Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that can kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
The only way its recycled is to Depleated Uranium ammo to be used on overseas populations and also contaminates your own troops.....
I absolutely hated this video and hated those people more! There have been 102 reactors operating inside the US since the 1970s and there have been absolutely no deaths that resulted from nuclear accidents. While on the other hand there have been deaths as a result of windmill construction. The chemicals used to produce solar panels are deadly and not recyclable, while radioactive wast is. I am glad Obama's new energy secretary is a very pro-nuclear guy.
Well I, for one, think that we should use the spent fuel and depleted uranium as building materials for fusion plant containment facilities. The gain from fusion induced fast fission can be up to 10:1- not a true energy source, but a highly efficient power amplifier.
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
Your 10,000 years depend on breeding and reprocessing that works. Also, it's a question of having enough breeders and reprocessing plants (they don't a huge production volume). Your 10,000 years also depend on uranium that is currently uneconomic such as really low-grade uranium ore, uranium from phosphates and sea water. All of this is science fiction and not reality today. Given today's technology, uranium will run out in about 30-50 years given the fact that there is increased demand.
Again, what you say doesn't make much sense. You underestimate current technology and the progression thereof. You also seem to underestimate just how much power a small amount of uranium produces. A pound of uranium fuel produces more energy than over a million gallons of gasoline.
Did I miss something? 100% natural uranium contains 0.7% U-235. But when it's mined, the yellowcake (u3o8) is not pure uranium metal. Part of it's mass is oxygen. Furthermore it's composition is not pure u3o8, it has other impurities in it. Canada's mines are now yielding ore that contains 20 percent Uranium. Ore from other parts of the world are as low as 1%. Is 1 lb yellowcake uranium = 15,000 kWh correct? Did I miss something?
Currently 36,000 tonnes of uranium are being produced each year. The world consumes about 70,000 tonnes. The difference is being made up by down-blending nuclear weapons and producing MOX. Once the bombs are gone, will the breeding *rate* and the reprocessing *rate* be sufficient to make up for the 34,000 tonnes of uranium per year? If not, then the fuel cycle is not closed. The uranium is being consumed in mostly a once-through cycle and will run out. Meanwhile demand is increasing.
In 2004, the world used 447 quadrillion BTU (293 billion kWh) of energy. This can be produced by about 672858 lb(305 tonnes) of reactor grade uranium(1744 tonnes natural), not 70000. In the USA, there are 342000 tonnes of known recoverable uranium. This could power the world for about 200 years. There are 4743000 tonnes known on Earth, about 2720 years. So, yes, I was waaaay off.
But with the way technology progresses, three millennia is certainly enough time to figure out something better.
The 70,000 tonnes I mentioned is the world's consumption of yellowcake in 2008. The 36,000 tonnes are yellowcake that was mined from the redbook figures.
Your model completely ignores the fact that the grade of uranium is log-normal distributed - very little high-grade uranium ore, lots of low-grade ore (i.e. sea water). At *current* consumption rates the IAEA and a few others predict about 80 years left. This ignores demand growth by all the new nuclear power countries.
I will now stop trying to argue my point, because I know that you will never sway. Let's just assume that what you say is true, and we would only have 80 years. Look at how much technology has progressed in the past decade. Even if we were only to be armed with 50 years, we would develop a better way of producing energy which would last much longer: nuclear fusion for example (we're getting there).
I was merely trying to reconcile the large differences in off the cuff estimates you made and what I have come to understand.
We only have 70-80 years according to the conservative estimates of the EC, OECD, NEA, IAEA and the AUA (all industry groups), assuming the current rate of consumption. Your 50 years is probably credible.
All of these nuclear industry groups seem to have made best case, worst case and a most likely case for some reason. Perhaps you should at least understand why.
Still, you're missing the point. Even if your numbers are accurate, that doesn't make it not worth doing. Even if it only bought us 50 years to come up with something new, 50 years is a lot of time in the world of technology. So, even if it would only get us 50 years, that would be time enough to make a better system.
I get your point entirely. Many things can change in 50 years. I also think that if you know you only have xx years of fuel left as opposed to a seemingly infinite amount, it does influence the choice of investments - especially capital extensive ones like building lots of nuclear power plants.
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that can kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
The only way its recycled is to Depleated Uranium ammo to be used on overseas populations and also contaminates your own troops.....
DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH 6 months ago
this just shows Americans are susceptable right? Nuclear power. Serious? Stupid fuckers
gingernutbumchin 2 years ago
I absolutely hated this video and hated those people more! There have been 102 reactors operating inside the US since the 1970s and there have been absolutely no deaths that resulted from nuclear accidents. While on the other hand there have been deaths as a result of windmill construction. The chemicals used to produce solar panels are deadly and not recyclable, while radioactive wast is. I am glad Obama's new energy secretary is a very pro-nuclear guy.
RaySquirrel 3 years ago 3
Well I, for one, think that we should use the spent fuel and depleted uranium as building materials for fusion plant containment facilities. The gain from fusion induced fast fission can be up to 10:1- not a true energy source, but a highly efficient power amplifier.
ajpmathwiz 3 years ago
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
milofonbil 4 years ago
I don't know what you're reading, but there is enough uranium in the USA to power the world for 10000 years.
Kikarok 3 years ago
Your 10,000 years depend on breeding and reprocessing that works. Also, it's a question of having enough breeders and reprocessing plants (they don't a huge production volume). Your 10,000 years also depend on uranium that is currently uneconomic such as really low-grade uranium ore, uranium from phosphates and sea water. All of this is science fiction and not reality today. Given today's technology, uranium will run out in about 30-50 years given the fact that there is increased demand.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Again, what you say doesn't make much sense. You underestimate current technology and the progression thereof. You also seem to underestimate just how much power a small amount of uranium produces. A pound of uranium fuel produces more energy than over a million gallons of gasoline.
Kikarok 3 years ago
I think you *over-estimate* uranium
1 lb uranium = 15,000 kWh.
1 gal gasoline = 33.5 kWh.
1 lb uranium = 450 gal gasoline.
milofonbil 3 years ago
1lb pure U-235 = 10886400 kWh
natural uranium contains 0.7% U-235
reactor grade uranium is 4% U-235
deriving from pure U-235 energy and percentages...
1lb natural uranium = 76205 kWh
1lb reactor grade uranium = 435456 kWh
1lb reactor grade uranium = 13000 gal gasoline
my bad.
Kikarok 3 years ago
Did I miss something? 100% natural uranium contains 0.7% U-235. But when it's mined, the yellowcake (u3o8) is not pure uranium metal. Part of it's mass is oxygen. Furthermore it's composition is not pure u3o8, it has other impurities in it. Canada's mines are now yielding ore that contains 20 percent Uranium. Ore from other parts of the world are as low as 1%. Is 1 lb yellowcake uranium = 15,000 kWh correct? Did I miss something?
milofonbil 3 years ago
Currently 36,000 tonnes of uranium are being produced each year. The world consumes about 70,000 tonnes. The difference is being made up by down-blending nuclear weapons and producing MOX. Once the bombs are gone, will the breeding *rate* and the reprocessing *rate* be sufficient to make up for the 34,000 tonnes of uranium per year? If not, then the fuel cycle is not closed. The uranium is being consumed in mostly a once-through cycle and will run out. Meanwhile demand is increasing.
milofonbil 3 years ago
In 2004, the world used 447 quadrillion BTU (293 billion kWh) of energy. This can be produced by about 672858 lb(305 tonnes) of reactor grade uranium(1744 tonnes natural), not 70000. In the USA, there are 342000 tonnes of known recoverable uranium. This could power the world for about 200 years. There are 4743000 tonnes known on Earth, about 2720 years. So, yes, I was waaaay off.
But with the way technology progresses, three millennia is certainly enough time to figure out something better.
Kikarok 3 years ago
The 70,000 tonnes I mentioned is the world's consumption of yellowcake in 2008. The 36,000 tonnes are yellowcake that was mined from the redbook figures.
Your model completely ignores the fact that the grade of uranium is log-normal distributed - very little high-grade uranium ore, lots of low-grade ore (i.e. sea water). At *current* consumption rates the IAEA and a few others predict about 80 years left. This ignores demand growth by all the new nuclear power countries.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I will now stop trying to argue my point, because I know that you will never sway. Let's just assume that what you say is true, and we would only have 80 years. Look at how much technology has progressed in the past decade. Even if we were only to be armed with 50 years, we would develop a better way of producing energy which would last much longer: nuclear fusion for example (we're getting there).
Kikarok 3 years ago
I was merely trying to reconcile the large differences in off the cuff estimates you made and what I have come to understand.
We only have 70-80 years according to the conservative estimates of the EC, OECD, NEA, IAEA and the AUA (all industry groups), assuming the current rate of consumption. Your 50 years is probably credible.
All of these nuclear industry groups seem to have made best case, worst case and a most likely case for some reason. Perhaps you should at least understand why.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Still, you're missing the point. Even if your numbers are accurate, that doesn't make it not worth doing. Even if it only bought us 50 years to come up with something new, 50 years is a lot of time in the world of technology. So, even if it would only get us 50 years, that would be time enough to make a better system.
Kikarok 3 years ago
I get your point entirely. Many things can change in 50 years. I also think that if you know you only have xx years of fuel left as opposed to a seemingly infinite amount, it does influence the choice of investments - especially capital extensive ones like building lots of nuclear power plants.
milofonbil 3 years ago
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
milofonbil 4 years ago
France is one of those countries that the pro-nukes would love for us to model ourselves after. 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear. Do you know that France has run out of Uranium and that they are entirely dependent on imports? Do you know that eleven uranium mining countries have run out already? Do you know that the US already imports 84% of all of its uranium? Why on earth would you be for a finite resource that is going to run out sometime soon?
milofonbil 4 years ago