[Tikib]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tikib', 'A')nd peak uranium is a bit of fallacy really, whenever we need uranium we just look for more.

Because uranium has so much more energy in it than oil its stil usable at much lower concentrations. You could power the world for a 100 years at least with current generation nuclear.

With molten salt you could power it for 2000 years at least.

[ennui2]

Part of the draw of thorium is that there's a lot more thorium than there is uranium.

I really don't know enough about nukes to know if the technical challenges of LFTR are a showstopper or not, but it's one of the few technologies that has the potential to really make a difference.

[Simon_R]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause uranium has so much more energy in it than oil its stil usable at much lower concentrations. You could power the world for a 100 years at least with current generation nuclear

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', 'H')i Tanada

Given current technology (the only one realistic for this buildout in 20 years) this seems to indicate and enormous amount of uranium per year. I saw a figure of 200 tonnes per station per year, this is 3000 stations * 200 = 600,000 tonnes per year.
Forgetting the nuclear waste issue, this seems an awful lot, googling peak uranium there does not appear to be that amount economically recoverable.

All figures derived from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

thanks

Simon

[Tikib]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause uranium has so much more energy in it than oil its stil usable at much lower concentrations. You could power the world for a 100 years at least with current generation nuclear

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tikib', ' ')If the price of uranium went up substantially theirs a large amount of lower grade rocks we could use.

[Tikib]

I already stated that uranium is different than oil in that respect because its energy is much higher. The EROI from mining low grade uranium is still high.

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'H')igh in relation to what? When the energy expended by the uranium extraction and refinement process is less than the energy contained in the fuel, then the effort becomes meaningless.

[Tikib]

Terrestrial energy(Canada), Transatomic power(US) and Moltex Energy(UK) are all persuing MSR designs in the west.

[yellowcanoe]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tikib', 'T')errestrial energy(Canada), Transatomic power(US) and Moltex Energy(UK) are all persuing MSR designs in the west.

[Tikib]

Terrestrial energy seem to be the closest and they have a had some public and a lot of private investment. They are also taking experienced people from elsewhere in the nuclear industry.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/te ... ar-AAdht0V

[Simon_R]

Tiki

I do not know a lot about nuclear, however I worked with a guy who was in the industry at a high level.
I asked him about new designs and why they werent adopted (curiosity) his answer was in two parts

1) Current design is well known and cheap and reliable to produce
2) the physics of water at high temp. pressure is predictable and we have years of experience in this

Thanks

Simon

[Tikib]

Yea moving on from light water ractors is hard. But nuclear power has gone has far as it can with the light water reactor. To lower there price to compete with other sources of energy they must move on.

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Simon_R', 'T')iki

I do not know a lot about nuclear, however I worked with a guy who was in the industry at a high level.
I asked him about new designs and why they werent adopted (curiosity) his answer was in two parts

1) Current design is well known and cheap and reliable to produce
2) the physics of water at high temp. pressure is predictable and we have years of experience in this

Thanks

Simon