On 12/08/2019 11:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

Really? Care to provide figures?

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Ah - *just* energy again. The blinkered view.

The point that there would be a net loss of energy involved in
extracting and then using hydrogen is not blinkered. Indeed, ignoring
this would be barking mad.


Indeed, although while hydrogen fuel cycle efficiency is horrid[1], it
does have some quite attractive aspects that allows it to be used and
deployed in much the same way and with similar infrastructure as used
for petrol/diesel - quick refilling, bulk road/rail distribution as well
as manufacture on site.

It only makes any sense with abundant nuclear generating capacity
obviously.


[1] As is that for petroleum...

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/