Forum menu
We need to be making an 80-90% cut.
As I say, it's all about efficiency and reduction.
Whilst I admire the sentiment, 80% from efficiency measures is not possible without a huge (back to pre war days) change to the way we live and massive reduction in the amount of people in the country. Any govt which tried to change our lives to this degree would be booted out in quick order.
Efficiency is hugely important, but the manner in which we get our energy is too.
Yes wrecker, that's why we're screwed!
I think that ultimately you're right ransos. I don't think the planet will recover from the damage we've done regardless of how we change. It's admirable what the green lobby (for the main part) are doing but people are still chopping down rain forest, commerce in places the the US, China and India still comes a long way before any consideration for the environment. We'll do our bit on our little island. In the scheme of things, it won't change anything though. 😥
Junkyard -that piece uses the same data as Alistair Mcs link and give a figure of 80 years of fuel at current consumption rates.
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.
Thats 80 years worth of known and recoverable fuel at present consumption rates. All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last
All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
Using the same logic with renewables, we might as well give up with them now.
Oh, but of course that's ignoring the fact that they're actually relying on quite confident predictions of the availability of fuel based on scientific modelling, and current technology which just isn't in widespread use.
Let's think - who do we trust on this - TJ or the NEA?
Thats 80 years worth of known and recoverable fuel at present consumption rates. All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
That's not how it works. The "other fuel" in that article that you linked to is stuff that is above and beyond the 230 year supply. The 10.5 million tonnes will be places where the geology looks favourable for there to be large deposites of yellowcake but no one has actually dug any up yet, probably because there is no need to spend that sort of money on that sort of exporation when there is a better return to be had by getting after the proven stuff.
It's an estimate based on probabilities and created by people who have access to far more information about it than you or I do.
All the other fuel they claim is there is surmise and reliant on technology we do not have right now.
this was done earlier
here is what I said then
Resources believed to exist and to be exploitable
using conventional mining techniques, but not yet
physically confirmed, are classed as “undiscovered
conventional resources”. These resources include
estimated additional resources category II (EAR II),
uranium resources that are expected to be located
in well-defined geological trends of known ore
deposits, or mineralised areas with known deposits;
and speculative resources (SR), uranium resources
that are thought to exist in geologically favourable,
yet still unexplored areas
call it an educated guess or an ESTIMATE if you prefer.
an estimate is not a fact, then again they have not weighed or extracted all the know stuff either so that is not a fact either. They are both estimates though we would all put more weight [ weight..get it ] to the "known" ones than the "unknown ones"
What do you think they do to find it [ or oil or gas or gold etc]just pick a spot and drill with their fingers crossed?
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-long-shadow-of-chernobyl/page/3#post-3602391
and from the link you cited and I am repeating this post as well as it is just after the bit you quoted
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.
so STILL NOT 80 YEARS
we did this on this post
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-long-shadow-of-chernobyl/page/3#post-3602280
This is pointless and I cannot be bothered to repost to the same question ad infinitum ..you wont change your view but you will select facts that fit your view and ignore the totality of the argument put forward in the papers neither of which support your 40 or 80 year view
[img] 
[/img]
Going back to pre war energy consumption levels (I'm guessing you mean WWII) doesn't seem to be much of a reduction when you look at the coal production graph. About 30% of the 1913 peak was exported but by WWII the coal graph is representative of most of the UK's energy consumption. A lot!
80 years of uranium (well 78 really) was based on 80s proven reserves. Prospecting stopped when the price crashed but rose enough to prompt more prospecting in 06/07 and a new estimate of 546 years. I'm sure a bit more prospecting would yield enough ofr thousands of years but would also result in a price crash that is not in the interest of the companies prospecting and releasing data.
In order for that graph to be of any use, we'd need to know the equivalent amount of energy we use today including nuclear, imported coal, renewables. We'd have to include gas consumption as well.
[img] 
[/img]
By 1970 most coal was being burned in power stations. Take the proportion of coal in 1970 on the electricity graph as a rough gauge of the energy derived from coal in earlier periods. (coal imports form a significant part of the coal used in power stations since the Thatcher years so recent coal use figures aren't useful for comparison purposes which is why I suggest using 1970 - post smokeless zones and hearth burning, pre imports)
Yep, left the thread for 12 hours, had a sleep, and the other posters have pretty much just repeated what has already been written twice, yet TJ still fails to listen.
I think we should start a thread on nursing (a topic hopefully TJ knows more about than he does about sustainable energy production [by the way TJ, the thread was actually about showing some URBEX pictures of Chernobyl, and not a discussion about [i]any[/i] sort of power generation])
We can then use all sorts of faith / daily mail based arguments about how the NHS is a waste of space, and how all nurses are unprofessional and spread disease etc. We could refuse to listen to the facts that TJ will furnish us with, instead pointing out things like MRSA.
That might seem a tad unfair, but as I stated earlier, I wouldn't have dreamt about questioning TJ's professional knowledge, so I'm puzzled as to why my own is fair game. I mean, we can all read [b]FACTS[/b] about nursing on a daily basis in the papers, so they must be true 🙄
TJ - I posted that 80 year link to disprove your faith based argument that has never been backed up with evidence. I was able to double your 40 year claim using a link on the first page of a Google search. If you are so certain you're right, surely the easiest thing you can do is refute my link with some other evidence?
Until that point, I'm out. No point in debating with you as you're clearly unwilling to accept you might be wrong.
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.
this really does amuse me - the touching faith you guys have in the nuclear industry despite 50 years of lies - still continuing today 🙂
Your refusal to give any meaningful answers to the three questions is laughable as well.
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
However to say as you guys do - waste can be got rid off by putting it in a hole in the ground, new tech will come on line meaning we have more fuel and new tech will come on line meaning reactors are less polluting is just accepted by you, Your faith is touching and laughable - and misplaced.
You can't even agree if nuclear is simply to replace the few reactors we have or if its a viable tool in the fight against AGW
So lets see some real meaningful answers - not just platitudes baldly stated that we have to accept on faith.
Waste - how are you going to manage it - High level stuff is usually chemically hot and reactive as well as radiactive. it will remain dangerous for many hundreds of years.
So - what rock - whats the location of the depository?
Waht process to make it chemincally inert?
How will you ensure it does not get into the water table in this timespan?
How can you ensure it willnot be affected by earthquakes over that timespan?
How will you monitor it
will you make it retreivable in the event of leakage?
all these and lots more questions need to be answere3d
So come on - real meaninful answers please.
Very interesting graph edukator. As that is gross generation, it would include the burning of imported coal though won't it?
Not sure what you're getting at about the imported coal though, it's being consumed and so would need to be included, no?
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as [s]the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.[/s] that doesn't upset my religious view too much.this really does amuse me - the touching faith you [s]guys[/s] have in [s]the nuclear industry[/s] your anti-nuclear position
FTFY
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
Given by default that is clearly your position go on then. Like the supply of rare earth magnets - "I'm sure we'll find some alternative" isn't a meaningful answer BTW.
"I'm sure we'll find some alternative" isn't a meaningful answer BTW.
tell that to zokes and junkyard 🙂
TandemJeremy - Memberall these and lots more questions need to be answered
So come on - real meaninful answers please.
So all the birthday politeness was just the "one off" eh 😆
[img] 
[/img]
Wow! This thread just keeps on giving!
tell that to zokes and junkyard
No answer then?
Your refusal to give any meaningful answer to that questions is laughable.
The difference of course is that isn't actually what they're saying.
There are comprehensive answers to your questions - and they've been given before on nuclear power threads. TBH I really can't be bothered - any answer we give you'll dismiss as "not an answer". The only interest in these threads when you get involved is in pointing out your hypocrisy.
Oh and in claiming 200.
I think you missed my link on page 4, Aracer. [url= http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article285956.ece ]Wind turbines don't need rare earths[/url].
80/240/540 years of proven uranium reserves is pretty good compared with any of the non-renewable alternatives.
Prematurely closing nuclear reactors which still have life in them wil just result in life as we know it ending sooner:
[img] 
[/img]
1)
So - what rock - whats the location of the depository?
There are a few prospective sites here in Oz. The place is only, what, 3.8 bn years old.
2)
Waht process to make it chemincally inert?
Turn it into glass, like already happens. Look up 'vitrification'.
3)
How will you ensure it does not get into the water table in this timespan?
See (1) and (2)
4)
How can you ensure it willnot be affected by earthquakes over that timespan?
See (1) and (2)
5)
How will you monitor it
I suspect it will involve computers and stuff. Also see (1) and (2)
6)
will you make it retreivable in the event of leakage?
See (1) and (2)
Easy really...
So lets see some real meaningful answers - not just platitudes baldly stated that we have to accept on faith.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
It's just like having cressers back 😀
Again, Macavity, why should I click on that link? Will it provide me new information? Will it back the opinions of others on this thread, or support my own?
In short, yur debatingz is saracin
EDIT: Having just skimmed your posting history, I've come to the conclusion you must be some sort of bot.
So, for the most part, we have reasoned argument backed up with scientific facts (and good discussions amongst these opinions, especially with Edukator) [i]vs[/i] a faith healer and a google-bot. No wonder this thread hasn't turned out very well
I'll happily accept 80 years supply as the point it makes is still valid. with such a shortage of fuel, nuclear cannot be a part of reducing AGW as we don't have the fuel to power the number of reactors needed.
Wow that is really really really generous of you no really it is…now all we need is someone else with like say a science background to agree with you and hey we can then debate that figure v what other scientists who work in the industry says
You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing - it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations
this really does amuse me - the touching faith you guys have in the nuclear industry despite 50 years of lies - still continuing today
Faith? I am not fan of it but it unfortunately the best short term alternative- does throwing gentle ad hominem and lazy slurs to those who have a different view to you part of your simple logic we cannot defeat?
Your refusal to give any meaningful answers to the three questions is laughable as well.
You refusal to accept any answer you disagree with as meaningful is somewhere between , desperate, tragic and laughable
Here is your answer to magnets btw to show you a non meaningful [ its just a refusal to answer ]
[b]As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on - a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.[/b]
Is this the sort of meaningful answer you would prefer?
Really you are like a self awareness vacum accusing everyone of doing exactly what you do, your lack of self awareness is at Olympic levels here –
If I said - reneawables and energy efficiency will be enough you would rightly press me for details
However to say as you guys do - waste can be got rid off by putting it in a hole in the ground, new tech will come on line meaning we have more fuel and new tech will come on line meaning reactors are less polluting is just accepted by you, Your faith is touching and laughable - and misplaced.
Your are right TJ life shows us that mankind does not progress, move forward and the next generation will not be able to do anything new that we cannot currently do. Its an excellent point well made. How is the leech treatment going of your patients and I assume you still drill their heads for mental health purposes?
You cannot even phrase the question respectfully no and you just assert it is both faith [probably because you cannot see the multiple answers given]and misplaced and then regale us with how logical your argument is ..its pish.
PS you know there are not enough magnets for your wind power are you hoping for some new technology we currently don’t have to come along toi make it successful. If"we" are doing this then so are you [ i knwo you will deny it but no one belives this]
It’s a shame the issue is complicated and it requires a subtle and nuanced debate to work out the best solutions [ with non being ideal tbh] in order to make something sustainable. That’s is a debate that can never be had when you are in the “debate” as you just polarise then brow beat…it’s the last time I am getting sucked in "debating" with youa as I now know what futile means
.[b]The only interest in these threads when you get involved is in pointing out your hypocrisy[/b]
THIS but it is pointless as despite you being told this on numerous threads by numerous people I really do believe you think it is all of us who have a problem and not you or your simple logic- that is tragic and I don’t wish to partake in “debate” with you.
Itis like debating with a person of faoth with limited intelect.
Junkyard -
You seem to think that reducing c02 for 80 years is not worth anything and is nothing - it is a short term solution even if we believe your calculations
Its not a meaningful amount - nuclear power is a small % of energy usage - so 80 years at current usage will make no significant difference to AGW
For nuclear to make any significant difference it needs to be expanded massively - and we do not have the fuel for that.
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
[b]No one on this thread has addressed this point.[/b]
Zokes - so no answers again then What a suprise.
aracer
There are comprehensive answers to your questions
Really - can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.
Zokes - so no answers again then What a suprise.
Umm did you not see the post where he said "turn it into glass and put it somewhere geologically stable"?
Or are you just being as closed minded?
gonefishin - its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
"Put it somewhere geologically stable" Really meaningful
Where is this mythological place? what type of rock? Where is it located?
You claimed no-one's mind could be changed earlier. Why don't you accept your own forecast and STFU giving everyone a rest from your tiresome argumentative BS.
I reckon you sat up half the night thinking of your first post this morning. You're clearly obsessed with something and it would appear to be with arguing for the sake of it.
Boring...
teasel This question shows the massive hole in the pro nuclear arguement and non of the pro nukes will answer it.
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
You claimed no-one's mind could be changed earlier. Why don't you accept your own forecast and STFU
its a limited answer to a limited part of it. Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
He took all of your questions and answered them one by one. That's not limited.
"Put it somewhere geologically stable" Really meaningful
That was me summarising what he said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
Since you are so fond of wiki, that's how several coutries have decided to do it.
Now I appreciate that you may not like the proposed solutions but that doesn't mean that they won't be effective.
Its the only bit he even attempts to answer.
i refer you to the answer you eventually gave me after being asked about 5 times on wind generators where you simply stated you would not answer and you considered that an answer 🙄
No answer will satisfy you when it is given to you and any answer given by you is undefeatable simple logic... then you dollop in some slurs about faith and luaghing at others.
It does not matter what anyone says does it. How many people have told you it has been answered now? How many have agreed with you.
I cannot decide if this is tragic or funny.
i can it is tragic really tragic...every thread becsome this for you TJ 😥
Gonefishing - read your wiki link.
Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, [b]although there has been limited progress toward implementing long-term waste management solutions.[/b][
Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described [b]the as yet unsolved dilemma [/b]of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."[8]
Junkyard - if the questions I posed have been answered will you please copy and paste them?
Its a serious point. People claim nuclear is needed to prevent global warming but by the nuclear industries own figures we do not have the fuel available for that.
You mean the nuclear industry's own figures which say they have 230 years of fuel at current usage levels, but that could be more than doubled by more efficient use of fuel (using current technology)? So if we allow for 50 years of use (before things like Thorium or fusion come on-line), that allows for 10 times as much nuclear power as we have now - is that not a massive expansion?
Or do you mean TJ's grossly distorted figures?
How much [b]real[/b] baseload energy do renewables supply compared to nuclear?
<though I'm really not sure why I bother - doubtless that's not a proper answer to the STW "expert" on this>
No - I mean the industries own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.
Really - can you copy and paste them then please as I am unable to see them.
Nope - CBA expending the effort in a futile attempt to win an internet argument with you about this - not when you'll doubtless dismiss them in the same way you do with any other reasoned argument which doesn't agree with your religious view.
No - I mean [s]the industries[/s] my own figures of 80 years worth of known reserves at current usage.
FTFY
Aracer - direct lift from the NEA numbers. 80 years worth of KNOWN reserves
TJ = Worzel Gummidge doing a five-knuckle shuffle.
[s]Only if you completely misinterpret the way the word "known" is used when presenting such figures. The "nuclear industries own figures" include rather more than that[/s]
CBA - we've done all this before, and you refuse to accept the way this is calculated by every scientist involved.
[img] 
[/img]