Can you say "global warming?"
I didn't think so.
Are you contending that so called "nuclear waste" has killed as many people as the drought in Mali? The hurricanes?
Well are you? Prove it.
You have, as is typical of this rote unscientific fear of so called "nuclear waste," not actually produced a person injured by the storage of spent fuel. Your argument boils down to "it is true because I say so."
The ocean contains 3-4 billion tons of uranium. The Japanese have demonstrated that this is recoverable whenever the price of uranium rises above $200/kg, using polyamidoxime resins. If you don't believe me, google it. I note that of the 68,000 tU produced each year, only 3% is actually consumed in a reactor. Because of stupidity and mysticism, the residual is not recovered in the United States, but it will be, when and if, uranium prices rise, which will happen when and if uranium becomes in short supply. In fact, for the last decade most of the world's reactors have been running on
surplus uranium. In fact the world is awash in fissionable material. If one understands physics and is able to do relatively simple calculations, one can immediate tell from this link
http://npc.sarov.ru/english/digest/162005/appendix4.html that their is sufficient isolated highly enriched fissionable material to fuel all of the world's existing reactors for 10 years without operating a single mine. I note with respect to plutonium that all of the world's existing reactors would consume
all of this plutonium, but instead would produce an amount of plutonium that is equivalent to 80% of the existing stockpile. One could, in theory, run the world's existing reactors for many years hence without mining uranium at all. The reason that uranium
is mined rather than recovered is because it is cheaper to mine it than it is to recover it from spent fuel. When this situation changes, it is very easy to change one's approach to getting uranium.
I will not bother to point out any further reactor physics to you, since you are clearly
a priori not in any position to understand it. Basically the argument that the world will run out of uranium (soon) depends on the argument that the only isotope suitable for fission is U-235. This is complete nonsense and usually this argument comes from people who have basically NO understanding whatsoever of nuclear technology - generally the exact same set of people who refer to so called "nuclear waste" as "dangerous" even though they can't demonstrate a single person harmed by its storage. I know this sort very well; they are the kind who think that a uranium inquiry in Niger is the same as making a nuclear weapon.
This sort of person is, unfortunately for the environment, common and, to a man and woman, represent ive of a set of people who have never bothered to learn enough about the subject of energy to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with reality. The world will NOT survive without nuclear power. If you think it can, say
how and please spare me the nonsense, dithering and wishful thinking about PV solar cells. I am a liberal and therefore I am not interested in hearing how only the wealthy can survive.
In fact the main reason that more uranium is not recovered is because uranium (and thorium, which is available in quantities that are 3X larger than uranium) is so cheap. In fact, it is equivalent to crude oil at much less than 0.01 cents per gallon. Something that cheap hardly seems in short supply. Thorium, in fact, is not recovered at all upon removal ores used to obtain lanthanides used to make television tubes. Instead the thorium is dumped after a great deal of silly agonizing over its radioactivity. The world's thorium dumps easily contain many centuries worth of energy.
The world is planning on expanding its nuclear capacity by 37%, which is huge number since nuclear power already provides about 8% of the world's primary energy demand.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm (Along with hydroelectric power, nuclear represents the only
major form of on demand energy that is greenhouse gas free.) I don't think the billions so invested would come if people seriously were concerned about uranium and thorium supplies.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
