HappyHunter wrote:

Currently the fuel cost of a reactor is about 1% of its actual lifetime
cost.

Without interest on capital the generating cost is in the 1-2p a unit
range.

100 times more expensive uranium would result in about a doubling of
that cost to 2p-4p a unit.

Does that tell you something?

Now add ion fast breeders that can turn the vast majority of useless
unradioactive uranium into highly fissile plutonium, and you have about
10000 times more fissile material than you thought you had. Thst current
technology that works, though not deployed in any quantity.

Now consider thorium. Lots of that about.. And many other elements that
can be bred or burnt.

The issue is whether here is enough uranium at less than 100 times its
current price to buy time to develop those technologies.

The short answer is that here is.

Opinions are divided as to whether mankind's power needs will continue
to escalate exponentially. My response is no, because we are runing out
of food, and the population must self limit: Also te graph of per capita
energy consumption versus health, and general prosperity flattens out at
about 1/10th of what the USA uses. I.e. you only need 1/10th of the
energy especially in warmer climates for a decent standard of living.

Ergo my prediction is nuclear for at least the next 200 years, no
problem, and advanced nuclear for maybe the next 500. Which may even be
long enough to get fusion power to work :-)

Once THAT works, there is an awful lot of energy around..

Very interesting. I get the stuff about the fuel price being a small
part of the overall cost.

So, I guess the question is then, what technologies are we employing
here in the UK, to ensure our future ? Are we even bothering, or maybe
expecting to use French technology or Chinese.


Well currently we are going to get a bog standard ex-Westinghouse design
Areva PWR set at Sizewell C. If the greenwashers don't **** it up. That
should take Sizewell up to about 7.5% of the UK's electricity
generation. Almost the same as the current DRAX coal power station. Thst
being done by EDF, who bought British Energy, and if it is subsidised,
it will be the french taxpayer, not us :-)

Rolls Royce have a lot of submarine reactor experience, and if they can
get the investment, might be a player.

I am not sure what's happening at Bradwell, where the scare merchants
are whipping up a storm..

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/8...wer_ station/

OTOH at Hinckley point, the residents said they would rather have
nuclear than a bunch of useless turbines

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...n-2118494.html




I often say, people retired today, are probably the "best off"
pensioners there will ever be. At, 43 years old, I really don't expect
to be a "well off" pensioner (even working for an IT company with good
pension provision .. well used to be, closed the final salary scheme,and
now chucking us out and freezing at today's salaries.. just great that
would be worth pennies by the time I'm 65)

I also now think, that "us" living today, probably are the best off in
terms of energy, use and consumption. My eldest is 12 years old, by the
time she's 40, her whole energy use profile may well differ wildly from
what it is today, and maybe she'll only have fond memories of a warm
house and lights on whenever she wants !

I had my best years in the 90s, and knowing what was to come, I ran a
supercharged Jaguar. My fond kiss to a lifetime of driving, and oil..


Looking forward to my first all electric car, when they get sensible.

It was fun living in the oil age. It will be tough until we have a
proper nuclear age.



Cheers
Ailsa