Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:19:17 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Al 1953 saying
something like:

I'm wondering whether I should fork out for gas central heating in my new
house. However, I wonder if elctric heating will be cheaper than gas
heating after they build the new nuclear power stations. I think that's
what happened in France, isn't it?
"Too cheap to meter", that rings a bell.


When they got past that particular barefaced lie, there was a
publicity drive stating that the prices of electricity generated from
nuclear, coal and oil were in the ratio 1:2:3.

But that was also a barefaced lie, as nuclear power in the UK has
always cost more per kWh than electricity produced commercially from
any fossil fuel.

It doesnt now.


"Peak uranium" is not far behind "peak oil", which is going to happen
within the next decade. The rush to nuclear power, the result of a
desire to lower CO2 emissions, will bring peak uranium ever closer.
Uranium prices will rocket and finding secure supplies will become
ever more difficult.


Utter ********. Ther is certainly enough urnaium for 50 years, and fasty
brerders and other technologies can make a lot more fissionable material
IF THE PRICE IS HIGH ENOUGH. Currently the cost of fuel is about 0.1p
per kilowatt hour. When you look at the potential uranium reserves at
say 10 times the price that it costs now - still only 1p per kilowatt
hour - the resources are MASSIVE.

Peak oil has a natural cutoff, in that if it takes more energy to get it
out than it produces , its really totally useless.

But that sort of figure, with uranium, is never reached. Its energy
effective to filter it out of seawater. Its very EXPENSIVE, but not as
expensive as oil at say $300 a barrel is.

Uranium exploration and mining is almost nil at the moment. A few rich
and easily exploitable resources are in play, but no one has gone
looking for more, or developed extraction for it, because its too cheap
to be worth it.




I wonder what the next "quick fix" will be after nuclear power? Tidal
power, more wind power, perhaps, but these systems don't generate
power reliably when you need them. Clean coal? The first UK clean
coal station has just been denied planning permission on the basis of
a detailed report that showed the technology did not have a cat's
chance in hell of doing what was claimed for it. Biomass? The
proposed biomass power station on Anglesey would need most of its fuel
to be imported over long distances by sea, adding CO2 emissions.


Fusion power and second generation reactors. There are at least 5
potentially far better fission technologies out there, that have never
been researched or developed because the cash wasn't there to do it.
And the Greens managed to lobby hard to get them kicked in the balls.

The fact is that we cant with any current technology, except in a very
few instances, run an industrial society on renewable resources. WE have
to exploit the energy density of atomic reactions. Period.

If one tenth te effort going into trying to make windmills work, went
into new reactor development, we wouldnt be in the mess we are.





So it looks like nuclear fusion will be needed to save the day. But
it's 20-30 years away. Funnily enough, they said the same 20-30 years
ago. But 20-30 years on, it is still 20-30 years away.

Must keep trying. ;-)


OTOH fission is here now and able to do the job.

Fusion has, finally shown energy positive reactions. Its taken a hell of
a lot of mathematics to get that far, but its progress. At least another
50 years is my guess, BUT there are so many far cleaner and safer ways
to do fission with almost any reasonable staring material, that it seems
that will be the way forward.

That takes energy off the map as far as a major problem is concerned,
leaving more basic things like food an water to become real issues And
general overpopulation.