Climate of Hope : Part 1

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• climate
• change
• doc
• doco
• documentary
• nuclear
• energy
• low
• carbon

[Rumour66]

I agree. Did you watch part two and three of this?

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

there is always an alternative, specially to nuclear bombs.

[fixfilet]

@BynoKawai ...read the books, honey. when the us decided to drop the bomb japan was already close to a capitulation. actually the us were afraid they would do so before they could present their little boy to the world.

[Skellingtor]

Kool

[BynoKawai]

I wonder which would have killed more people: destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or sitting back while the war continued.

[papcio]

An example is that in 2003 we knew about 3,2mln tons of uranium that can be recovered with the price of 130$/kg (that's not much). 2005 we knew about 4,7 tons. With current production it would 80 years to deplete it. But there is still lots of it to find, and when we considere the price of 200$/kg it where dozens of mlns of tons if I remember correctly.

[papcio]

If it was true than no-one would invest in nuclear power, at least private capital. I also searched for various studies and there are really many that say, that the uranium reserves gonna last for hunders or thousands of years. The point is whether you consider unexplored resources and reusage of uranium from used fuel. Also new reactors are often fueled with MOX fuel. I know it may sound, like im saying "we simply gonna find it" but it is this way, we never looked for uranium.

[russlowes]

Continuing on the message I last posted, there are a number of studies that outline the decline of uranium. The assay, or ore content, was 3000 parts per million of U to gross ore weight in 1980. Today it averages 1500. It is projected to go to about 400 in 2040 or so, assuming hardly any nuclear expansion. Three studies show this, two under Sovacool's compliation, from the U.S., a Dutch study and an Australian study. Uranium mining and milling will increase with CO2 output skyrocketing.

[papcio]

I'm not going to argue about the studies you talk about, because I have my own studies etc. But still 60g/kwh would be almost CO2 free. Belive me one thing there is still plenty of uranium. Saying that the best ores are depleted is like saying that the best places for wind plants are occupied now. Somewhat true, but not really.

[russlowes]

. . . (cont'd). . .that are too old, too non-transparent and that are not original, but only refer to other studies. He concludes that of the remaining studies the average grams/kilowatt-hour emitted by nuclear energy is 66. For wind it is 10. For solar it is 25-75 or so. He does not estimate energy efficiency, bu it would be far less than 10 on average. Nukes produce over 6 times the GHG that wind does. But, this is going up as uranium ore depletion continues. The best ore is depleted.

[papcio]

Just look on "carbon footpring of electricity" on wikipedia.