[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Nuclear is not a renewable energy source and uranium is expecting a shortage soon.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Which in no way answers the question posed here.


Thats just a statement of fact. I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that consumption in a finite environment is possible, its a favorite peaker strawman to accuse people of this position when it doesn't exist. I believe that everyone holds the basic position you've listed above, including CERA, Lynch and the EIA...accusing them of something else to make fun of them is just par for the peaker course for some reason. Never understood it myself, but I laugh every time I think of JD's disclaimer on the topic at the top of his blog page.

The only reference to the USGS and someone picking a peak that I am familiar with is here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/

and I don't know if he's picking a peak or just referencing a peaker?


The EIA made the exact same mistake that ASPO did, and all of this was referenced by Hirsch at the tailend of his 2005 DOE report. No point in perpetuating confusion on the topic when Hirsch has already attributed everything correctly.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
Nuclear is not a renewable energy source and uranium is expecting a shortage soon.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Uranium Institute (a London based nuclear industry association) earlier this month released its latest uranium market report which analysed uranium supply/demand to 2015, including the impact of current plans for diluting ex military HEU for civil use. The Institute warned of a looming uranium supply shortage, pointing out that only if the lowest demand projection is compared with the highest supply scenario (including HEU) will production be sufficient to meet demand. Otherwise, demand may exceed present planned supply by up to 17,700 t of U3 O8 pa.

[Plantagenet]

Uranium supplies, like oil, are finite. It appears the earth only has about a 30,000-60,000 year supply of uranium, at current rates of consumption. That means peak uranium in roughly 15,000 to 30,000 years---and TEOTWAWKI even in France.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

uranium supply is finite....estimated at 30,000-60,000 years


------------------

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
Just one will do, to see how well they stack up against each other.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
The only reference to the USGS and someone picking a peak that I am familiar with is here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/

and I don't know if he's picking a peak or just referencing a peaker?

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
The only reference to the USGS and someone picking a peak that I am familiar with is here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/

and I don't know if he's picking a peak or just referencing a peaker?

[ki11ercane]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hardtootell-2', 'i')f this article along with its excellent graphics and well respected source do not convince you, I think there may not be much else I could offer. It shows how much oil we burn/yr and what the alternatives would be if it needed to be replaced.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4820

[pedalling_faster]

i wouldn't tell Matt Simmons & Ken Deffeyes "their business". if they say we're at or past peak, i believe them because they've spent 10,000 times more time than me studying geology, etc.

Deffeyes noted a peak in 4Q 2005, then that was revised when 20,000 more barrels were pumped sometime in 2008.

there are considerations like the amount of exploration that has gone into oil-bearing regions like Texas and Iraq. Texas has about a million wells, it's thoroughly mapped. Iraq has several thousand wells, it's not as thoroughly mapped. yeah, they could discover more oil there, more than the 110 billion barrels already discovered.

[ki11ercane]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'U')ranium supplies, like oil, are finite. It appears the earth only has about a 30,000-60,000 year supply of uranium, at current rates of consumption. That means peak uranium in roughly 15,000 to 30,000 years---and TEOTWAWKI even in France.

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

Using more enrichment work could reduce the uranium needs of LWRs by as much as 30 percent per metric ton of LEU. And separating plutonium and uranium from spent LEU and using them to make fresh fuel could reduce requirements by another 30 percent. Taking both steps would cut the uranium requirements of an LWR in half.

Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

uranium supply is finite....estimated at 30,000-60,000 years


------------------

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'U')ranium supplies, like oil, are finite. It appears the earth only has about a 30,000-60,000 year supply of uranium, at current rates of consumption. That means peak uranium in roughly 15,000 to 30,000 years---and TEOTWAWKI even in France.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '
')
What are you trying to say? Spit it out.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ki11ercane', ' ') We've brought this whole mess on ourselves.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ki11ercane', '
')Again, this should have been done at the BEGINNING of the cheap energy era, not considered at the END of the cheap energy era. Neither our economies, environment, or the current availability of cheap energy can facilitate this requirement.

It's too late now.

[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ki11ercane', ' ') We've brought this whole mess on ourselves.

[ki11ercane]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ki11ercane', '
')Again, this should have been done at the BEGINNING of the cheap energy era, not considered at the END of the cheap energy era. Neither our economies, environment, or the current availability of cheap energy can facilitate this requirement.

It's too late now.