Java Jive wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:01:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
- world uranium output is what it is because no more is currently
needed. There is plenty more there.The use of CURRENT production to
imply a limit on FUTURE production is basically worthy only of a
green****er or politician.

But you are talking about buying the uranium up front, which implies
it must be found now or in the near future, so current production
figures or nearly so would apply. See the calculation below.

-300GW is a figure obtained by taking the governments figures for total
energy consumption, and multiplying it by appropriate efficiency figures
to map it into putative electrical generation figures.

I know, but I and everyone else are talking about electricity
production alone, so you're just muddying the waters.

Thereby making us strategically independent of oil and gas producing
countries.

We are already, or near as dammit.

Bwahahahaha!
Keep up at the back! we have never been able to meet our oil demands,
and we are now a net importer of gas, too.

Or windmills that are very vulnerable to terrorists, vandals, or
probably even someone with a stanley knife.

A terrorist would have to knock out a hell of a lot of windmills
scattered over the country to make a difference. It would be a lot
easier to fly some planes into some nuclear power stations.


Wouldn't get very far.

And with a little stockpiling able to be self sufficient for a lot
longer than we are with no gas or oil or coal now, and would ever be
with windmills, which require a LOT if imported materials to construct them.

But we don't have any radio-active fuel, so the only way we could
guarantee strategic security of supply is to stockpile the WHOLE
envisaged future demand in advance while we are actually building the
power stations. Let's do the maths for that ...


Do it, Its a lot easier than stockpiling all the coal for a year so you
can take on the miners.

If 100 nuclear power stations were ordered today, and completed 10 a
year from 10 years hence, it would take 20 years to complete the job.
If each was expected to last 40 years, the estimated lifetime of
Sizewell B, that would mean a total fuel demand of 40 * 100 * 7360t =
29,440,000t, or 1,472,000t/yr, or 34 times the current world uranium
production. This means that total current world uranium production
would have to grow at about 29% compound every single year over the 20
years of construction to meet both our and the current level of world
demands.


You conveniently forget reprocessing and fast breeding. And your figures
for uranium are way off beam. It only takes about 200tons a year of
enriched uranium to run a 1GW power station so for 300GW its about
600,000 tons a year.

By contrast we currently import 50 million tons of coal each year.


You should look at the rate of rise of production in uranium in the 50's..

That's a hell of a growth rate.

Now look at the figures for windmills.

And gasp. Oh I forgot, you dont do maths except when it fits your scenario.


You're not employed by or have shares
in Rio Tinto are/do you?

Wish I was..