[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'I') don't get why the Brits are so fucking tardy. 10 years, are you kidding me?

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '
')Here's my prediction: The Brits will waste another good 5 years. By then there will be a crises. I think the future of Britain is going to look a little bit like this...or perhaps Europe in general.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', '[')img]http://cblog.thule-italia.org/uploads/06.01.05.PipeWrench-X.gif[/img]

[Twilight]

If anything, we will be most vulnerable to disruptions in Algeria, Nigeria and Qatar. But Russia's influence will undoubtedly increase towards the end of next decade. The squabbles do not reach across the Channel - for now. Unfortunately the general public is likely to remain bitterly divided on energy policy until we do experience real problems.

[Starvid]

The last time the price of uranium was quoted in this thread it was at $90. Now it is $68. The speculative uranium bubble has been bursting as exploration has showed that the resource is very abundant.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he last time the price of uranium was quoted in this thread it was at $90. Now it is $68. The speculative uranium bubble has been bursting as exploration has showed that the resource is very abundant.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'T')he last time the price of uranium was quoted in this thread it was at $90. Now it is $68. The speculative uranium bubble has been bursting as exploration has showed that the resource is very abundant.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'N')ot that it really matters when push comes to shove. Neither does your reflexive counter agruments which have been debunked at this site so many times I can't care to count all of them.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'T')he Redbook is out soon also. I am standing by my previous guess, a massive rise again in proven and probable reserves, which will be the final nail in the uranium supply insuffcienty argument.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'W')e mine 5 billion tons on coal a year. We mine circa 50000 tons of uranium. The scale and volume is not comparable to other resouce mining operations.

[mkwin]

The amount of actual ore would probably be in the tens of millions of tons. But this is still a fraction of 1% of the volume of coal alone.

My point was we use 50,000 tons a year and the experts, due to the development and discovery of new resources in the last 2 years, will likely report another upward revision in reserves. From the 3.6 millions tons of P90 reserves to what 5 million? Or more? It finishes the argument put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby that uranium supplies are insufficient.

The extraction and processing of uranium is tiny compared to other industrial materials and the production of uranium could be, and is being, expanded to meet any further demand from nuclear plants.

A book cannot make a finite resource a renewable resource you are correct. But it can prove we can run and expand nuclear power for a very long-time and use it as part of a bridging energy system. In fact the 3rd and 4th generation plants use far less uranium and can process much of the waste. So as the old 1st and 2nd generation plants are become obsolete and are replaced with ultra-efficient 3rd an eventually 4th gen plants the demand for uranium could actually fall even as nuclear power increases.

The book also dispels the nonsense put forward by people like the Energy Watch Group that uranium supplies will peak in 20 years or something. They seem to have a problem understanding the complex issue of nuclear power. Uranium is a fraction of the cost of nuclear power, it has had very little exploration and development, therefore the booked reserves are not representative of total reserves economically available. This was proven by the 36% rise in proven reserves from 2003 to 2005 because some actual development and exploration was undertaken due to the high uranium price and much more development has been undertaken since, which will show even more proven reserves booked.

Both the uranium supply and EROEI arguments are put forward by left wing green ideologues, which are distorting the energy debate. Nuclear could be expanded to take over from coal, which is far more damaging to the environment from both a mining and climate change position. I find it one of greatest paradoxes of modern times that the green movement has actually helped to bring about the climate problem by its irrational fear of nuclear power. If we had stayed on the same course we were on in the 1960’s we would have far more advanced reactors, far less coal and gas usage and far less CO2. Lets give them all a clap, all those brave souls who picketed nuclear plants in the 60’s and 70’s. Without a clue about the repercussion of their actions.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')t finishes the argument put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby that uranium supplies are insufficient.

...

A book cannot make a finite resource a renewable resource you are correct. But it can prove we can run and expand nuclear power for a very long-time and use it as part of a bridging energy system.

...

The book also dispels the nonsense put forward by people like the Energy Watch Group that uranium supplies will peak in 20 years or something.

Both the uranium supply and EROEI arguments are put forward by left wing green ideologues, which are distorting the energy debate. Nuclear could be expanded to take over from coal, which is far more damaging to the environment from both a mining and climate change position. I find it one of greatest paradoxes of modern times that the green movement has actually helped to bring about the climate problem by its irrational fear of nuclear power.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he book proves nothing, if it doesn't yet exist. It also will not be able to prove any of the things you claim, though it can increase confidence that your claims are valid.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I')f we had 5 million tons of uranium producable for $120 a pound we have nearly 100 years worth at current rates of consumption.

[mkwin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't think any of the nuclear advocates here are suggesting that nuclear generating capacity should remain at what we have now. An "at current rates of consumption" figure is irrelevant. If we don't replace reactors as they come to the end of their lives, that 100 years will go shooting up but I doubt you'd want that. And mathematical "proof" is not the only proof we need, since geology, technology and politics are also important factors.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'I') doubt very much civilisation is going to collapse esspecialy in the west. The standard of living my decline as economic growth hits against its limits. But civilisation collapse is unlikely to the point of insignificance and if it does happen there is nothing you can do anyway. You and I would effectively be dead it does not matter if that comes at the hand of a looter or someone shooting us with a stolen army tank or someone detonating a stolen nuclear weapon. A nuclear reactor would not be on my top list of concerns. Sensible energy policy does not revolve around extremely unlikely events.