A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost? | 89 comments (89 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

Thanks.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:37:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 1)

To qualify what kcurie wrote in less euphoric way, it highly depends on what you consider recoverable reserves, and what are your expectations for the energy yield achievable by reactors that can be built. Sceptics who are critical of expectations on each front estimate it wouldn't be enough for more than a couple of decades.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 09:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

I would say esceptics in all fronts consider that transforming all the energy to nuclear plues anual growth at 2-3% percent would put the limit at 40 years.. It was required a 5% growth of all present energy and all nuclear to get the quarter of a century (being already an skeptic in yields, reporcessing, and so on...).

So I should clarify that the 25-30 limit that Dodo explains is an skeptic not only in yields, reprocessing, mining and all nuclear things considered but also substituing all energy for nuclear and with a 5% growth scenario of energy prodcution.

This is if I do not recall it wrongly....

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 09:31:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

I would say esceptics in all fronts consider that transforming all the energy to nuclear plues anual growth at 2-3% percent would put the limit at 40 years..

Could you cite sources? The lowest estimates I saw put it at that 70 years for the currently active power plant park -- though that one even I consider unrealistic. A more realistic one I have at hand calculated with only 50% share of nuclear reached by 2030 and maintained from then on, and predicted depletion in 20 to 40 years.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 09:40:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (4.00 / 3)

You are right, if you are VERY VERY VERY pessimistic you can put the numbers in 10-20 years.

The World Nuclear association and nuclear related (no skeptics) talk about 80-100 years for sure with present reactors and present technology and present price.

They claim 3 million tones of Uranium of known reserves in well-developed and audited countries. Check any web site

http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/mining.htm

The same mining companies claim that an increase in the uranium price (doubling it) would put the useful reserves at 10 million tones.. with a limit of 300 years

Skeptics would probably say that it is very optimistic..and that you could recover much more less. Being very (VERY VERY) pessimistic I would say that you have 60-80 years at present rate.

To cover gas you need to mutiply by three , which would put you at 20-30 years. Considering the huge quantities of Uranium which can be used from the weapon race.. even an skeptic would accept 10-20 more years of the diposits of weapons materials.

And then you have to recall that oil is twice coal.. so you would need anther factor three. This puts you in the 10-20 limits

An increase of 5% energy use will bring it to the 5-10 years (a standard, present 1-2% growth will put you back at 10-20 years.. but again you could be VERY VERY pessimistic about weaponry and Russia and the US not demossioning all the arsenal they claim to dismantle).

As you may know I am quite sure there are around 200 years reserves (with high degree of reliance) at present consumption all things nuclear considered (uranium, recovery, reprocess 150+30+20 years)... so I would put the reserves in a full transition (coal and oil) at around
40 years minimum. BUt more important, since I defend only the substitution of coal, the reserves would be rouhgly 70 years.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 10:11:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

Sorry.. the link is

http://www.nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOfUsableUranium

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 10:12:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost? | 89 comments (89 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Gaza Onslaught: Xmas Cancelled

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Recent Diaries

Gaza Genocide Biden Confronted by America's Past

Gaza Onslaught: Xmas Cancelled

McCarthyism and Genocide of Palestinians

VDL Hard Lessons Human Rights Law

Boris Johnson 'Bamboozled' by Scientific Data

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Occasional Series