PeakOil is You
THE Uranium Supply Thread pt 4 (merged)
Re: Uranium Supply
by Starvid » Sat 26 May 2007, 17:08:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'L')ower industry costs -> lower costs for consumers, as long as there is competition.
Ah yes, wouldn't it be nice if our economic system worked like that... Unfortunately, well we may be really efficient in industry, in order to make moneyz, we're way more inefficient at the point of use in terms of personal transportation. Granted, personal electric transportation may be more efficient and competitive than what's current used, but I wouldn't bet on it. At least, not until 2015 or so.Call me stupid if you like, but I don't get it.
More efficient production leads to lower costs for consumers if there is competition between corporations. The last 300 years is something of a testament to that fact.
But the efficiency of consumption? That depends on the preferences of the individual. For example, some people think SUV's and rap music is an efficient consumption of their personal resources. I don't. But that doesn't mean that their consumption is inefficient in any empirical way, as we have different preferences.
If we want to look at inefficient consumption we must look at things like heating. Both I and Mr SUV Rapper like to heat our homes in winter. And heat is heat. If I live in a well insulated house connected to a biomass- and trashburning district heating plant while he is using a gas furnace to heat his drafty home, then his consumption is really inefficient, both from an energy and a financial point of view.
That is, if he doesn't get some kind of joy from specifically heating with gas or from living in a drafty house. Or paying high bills for that matter.
An example of this kind is that I would never like to live somewhere with gas cooking or heating, as I am confident I would surely blow myself up, or at least be constantly terrified of doing that.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
by Tanada » Sat 26 May 2007, 17:26:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sheb', '
')An industry/technology/engineering term is not discredited just because a handful people on a forum with generally weak math skills say it is.
ROI is a pretty simple concept, and really quite useful--"silly" or not.
ditto for EROEI. We're just dealing in Joules instead of $'s as the measure of value.
Now, show us how you run a reactor that produces more energy in fuel than it consumes...and make sure you describe your assumptions (they must be valid).
Either way, it seems that EROEI does not mean what you think it means. Its a ratio. The only way you get infinite EROEI is if you have a denominator of zero. (Hint, that means *zero* energy invested).
')An industry/technology/engineering term is not discredited just because a handful people on a forum with generally weak math skills say it is.
ROI is a pretty simple concept, and really quite useful--"silly" or not.
ditto for EROEI. We're just dealing in Joules instead of $'s as the measure of value.
Now, show us how you run a reactor that produces more energy in fuel than it consumes...and make sure you describe your assumptions (they must be valid).
Either way, it seems that EROEI does not mean what you think it means. Its a ratio. The only way you get infinite EROEI is if you have a denominator of zero. (Hint, that means *zero* energy invested).
For nuclear fission we really need a new anachronim, FROFI (Fuel returned on fuel invested)
In a standard reactor as designed and built today with todays technology you get a return on fuel invested of about 1:2.5; for every 2.5 unit's of Uranium-235 consumed you get about 1 unit of Plutonium. In a Breeder reactor you get 1.01:1 up to 1.4:1
Different fuel mixtures or fertile and fissile materials in different layouts give you different results. With reactor tests back in the 1975-1985 period they proved that the LWBR was a viable breeder with light water as an adaptation of a standard PWR reactor core using Thorium and U-235/U-233. It gave a FROFI of (1.01:1).
How do you figure an EROEI on a reactor that delivers more fissionable mass at the end of the fuel run than it had at the start? All the while producing the same ammount of electricity it did before being converted to a LWBR core configuration and fuel loading? Granted the fuel has to go through reprocessing and this consumes some energy, but estimates on how much energy are all over the map and mostly depend on economics of scale and steady state operation to be economic comopared to fresh fuel.
Breeders are very Energy efficient without being Economically efficient.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
- Tanada
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17094
- Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
