geoff wrote:
In message , HappyHunter
writes
having read the Peak Oil thread, and the various responses saying we
should build nuclear power stations, it reminded me of an article I
read a while ago about Peak Uranium. Have we maybe missed that boat
already ?

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

I found this bit interesting ...

"According to the OECD redbook, the world consumed 67 kilotonnes
(150×106 lb) of uranium in 2002. Of that 36 kilotonnes (79×106 lb) of
was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from
secondary sources, in particular stockpiles of natural and enriched
uranium, decommissioned nuclear weapons, the reprocessing of natural
and enriched uranium and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails."

In the above article, it says France ran out of uranium in 2002.

I'm sure I read or heard somewhere, that China are planning to build
80 nuclear power stations. Have just found another reference, they
currently have 13, have 27 under construction, 50 planned, and 110
proposed (whatever that all means).

So I guess china will be mopping up a lot of Uranium demand. You can
bet that China are "securing" their supply chain to ensure they get a
source of uranium.

So anyway, have we already missed the boat in the UK ?

Will we be building nuclear power stations as the Uranium runs out ?

By the time the UK actually gets around to doing anything, we won't have
enough power to build the things anyway


I am sanguine: yes the anti-nukers are mustering to attack every single
new power station. BUT there is a growing grass roots feeling among
ordinary intelligent people that its a no brainer. We simply have no
alternative right now, because its that or the lights go out and the
economy is destroyed. Its at the stage of a huge propaganda battle
between the renewables idiots, and the sane members of society who can
Do Sums.

Politicians are sitting on the fence very uneasily. Its political
suicide to be an overt nuclear advocate, and its political success right
now at the ballot box to be 'wholly in favour of renewables' ..BUT in 5
years time when the facts are out and understood, it will be political
suicide to have been pro renewables and anti-nuclear.


Is a huge knife edge their genitals are stuck on.

The current way they are talking is along these lines

"I am wholly in favour of reneawables, and believe that the government
should not subsidise nuclear"...."BUT only where the renewables can be
subject to proper cost benefit analysis, and we are working to give
clear guidelines on decommissioning so that nuclear investment can go
ahead without being saddled with an *unknown* upstream cost".


The mealy mouthed weasel words will continue until parliament square is
filled with poeple wearing T-shirts that proclaim 'we would rather have
nuclear'

Which is actually getting closer.

Once the renewables myth is totally debunked, the real choices will
finally emerge. Nuclear, or nothing.

Meanwhile my nuclear investments grow at 20% per year, and the last wind
turbine manufacturing plant in the UK closed down last year.

Only another Chernobyl would stop the onward arch of nuclear, and that
not for very long.