Old threads were dead, and I just spend the day with my peers visiting the staffs of various congresspeople in the spirit of advocacy.

Also saw some interesting legislation voted on (and passed) that could open the door for reprocessing further down the road.

Thoughts?

5/19/2009 9:16:57 PM

Is it true that we only have like a 45 year-ish supply of fuel for nuclear power plants in the earth? I thought I'd read somewhere, and it seems to make the debate moot.

5/19/2009 9:19:25 PM

good. getting out of the navy in two years and I'm going to need a job

5/19/2009 9:19:46 PM

Quote :

"Is it true that we only have like a 45 year-ish supply of fuel for nuclear power plants in the earth? I thought I'd read somewhere, and it seems to make the debate moot."

No, it is not. And even if it were, a greenlight on reprocessing would change that significantly.

5/19/2009 9:21:22 PM

Is it remotely true? I'm curious about how finite the stuff is.


Not that I'm opposed to nuclear power. It's clean energy, as far as I'm concerned.

5/19/2009 9:30:44 PM

Reprocessing is a de facto necessity; even if Yucca Mountain ever opened, OCRWM estimates show it reaching capacity in terms of ejected fuel in mid-2010. And if you thought Yucca Mountain was difficult to open, wait until Yucca Mountain II: Son of Yucca Mountain.

I'm really holding out hope that this is what Chu announces will be the administration's new waste policy, but I'm very doubtful this will be so. Chu has gone on record as saying we need to "research" reprocessing, but has not come out in favor of it due to proliferation concerns. Which while on face seems sensible, completely ignores the fact that we have safeguards designed for this very reason. France has been doing it for years now; hell, the Navy doesn't seem to have too many problems on that end either.

Basically, "more research" strikes me as a stalling tactic. But also, the most likely outcome.

5/19/2009 9:31:54 PM

Quote :

"Is it remotely true? I'm curious about how finite the stuff is."

Most likely that number is "at the current price."

You know how oil has to go to a certain marginal price before it's profitable to extract, and when the price goes up, we start opening up old wells and exploring new ways to get oil? It's a little like that.

Most estimates I've heard put Uranium around 100-300 years, and this assumes no progress on advanced uranium recovery (such as laser separation work being done at GE), and no spent fuel reprocessing. It also takes the option of a Thorium-based fuel cycle, which is far more plentiful than Uranium, off the table.

Basically - by the time we have to actually worry about running out of Uranium, we'll have likely developed much more sophisticated technologies, including fast reactors and possibly even fusion. Running out of Uranium really isn't the problem for nuclear's long-term outlook.

5/19/2009 9:34:46 PM

I've seen values ranging from 150+ years to "so much, don't worry about," varying from textbooks to articles to journals.

It's like predicting ocean rise due to global warming - lots of speculation, who knows for certain?

But to address what I think is the intent of your point, just suppose that yes: there is a finite amount, relevant to, say, three generations from now. Keep in mind there are other sources; for example, the fuel for the plant I work at is not mined, but rather is made from refurbished material from Russian nuclear warheads. Also keep in mind that by that time (decades and decades), we will have even more efficient steam cycles, and perhaps even new reactor types (fast reactors and breeder reactors, for example).

^, ^^

[Edited on May 19, 2009 at 9:38 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2009 9:36:53 PM

from what I understand, and chaos does a better job of explaining it, the estimate you heard is based on the assumption of no reprocessing.

Uranium isn't like gasoline in your car. You can't burn all of the uranium in a reactor, because the fission products end up fucking up the system, so you have to take the stuff out and put new fuel in. However, you've still got a fuck-ton of usable fuel left in the old stuff. You just can't use the old fuel in its used-state. You have to pull out the bad shit to get at the good shit. And that requires reprocessing. And, guess what, we can do that right now with current technology. We do it every day. We just do it for bombs right now.

Probably a better explanation would be to say imagine if your car puts the H20 from the combustion process back into the gas tank. Eventually, the H2O in the gas tank will stop the combustion process, despite the fact that there is plenty of gas. it's almost entirely the same in the case of a nuclear reactor, only with different elements "stopping the combustion."

5/19/2009 9:52:28 PM

Quote :

"Is it true that we only have like a 45 year-ish supply of fuel for nuclear power plants in the earth? I thought I'd read somewhere, and it seems to make the debate moot."

Quote :

"¦¦ Reserves in current mines[1] ¦¦ Known economic reserves[2] ¦¦ Conventional undiscovered resources[3] ¦¦ Total ore resources at 2004 prices[1] ¦¦ Unconventional resources (at least 4 billion tons, could last for millennia)[3]"

I just had to post that...

btw, nuclear plants will keep operating with prices up to like $1000/kg. It's not like all the other resources out there, the ore is a very small cost relative to the total. That's what people usually just don't get.

5/20/2009 11:47:13 AM

Quote :

"Most estimates I've heard put Uranium around 100-300 years, and this assumes no progress on advanced uranium recovery (such as laser separation work being done at GE), and no spent fuel reprocessing. It also takes the option of a Thorium-based fuel cycle, which is far more plentiful than Uranium, off the table."

The new separation technology will open up more uranium to be used, yes. But there is only a finite amount that the better enrichment technology can help by. Tails only contain a finite fraction of U235, and laser enrichment will open that up, but that doesn't amount to what we've already used. Take what we're getting from ore right now and multiply it by about 1.2 or 1.3 and that's the improvement you get from PERFECT enrichment technology. Needless to say, new technology will reduce costs and make the entire process more efficient as well as destroy the Uranium markets in the long term, but it's only a marginal gain in efficiency that keeps off having to deal with more stuff.

5/20/2009 12:03:15 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

nk just tested a nuke

5/25/2009 2:31:59 AM

OBLITERATE

Either get world consensus to wipe N. Koreas ass off the map or work shit out. No half way decisions of firm angry diplomacy.

Perhaps George FUCKING Dubya should have been more worried about N.Korea instead of wasting our troops, money, and effor for Saddams no show WMD.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 3:00 AM. Reason : l]

5/25/2009 2:59:51 AM

eh lets keep nuclear arms and nuclear power in separate threads please. Its like linking an article about a hydrogen bomb in a thread about hydrogen cars.

That being said, I am a huge supporter of new nuclear plants and reprocessing as well. Also, the other thing to consider when talking about the amount of uranium available to us...it has been my experience that the people trying to say we only have "45"(or any other relatively low number) of years of uranium available are either lying or misconstruing the facts, or both.

The biggest thing I see misrepresented is the people who crunch that number down low by basing their calculation off of the "known" uranium supply being the only source used for ALL power generation w/i the US, world, whatever scale they are talking on. And the fact is obviously that that will not be happening anytime soon and honestly shouldn't/won't happen ever anyways. So its a moot point.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 9:48:05 AM

Additionally, what would be the logical thing to advocate if you're worried about nuclear power sustainability? So we have more than 45 years of Uranium left, fine, but even if we have 300 years of Uranium left, it's not unreasonable to ask our living engineers to use it more efficiently and generate less waste (which IS a problem staring us in the face).

Of course there's the advanced fuel cycle, breeder and burner reactors, but people have problem with those too.

Or maybe we could just use a proven process that uses existing reactors with no retrofitting, at a price much lower than the advanced fuel cycle, with virtually no proliferation concerns, in a cooperation with (friendly) Canada which would significantly extend the life of our Uranium resources?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/04/dupic-fuel-cycle-direct-use-of.html

When you get down to it, the only reason we're not reusing the spent fuel is...

...

...actually, there is no reason we're not reusing the spent fuel.

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 9:45:52 AM

Quote :

"it's not unreasonable to ask our living engineers to use it more efficiently and generate less waste (which IS a problem staring us in the face)."

for sure

[Edited on May 27, 2009 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

5/27/2009 9:48:08 AM

bump

12/29/2011 9:13:56 AM

2 hour long video on Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors

tl;dw (first 5 minutes)

12/29/2011 9:17:13 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Quote :

"fluoride combines ionically with almost any transmutation product. This is an MSFR's first level of containment. It is especially good at containing biologically active "salt loving" wastes such as Cesium 137."

Probably the first time I've ever seen fluorine cited as a safety benefit

12/29/2011 9:22:48 AM

Flourine and Flourides are two different things, Peter.

12/29/2011 11:13:51 AM

whether we have 100 years or 1000 years of nuclear material left to use to produce electricity, it's only a short matter of time before we rely 100% on this:

12/29/2011 11:28:35 AM

and at the time that picture was taken, we would have been shivering in the dark, because there would be no electricity

12/29/2011 11:31:07 AM

hahaha

12/29/2011 11:39:49 AM

That picture was taken in the middle of a bright sunny day. Why would we be shivering in the dark?

12/29/2011 11:42:14 AM

752 F...thats hot.

we do not run that hot. but we do run at high pressures...

12/29/2011 11:47:44 AM

Quote :

" and at the time that picture was taken, we would have been shivering in the dark, because there would be no electricity"

you dumbass. fell right into that one.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/

even that article is outdated. we are up to 60% efficiency now and they work at night.

http://www.greenwala.com/channels/green-technology/blog/13103-Scientists-Develop-Affordable-Solar-Panels-That-Work-In-The-Dark

Quote :

"Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory announced Wednesday that they have been able to confirm a new high-efficiency solar cell design that utilizes nearly the entire solar spectrum. Translation: They figured out a way to make solar panels generate electricity in the dark."

you guys can deny and make fun of solar all you want. it's going to be more costly to NOT get solar panels on your house than to buy conventional electricity in under a decade.




oh also a riddle for aaronburro: OMG HOW DOES TEH ISS HAVE POWER 1/2 THE TIME WHEN IT FALLS OVER EARTHS HORIZON!!! OH NOES!!! WHAT DOES THEY USE TO KEEP WARMZ DURING THAT TIMEZ

lol @ this clown fest



[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:02 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 1:50:47 PM

get back to me when that shit actually works

12/29/2011 1:54:51 PM

here, give me your hands. let me actually palpate them for you against the surface of the actual panels. then walk over to the battery they charged and hold the + and - terminals and feel the cold voltage send a 12V ever so slight shiver up your spine.

i understand no amount of words will ever convince you of the ability of these things, but, hey, not all people have an actual functioning brain.

12/29/2011 2:00:41 PM

way to change the post after I responded to it. the article you originally posted said this:

Quote :

"The material is fairly simple to create, and scientists are confidient that it would scale easily out of the laboratory. But there is a bit of a hitch: There's currently no way to capture the energy being created."

AKA, they didn't fucking work. thus, the "get back to me when it actually works". now, tell me how the output of zero electricity charged a battery? right. it didn't. where can I buy one right now? right, I can't. AKA, it doesn't fucking work right now. thus, the "get back to me when it actually works".

Quote :

"oh also a riddle for aaronburro: OMG HOW DOES TEH ISS HAVE POWER 1/2 THE TIME WHEN IT FALLS OVER EARTHS HORIZON!!! OH NOES!!! "

batteries. damn, that was hard.

12/29/2011 2:06:15 PM

Quote :

"batteries... and at the time that picture was taken, we would have been shivering in the dark, because there would be no electricity"

wow
just because your silly human eyes only see about .6% of the entire spectrum of photons and other radation in the universe..... you immediately conclude that all energy is lost at night

Quote :

"Scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory announced Wednesday that they have been able to confirm a new high-efficiency solar cell design that utilizes nearly the entire solar spectrum. Translation: They figured out a way to make solar panels generate electricity in the dark."

does the "Ron Paul Fan" manual tell you to hate solar energy too?
silly retard. try again.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 2:14:44 PM

Quote :

"wow just because your silly human eyes only see about .6% of the entire spectrum of photons and other radation in the universe..... you immediately conclude that all energy is lost at night "

keep moving the goalposts. the ISS isn't running on the other 99.4% of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Quote :

"does the "Ron Paul Fan" manual tell you to hate solar energy too?"

no, but the REALITY manual tells me not to get excited over shit that's not even on the market yet, much less that isn't producing any viable amount of electricity. will it work one day? probably. does it work today? no. ergo, the part about "get back to me when it actually works".

Quote :

"silly retard. try again."

and now we see that you really have no argument, as you have devolved into the typical pack_bryan name-calling festival. good day, sir

12/29/2011 2:24:11 PM

lol you talk a lot


solar energy > all other forms of energy we currently have

12/29/2011 2:32:09 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/business/energy-environment/nrc-clears-way-for-new-nuclear-plant-construction.html


Approval of Reactor Design Clears Path for New Plants

Quote :

" the Westinghouse AP1000, a 1,154-megawatt reactor with a so-called advanced passive design. It relies more heavily on forces like gravity and natural heat convection and less on pumps, valves and operator actions than other models do, in theory diminishing the probability of an accident."

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 2:36:48 PM

Quote :

"solar energy > all other forms of energy we currently have"

How do we get solar energy? Oh that's right, the sun is a constant nuclear reaction...

12/29/2011 2:37:35 PM

Solar won't ever be viable for industrial production.

I can see solar eventually replacing practically all consumer electricity though, in most places.

The energy industry would fight this tooth and nail, because it would mean people wouldn't be paying a monthly fee to have their electricity managed.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 2:38:55 PM

Quote :

"solar energy > all other forms of energy we currently have"

which is why it is used so much more than all other forms of energy production. exactly.

12/29/2011 2:40:04 PM

Quote :

"I can see solar eventually replacing practically all consumer electricity though, in most places."

qft
industrial use, i completely agree.

Quote :

"because it would mean people wouldn't be paying a monthly fee to have their electricity managed."

qft

which is why they need to re-invest in battery, and panel production. batterys need replacement every 10 years. and panels every 30-40 years. (at a minimum) so there's going to be consumers buying things from somewhere still.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 2:40:37 PM

wouldn't industrial use fall under the 100% that you stated earlier? which is it?

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ]

12/29/2011 2:41:32 PM

^i never said we'd have a solar powered space shuttle dumb-ass, and yes 100% of items that run on conventional electricity can and will be powered through solar sources eventually. again. you, with all the talking.

just admit you hate solar and go back to the ron paul thread.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:44 PM. Reason : ,]

12/29/2011 2:43:38 PM

I was hoping this would be about fusion. *sigh*

12/29/2011 2:46:02 PM

^It's better.

I don't think you watched the video, pack_bryan.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:47 PM. Reason : -]

12/29/2011 2:47:06 PM

^ nope . but i did read a wiki entry on it real quick.

can you condense the 5 min segment or find a shorter vid? if not i'll watch it later when i've got the bandwidth.

12/29/2011 2:51:08 PM

Just wait and watch the first 5 minutes when you get a chance. You'll want to watch the rest of it.

12/29/2011 2:55:54 PM

Quote :

"i never said we'd have a solar powered space shuttle dumb-ass, and yes 100% of items that run on conventional electricity can and will be powered through solar sources eventually. again. you, with all the talking. "

You'll never run a factory of electric arc smelters on solar.

12/29/2011 2:58:44 PM

5^likewise.

Quote :

"solar energy > all other forms of energy we currently have"

Depends how you define that really. But the way I think you mean...no.

[Edited on December 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM. Reason : k]

12/29/2011 2:59:28 PM

believe me. i'm itching to watch. and i've been extremely tempted to build one of these before in my basement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0FHZCYCoXY

12/29/2011 3:00:09 PM

Quote :

"i never said we'd have a solar powered space shuttle dumb-ass, and yes 100% of items that run on conventional electricity can and will be powered through solar sources eventually."

keep moving those goalposts away from "it's only a short matter of time before we rely 100% on [solar]". and keep calling me names.

12/29/2011 3:01:45 PM

Quote :

"The energy industry would fight this tooth and nail, because it would mean people wouldn't be paying a monthly fee to have their electricity managed. "

you apparently have no idea how the future of solar power is going to work. Once we stop piddling with solar panels and start installing massive solar thermal plants that actually have ride-through capabilities, we're still going to need the exact same grid we have now. The only exception being that we need smarter devices with more active load management that will use power when it's available and curtail use when it's not.

If anything, renewable will play more into the commercial / industrial market than into the residential market, because the larger commercial and industrial customers have already been working around variable energy prices for years now. You give them a way to save money, and they're going to jump on it.

But it's all speculation and will remain that way for quite some time. The only energy revolution we're going to see in this country is the death of coal and the surge of cheap natural gas.

12/29/2011 3:02:07 PM

^ good read

^^ sure man. i update my statement to read... "it's only a short matter of time before we rely 99.9992237478372362% on [solar]"

12/29/2011 3:05:37 PM

Quote :

"i never said we'd have a solar powered space shuttle dumb-ass"

why not? the space station runs on solar, and you could put it into orbit using hydrogen powered rockets with the fuel generated through electrolysis.

12/29/2011 3:06:36 PM