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 ?

Thoughts ?

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


--
geoff

One of the reasons I went into the nuclear power business in 1970 was the
'60s prediction that oil was going to run out in the 1980's. When it didn't,
I became kind of skeptical about forecasters. Some of the models are better
than others of course, but it's the ridiculously simple Club of Rome type
models that ignore feedback from market prices which get the coverage.

Uranium sources are geographically dispersed. The world economy is becoming
more integrated and potential suppliers will always want to trade on a
commercial basis. I don't see the French or Chinese making the mistake of
running out of uranium.

In message , newshound
writes
One of the reasons I went into the nuclear power business in 1970 was
the '60s prediction that oil was going to run out in the 1980's. When
it didn't, I became kind of skeptical about forecasters. Some of the
models are better than others of course, but it's the ridiculously
simple Club of Rome type models that ignore feedback from market prices
which get the coverage.

Uranium sources are geographically dispersed. The world economy is
becoming more integrated and potential suppliers will always want to
trade on a commercial basis. I don't see the French or Chinese making
the mistake of running out of uranium.


Also the price of oil has meant that its not been economically necessary
to really get so involved in uranium


--
geoff

On 10/02/2011 23:21, HappyHunter wrote:
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 ?

Thoughts ?


Proven reserves are 4 million tons.

Estimated reserves are 16 million tons.

Uranium in phosphates, extractable at significantly higher cost (the
uranium equivalent of oil shale) 22 million tons.

In about half a millenium we will have to start looking at the 4 billion
tons in the oceans.

Colin Bignell

On 11/02/2011 00:06, John Rumm wrote:
On 10/02/2011 23:21, HappyHunter wrote:
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 ...


Not that important - look at thorium reactors.

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).

Indeed - but none of them dependent on uranium:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02...a_thorium_bet/



An interesting DIY project, fitting one of those in the garden.

Colin Bignell

geoff wrote:
In message , HappyHunter
writes

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


That's okay, we'll have sorted fusion by the time this lot start
building 'em. Thirty years away, it is. And has been for the last fifty....

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:21:02 +0000, HappyHunter wrote:

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.

China are *well* into "securing their supply" of many raw materials.
From trace elements and commodity metals to oil and coal.

Watch out for "The Chinese are coming" 2 of 2 on BBC2. Ep 1 was
interesting about the penetration of China into Africa from chicken
farming to copper mining.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/02/2011 09:24, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:21:02 +0000, HappyHunter wrote:

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.

China are *well* into "securing their supply" of many raw materials.
From trace elements and commodity metals to oil and coal.

Watch out for "The Chinese are coming" 2 of 2 on BBC2. Ep 1 was
interesting about the penetration of China into Africa from chicken
farming to copper mining.

IIRC they've been well "into" East Africa for at least 50 years

HappyHunter wrote:
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 ?


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..





Thoughts ?

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.

John Williamson wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , HappyHunter
writes

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


That's okay, we'll have sorted fusion by the time this lot start
building 'em. Thirty years away, it is. And has been for the last fifty....


I had a really good porcine aviation pipe dream.

The fusion combustion engine.

ALL the problems with fusion are containment. You can start it but you
can't hold it.

So why bother?

Take a really classy internal combustion engine, instead of air it sucks
in deuterium. It compresses it and instead of a spark plug you have a
laser or summat. BANG. tiny thermonuclear explosion pushes the piston
down... out comes helium exhaust to drive a turbocharger..

V8 fusion powered Jaguar..in yer dreams TNP.. :-)

On 11/02/2011 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geoff wrote:


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.

I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?

As it happens, I don't agree that renewables are rubbish. I think as
"stuff" gets more and more expensive that at least having some of our
power requirements met by wind/sun/sea will be viable, and indeed may be
essential.

I kinda worry, that with most stuff privatised in the UK, that we lose
the ability to look forward and say "what will we need in 20 years, 40
years etc". Private companies are only interested in profit, today and
maybe 5 years maybe 10 at a push.

So who's looking at our energy requirements for the next 50 years ?

I'm not picking on China, but it's where they win hands down, they think
long term, really long term. I bet they've got their future sources of
uranium locked down for the long term future. Wonder what we are doing,
well, probably nothing.

On 11/02/2011 00:06, John Rumm wrote:

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).

Indeed - but none of them dependent on uranium:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02...a_thorium_bet/



Haven't India been trying to get that to work for a while, but so far
haven't succeeded ?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:01:47 +0000, HappyHunter wrote:

I'm not picking on China, but it's where they win hands down, they think
long term, really long term. I bet they've got their future sources of
uranium locked down for the long term future. Wonder what we are doing,
well, probably nothing.

Not sure about Uranium but China have bought vast areas of the planet
outside their own borders to ensure continued supplies of a large
number of minerals.

--

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.

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 !

Cheers
Ailsa

On Feb 11, 1:15*pm, 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.

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 !

Cheers
Ailsa


The trend is consistently upward in terms of what people can afford
over time. Look at every decade for the last 150 years and its all up
- yes there are some minor blips in the curve, but overall the pattern
is most clear. Its not just down to energy supply, its also about
improving technology and business practices, and cumulative
achievement.

The development of computers will probably have an enormous effect on
your daughter's life - and probably yours to a not as dramatic extent.


NT

On 11/02/2011 13:01, HappyHunter wrote:
....
I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?..

For the next half millenium, yes. By then, if it is still needed, we
should have worked out how to get it from sea water, which would see us
through a few millenia more.

Colin Bignell

In article , HappyHunter wrote:

I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?

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

There are political problems with the sorts that are useful for producing
weapons grade material, on top of the usual political problems with nuclear
power, but the technology for vastly extending the fuel reserves exists,
and as fuel becomes scarcer will become economically worthwhile.

So who's looking at our energy requirements for the next 50 years ?

I'm not picking on China, but it's where they win hands down, they think
long term, really long term. I bet they've got their future sources of
uranium locked down for the long term future. Wonder what we are doing,
well, probably nothing.

I thought that Thorium was going to be the fuel of the future reactor?..

--
Tony Sayer

On 11/02/2011 13:49, Tabby wrote:
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 !

Cheers
Ailsa


The trend is consistently upward in terms of what people can afford
over time. Look at every decade for the last 150 years and its all up
- yes there are some minor blips in the curve, but overall the pattern
is most clear. Its not just down to energy supply, its also about
improving technology and business practices, and cumulative
achievement.

The development of computers will probably have an enormous effect on
your daughter's life - and probably yours to a not as dramatic extent.


Aye. Which is indeed, an interesting part of the mix. Again, I wonder
where our future lies in all this. Our, I mean Britain. We've lost lots
of unskilled jobs abroad, the skilled ones are going there too. Are
there really enough "high skilled" jobs here ? Are we doing enough ? Or
in the face of rising energy costs, and fewer jobs, will we all find our
standard of living dropping substantially ?

What are our all children/grand children going to do for a living, they
can't all work in Tescos or McDonalds.

So, I do wonder if we are at the tipping point. We are today enjoying
the best of most things, warm houses etc etc. Our children may not get
that (or could, but at a high price, maybe only available to a select few).

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:15:16 +0000, HappyHunter wrote:

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)

Well your private/company pension might pay out at 65 but don't
expect to get the state one (if it still exists) 'till a few years
later... Check the rules as they stand ATM. I'm 50, state pension
arrives when I'm 66, mate is 48, his is state pension age is 67...

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 !

Oh I expect her energy use will be much lower but will still have a
warm house and may not even need to bother about switching lights
off. The former due to decent insulation, it's perfectly possible to
have a warm house heated with not much more than the body heat of the
occupants. The latter because what is the point of switching of a
light that is only drawing a couple of watts, it's almost like that
now with LED technology and efficiencies will only get better.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/02/2011 13:15, HappyHunter wrote:
....
I often say, people retired today, are probably the "best off"
pensioners there will ever be.

Speaking as a pensioner, only if, like me, they started a personal
pension plan early. I started my first one at 19 and, even so, my
pension pot wouldn't be as good as it is now if I hadn't put part of it
into high risk investments.

....
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 !

Her energy profile will be quite different only because so much less
will be wasted. One of the problems with really energy efficient
buildings is stopping them getting too hot. It is necessary, for
example, to screen the windows against solar gain.

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Take a really classy internal combustion engine, instead of air it
sucks in deuterium. It compresses it

Umm, have you any idea how much it needs compression? Nice idea though

On 10/02/2011 23:21, HappyHunter wrote:
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


In that same wikipedia article, under the heading "Optimistic
predictions for peak uranium", is the statement:

"A nuclear engineer writing for American Energy Independence in 2004
believes that there is a several hundred years' supply of recoverable
uranium even for standard reactors. For breeder reactors, 'it is
essentially infinite'".

i.e. until the sun burns out in 4.5 billion years.

Maybe the answer lies halfway between the two estimates?

Another Dave

HappyHunter wrote:
On 11/02/2011 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geoff wrote:


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.

I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?


Yes. we do. Not for ever, but long enough to take us to fusion power.

As it happens, I don't agree that renewables are rubbish. I think as
"stuff" gets more and more expensive that at least having some of our
power requirements met by wind/sun/sea will be viable, and indeed may be
essential.


Well you are the poet and I am the engineer, so lets agree to differ.

I kinda worry, that with most stuff privatised in the UK, that we lose
the ability to look forward and say "what will we need in 20 years, 40
years etc". Private companies are only interested in profit, today and
maybe 5 years maybe 10 at a push.


No, thats not the way iot works either.

O rthe govt would never sell long gilts.

Nuclear power is a fantastic place to put e.g. pension fund money for
40-50 years. Its a guaranteed 5% or so. Its probably safer than a
government bond, certainly than a Greek Irish or Portugese bond.


Privatisation ensures that money is not wasted on things that simply are
not viable, like windmills, which are pure subsidy vultures."A windfarm
is a mechanism for printing ROCS" as one journalist put it.

So who's looking at our energy requirements for the next 50 years ?


I am. so are some of the technical advisors at DECC.


I'm not picking on China, but it's where they win hands down, they think
long term, really long term. I bet they've got their future sources of
uranium locked down for the long term future. Wonder what we are doing,
well, probably nothing.


Chin is no more long term than anyone else. They just happen to be on
the point on the rape of resources curve where it looks at way as we
were in Victorian times.


Victorian engineering lasted not because it was well designed, but
because it was badly designed. They didn't have the computing power or
the knowledge to calculate a formula one car, so they massively
overengineered everything.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 13:01, HappyHunter wrote:
...
I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?..

For the next half millenium, yes. By then, if it is still needed, we
should have worked out how to get it from sea water, which would see us
through a few millenia more.


no, step two is using other materials and breeding fissile material.
Thorium is one of them, but uranium and thorium from sea water is stage
3. It's rather diluted.

I will happen, but not for 100 years is my guess. Hell, Fusion may even
happen first.

Colin Bignell

tony sayer wrote:
So who's looking at our energy requirements for the next 50 years ?

I'm not picking on China, but it's where they win hands down, they think
long term, really long term. I bet they've got their future sources of
uranium locked down for the long term future. Wonder what we are doing,
well, probably nothing.

I thought that Thorium was going to be the fuel of the future reactor?..

One of them.

There's loads of fissile material lying around the planet really.


Sort of like the waste left over after a billion year old million
Terawatt reactor melted down and blew up.. They call it a supernova.. ;-)

GB wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Take a really classy internal combustion engine, instead of air it
sucks in deuterium. It compresses it

Umm, have you any idea how much it needs compression? Nice idea though


Lots and Lots. That's why it has a multi stage turbo charger,.
:-)

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

Tabby wrote:
On Feb 11, 1:15 pm, 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.

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 !

Cheers
Ailsa


The trend is consistently upward in terms of what people can afford
over time. Look at every decade for the last 150 years and its all up
- yes there are some minor blips in the curve, but overall the pattern
is most clear. Its not just down to energy supply, its also about
improving technology and business practices, and cumulative
achievement.


That's what the Romans said too, and the persians, and the greeks, and
the mayans..

Unfortunately it isn't about any of those things. It's about per capita
energy spend by and large.

Britain is going to see lowering standards of living until we get our
oil dependency beaten


The development of computers will probably have an enormous effect on
your daughter's life - and probably yours to a not as dramatic extent.


They will be used to select who s to go to the death and recycling
combined euthanasia crematorium and energy generation facility (CECAE)


NT

HappyHunter wrote:
On 11/02/2011 13:49, Tabby wrote:
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 !

Cheers
Ailsa


The trend is consistently upward in terms of what people can afford
over time. Look at every decade for the last 150 years and its all up
- yes there are some minor blips in the curve, but overall the pattern
is most clear. Its not just down to energy supply, its also about
improving technology and business practices, and cumulative
achievement.

The development of computers will probably have an enormous effect on
your daughter's life - and probably yours to a not as dramatic extent.


Aye. Which is indeed, an interesting part of the mix. Again, I wonder
where our future lies in all this. Our, I mean Britain. We've lost lots
of unskilled jobs abroad, the skilled ones are going there too. Are
there really enough "high skilled" jobs here ? Are we doing enough ? Or
in the face of rising energy costs, and fewer jobs, will we all find our
standard of living dropping substantially ?

What are our all children/grand children going to do for a living, they
can't all work in Tescos or McDonalds.


They will be servants in the big chinese estates.

So, I do wonder if we are at the tipping point. We are today enjoying
the best of most things, warm houses etc etc. Our children may not get
that (or could, but at a high price, maybe only available to a select few).

Imagine Cairo in London, but it doesn't stop. Once the supermarkets are
looted, and the power goes off, those with cars head out to the home
countries. Feral gangs of new age travellers, looting raping and
destroying. Eventually, they run out of things to loot, and petrol, and
they have destroyed everything of value. Then they start killing each
other, then they die.

Then someone who is a bit more realistic and a lot more totalitarian
walks in and starts to take over. If you don't like it, you get shot.

Another Dave wrote:
On 10/02/2011 23:21, HappyHunter wrote:
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


In that same wikipedia article, under the heading "Optimistic
predictions for peak uranium", is the statement:

"A nuclear engineer writing for American Energy Independence in 2004
believes that there is a several hundred years' supply of recoverable
uranium even for standard reactors. For breeder reactors, 'it is
essentially infinite'".

i.e. until the sun burns out in 4.5 billion years.

Maybe the answer lies halfway between the two estimates?

Another Dave

David Mackay reckoned 750 years.

wood lasted about 10,000 years, coal about 200, oil about 100, in this
country.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

HappyHunter wrote:
On 11/02/2011 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
geoff wrote:

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.
I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we
have enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear
route ?

Yes. we do. Not for ever, but long enough to take us to fusion power.

As it happens, I don't agree that renewables are rubbish. I think as
"stuff" gets more and more expensive that at least having some of
our power requirements met by wind/sun/sea will be viable, and
indeed may be essential.

Well you are the poet and I am the engineer, so lets agree to differ.

Nice one. What Mr HH and others need to understand is that, yes, we can
supply all our petrol as biofuel provided we cover the whole of Wales
(or is it the whole of France) with Rape and NOTHING ELSE. Perhaps he'd
like to discuss this with the Welsh or as it might be the French, and
report back what they have to say. I suspect it will along the lines of
the reply in Arkell v. Pressdram (q. v.)

conversion efficiency of sunlight to biofuel 0.1%. Let's say about 0.1
watt per square meter of land used.

Wind farm, 2 watts per square meter of land rendered unfit for human or
animal usage.

Conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity in a PV panel about
15%. perhaps as much as 15 watts per square meter of land rendered
useless for anything including crops.

Nuclear power station, about 1MW per square meter .. Land useless for
anything else, yes and maybe unusable for 200 years BUT its not very
MUCH land.

Renewables are crap because they take up enormous areas of land that we
simply haven't got, because in every case, the power source is diffuse.
Only if Nature concentrates it as in a decent hydro scheme, does it get
reasonably usable, but even so the damned lakes themselves are not small.

Even the Severn tidal scheme, would drastically alter hundreds of square
miles.

we already discussed the half acre per person for food figu now look
at power. Half an acre is 2000 square meters. so biofuel or indeed food
might yield about 100 watts. That's about what a person uses food wise
being a bit active.

Now lets see..give that the average fuel consumed in this country to run
it is about 2-300GW. So our average per capita energy use is about 5kW.
Yup. Everything we do as a nation results in everyone of us being
responsible for burning 5KW of fuel 24x7. And that does not account for
what the chinese burn to make our Ipods.


To be fully sustainable at that level, means that *every single person*
needs 25 acres of biofuel, or 2500 square meters (about an extra half an
acre) of wind farm, plus whatever backup and storage you need if the
wind don't blow, maybe an extra 300 square meters of solar panels, and
the storage for when the sun don't shine, like all winter.....

.... or they can take a 1/500,000 share in a 2.5GW nuclear power station.
Probably about a square meter of land, if that.

Perhaps you can understand why is country dwellers don't want your
fecking wind farms, tidal schemes, solar panels and god knows what else
on our land. Destroying it for anything else, including living on. We
have enough trouble getting paid for growing your food, storing your
water, and taking your **** and recycling it. And getting blamed for
'holding onto valuable land that could be used for affordable housing'
Bah Humbug!

That's why we would rather have nuclear.

On 11/02/2011 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I had a really good porcine aviation pipe dream.

The fusion combustion engine.

ALL the problems with fusion are containment. You can start it but you
can't hold it.

So why bother?

Take a really classy internal combustion engine, instead of air it sucks
in deuterium. It compresses it and instead of a spark plug you have a
laser or summat. BANG. tiny thermonuclear explosion pushes the piston
down... out comes helium exhaust to drive a turbocharger..

V8 fusion powered Jaguar..in yer dreams TNP.. :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia...inement_fusion

Andy

Andy Champ wrote:
On 11/02/2011 12:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I had a really good porcine aviation pipe dream.

The fusion combustion engine.

ALL the problems with fusion are containment. You can start it but you
can't hold it.

So why bother?

Take a really classy internal combustion engine, instead of air it sucks
in deuterium. It compresses it and instead of a spark plug you have a
laser or summat. BANG. tiny thermonuclear explosion pushes the piston
down... out comes helium exhaust to drive a turbocharger..

V8 fusion powered Jaguar..in yer dreams TNP.. :-)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia...inement_fusion

Andy
good article. However you have ruined my dream :-)

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 11/02/2011 13:01, HappyHunter wrote:
...
I kinda guess, my point is, is even nuclear an option ? Do we have
enough uranium to go around if everyone goes down the nuclear route ?..
For the next half millenium, yes. By then, if it is still needed, we
should have worked out how to get it from sea water, which would see
us through a few millenia more.


no, step two is using other materials and breeding fissile material.
Thorium is one of them, but uranium and thorium from sea water is stage
3. It's rather diluted.


Yeah, but as everyone knows, you can run a car on water, I've seen the
ads


--
geoff

On 11/02/2011 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

David Mackay reckoned 750 years.

wood lasted about 10,000 years, coal about 200, oil about 100, in this
country.




I'm sure you're right. I was just a bit suspicious of the OP homing in
on the most negative aspect of the Wikipedia article.

Another Dave

Another Dave wrote:
On 11/02/2011 19:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

David Mackay reckoned 750 years.

wood lasted about 10,000 years, coal about 200, oil about 100, in this
country.




I'm sure you're right. I was just a bit suspicious of the OP homing in
on the most negative aspect of the Wikipedia article.

Another Dave


In any case its hardly relevant when the wind turbines only last at most
15 years...

At least a nuclear power station will do 40-60 years.

I don't see any 'long term' solutions for humanity in any area at all.
Mankind is dynamic and apart from aboriginal populations, is a resource
exhausting species, prone to boom and bust in population and lifestyle.
Only the aboriginal populations can be said to be 'sustainable' The
first time mankind killed the wolf and corralled the sheep, he ceased to
be sustainable.

We just need to buy enough time to determine where to go next. Nuclear
power is the appropriate stopgap for now. 'Renewable' energy is not.

On Feb 11, 3:25*pm, HappyHunter wrote:
On 11/02/2011 13:49, Tabby wrote:



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 !

Cheers
Ailsa

The trend is consistently upward in terms of what people can afford
over time. Look at every decade for the last 150 years and its all up
- yes there are some minor blips in the curve, but overall the pattern
is most clear. Its not just down to energy supply, its also about
improving technology and business practices, and cumulative
achievement.

The development of computers will probably have an enormous effect on
your daughter's life - and probably yours to a not as dramatic extent.

Aye. *Which is indeed, an interesting part of the mix. *Again, I wonder
where our future lies in all this. *Our, I mean Britain. We've lost lots
of unskilled jobs abroad, the skilled ones are going there too. Are
there really enough "high skilled" jobs here ? Are we doing enough ? Or
in the face of rising energy costs, and fewer jobs, will we all find our
standard of living dropping substantially ?

What are our all children/grand children going to do for a living, they
can't all work in Tescos or McDonalds.

So, I do wonder if we are at the tipping point. We are today enjoying
the best of most things, warm houses etc etc. Our children may not get
that (or could, but at a high price, maybe only available to a select few).


OK, lets be more specific.

The Insulation levels of houses are going up rapidly, and I believe
there's plenty more scope for further insulation ahead. The result is
that we can have the same comfort at a tenth the consumption. I expect
that much tighter computer control of heating & cooling ahead will
result in more thermally efficient systems, eg by monitoring
conditions in every room, and controlling all available heating &
cooling choices rather than just radiators, such as extractor fans,
insulation shutters, curtains, blinds, mirrors and so on.

Mpg figures for cars & cargo vehicles are on the rise. Ships ditto.
There's a range of technologies in the pipeline to improve this
further, such as the 6 stroke cycle. Vehicle reliability & longevity
have risen greatly, further cutting costs. Safety has also improved,
cutting even more financial, energy and life quality costs.

Lighting technology has gone from carbon filament to metal filament to
coiled coil to fluorescent, CFL & LED.

Industrial processes have come a long way, with ever more energy and
cost efficient processes coming into use.

Today's basic 2GHz computer does far more than a mainframe did a few
decades ago at a tiny fraction the price. Use of internet
communications is cutting some of the costs in a huge range of
activities.

This pattern holds true in nearly all areas of life, and has greater
effect on quality of life than blips in the picture like failure of
coal mining or rising gas prices.


NT