Good News About Nuclear Power

Chairman Michael Williams (R-TX), Texas Railroad Commissioner, speaks on nuclear power.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Commissioner
• Michael
• Williams
• Texas
• nuclear
• energy

[RaySquirrel]

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.

[DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH]

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.....

[gingernutbumchin]

this just shows Americans are susceptable right? Nuclear power. Serious? Stupid fuckers

[ajpmathwiz]

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.

[milofonbil]

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.

[Kikarok]

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.

[milofonbil]

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.

[Kikarok]

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).

[milofonbil]

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]

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?