication of what is available out there:
"A U.S. Department of Agriculture report says more than 1.3 billion tons of dry forest material waste is available in the nation for biomass systems. If used for energy, that would be equivalent to about 30 percent of the nation’s oil usage, the report said." - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9924889/ The original report is at http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs ... eport2.pdf

It appears that currently most of the 1.3 billion tons is burned to prevent forest fires - a tragic waste of a renewable resource.

You can also look at this Forest Service study for Minnesota: http://ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc114.pdf