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

Cyphering (4.00 / 2)

several questions:

1.What is the estimate of world uranium recoverable reserves?

2.How long will they last, if hypothetically, the whole world were to go nuclear?

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon Jan 8th, 2007 at 11:03:55 PM EST

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

I had the same questions, though I suspect the answers are tucked in one or more of the links that Migeru provides above.

I also had another question regarding NNadir's comment above:

If you are French, whether or not you know it, you are extremely lucky to have lots of nuclear plants. Your country has the finest electrical generations system on the planet.

What makes some countries better at building electrical generations systems than others (in particular nuclear ones)? And why couldn't the Chinese, the Indians, the Cameroonians, the Nigerians, the Chadeans build such systems as well as the French or even the Americans, assuming that countries with more experience and know-how in nuclear power could help them to reach that level?

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:19:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 1)

NNadir's comment seems to be aimed at the ratio of nuclear in French electricity generation, not so much its safety. But on your second question, the issue is not technology and knowledge, but management and oversight.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 07:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

But on your second question, the issue is not technology and knowledge, but management and oversight.

Actually, when I wrote "experience and know-how", I was thinking primarily of "experience and know-how" in management and oversight, since these being more implicit and unarticulated than knowledge and technology, they are more easily overlooked and quite possibly the most difficult and last to be learned.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (4.00 / 3)

Then I have to emphasize that in management and oversight, the issue is not experience and know-how, but commitment, accountability, control, and legal stability. Look at worker and factory safety in existing branches of industry in a country, and shape your expectations based on that.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Tue Jan 9th, 2007 at 08:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 0)

So the French have superior "commitment, accountability, control, and legal stability" for running nuclear power plants than the Chinese, the Indians, the Cameroonians, the Nigerians, the Chadeans do at present: I might buy that. But can't these factors be improved to the same degree that France has them through learning, training, experience, and yes, increased know-how? (I am guessing your answer will be, Yes, they can be improved to that level, but the real question is how long will it take to get to that level, and will it be soon enough for them to implement nuclear power instead of fossil fuels.)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Wed Jan 10th, 2007 at 12:50:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cyphering (none / 1)

Yes, it is in there.

At present rate a minimum of 100-200 hundred years.. probably reaching 400-500 years if reutilization of weapons and secondary products of the nuclear cycle

Subtituting only coal would put the number at roughly 100 years minimum (more porobably 200-300).

Substituting also preent oil consumption in cars through electric would put it at less than 100 years, easily extendable until 100 years.

I think I remember the numbers correctly... but the numbers are indeed in the links.

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 07:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

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

2024 end of year review and the prospects for 2025

More Status Quo please - for now

Bethlehem Lies In Palestine

Full Circle from Baghdad to Damascus

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

The Irish general election draws near

Recent Diaries

M.A.D. -- Seconds Before Midnight

Leader of War Terrorists

Assembly: ICC The Hague Under Duress

2024 end of year review and the prospects for 2025

Ukrainian and Al Qaeda Terror Joined in Syria

Bethlehem Lies In Palestine

Full Circle from Baghdad to Damascus

Turks and Sauds to Install Sunni Terror in Damascus, Syria -...

More Back-Stabbing in the New Middle East

#WeAreNATO v Rest of the World

The Really Hard Work Starts Now

US Syrian Quagmire - A Second Life

More Status Quo please - for now

The Arab States Are Faced with Virulent Zionism in Israel

December 2024

Next Step An Integrated, Sovereign Europe

Making the Europe and BreXit Trump Proof ...

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - 2024

Not A Permanent Ceasefire Lebanon-Israel

Clash of Empires - Crossroads @ Middle East

Occasional Series