Global Warmers Promote Dark Ages, Permanently

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is uranium a finite resource ?

I'm going to copypasta what I wrote elsewhere on this topic:

This is a false claim made by the anti-nuclear lobby.

Most of the current generation of nuclear reactors run on U-235. Only about 0.7% of natural uranium mined out of the ground is U-235, the rest is almost all U-238 (with traces of U-234, U-236 and U-237). Uranium 235 is fissile,which means an atom of it gets hit by a neutron, splits and releases energy (more than 20 million times the energy released by breaking the electron bonds of a petroleum molecule in a chemical combustion reaction).

U-238 is fertile. Which means if it gets hit by a neutron, it won't split and release energy. But it will turn into something that does split and release energy if a second neutron comes along. A U-238 atom that picks up a neutron will turn into Neptunium-239 which after about 3 days will decay into fissile Plutonium 239. This occurs naturally in currently used reactors which run on Uranium that is enriched to 5% U-235, but the process isn't efficient enough to keep going on just the U-238.

Terrapower, a US company funded by Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) that is in partnership with Toshiba to produce a new reactor design called the Traveling Wave Reactor that will both burn and breed its own fuel from U-238 without external support claims that the existing US stockpile of U-238 (mostly leftovers from enriching mined uranium into fuel or weapons grade material) is enough to fuel all of Americas energy needs for at least the next three thousand years.

Globally, there is enough proven reserves of conventional uranium to provide all of mankinds energy needs for 35,000 to 50,000 years. After that, the unconventional reserves (4.5 billion tons dissolved in earths seawater) are enough to extend our supply into the millions of years.



Thorium is several times more abundant in earths crust than uranium. Neither will last literally forever. That's what the other planets in our solar system are there for.

Technically, yes, uranium and thorium are finite. There is only enough of it around to provide all our energy needs for a few dozen times the total length of recorded history to date. After that, we'll need to start filtering it out of seawater or go looking off-world.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm going to copypasta what I wrote elsewhere on this topic:

Mmm.... copypasta.... *drool*

 

[keale]

No need to get mean, but just so that we will not argue about what a theory is. I have provided the definition from Merriam-Webster.

Theory

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2. abstract thought : SPECULATION
3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art *music theory*
4. a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action *her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn* b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory *in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all*
5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena *the wave theory of light*
6. a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject *theory of equations*

Of these I would like to think that the theory of CO2 caused global warming fits nicely into 1, 2 and 5.
CO2 caused global warming is only a theory nothing more, nothing less.

Once again you have shown that you dont understand the meaning of the word "theory" in scientific terms.

 

[stokes234]

I'm going to copypasta what I wrote elsewhere on this topic:

Technically, yes, uranium and thorium are finite. There is only enough of it around to provide all our energy needs for a few dozen times the total length of recorded history to date. After that, we'll need to start filtering it out of seawater or go looking off-world.

While this is true, there are potential energy security and cost issues for western europe, since it lacks it's own uranium deposits. Hopefully the wide spread of other deposits would allow competition between resource-rich countries to keep prices down, but if western europe converts completely to nuclear and then gets told that the price of uranium just tripled (through cartels, war, or whatever), then western europe is in trouble. Renewable energies don't come with these problems.

Through reading your arguements I am becoming more convinced that nuclear is the better option, but I think that europe especially should focus on using renewables as much as possible alongside nuclear.

 

[leftysergeant]

One of the big problems with nuclear energy is that the results of a human screw-up may be irremdiable. Once radiation levels reach a certain level, there is the chance of causing lethal mutations throughout entire species, including our own.

Look what just happened to our government. De-regulation is the theme for a crowd of newcomers in the House of Representatives. Soime of the more extreme members of their party would turn the very writing of energy regulations over to the companies that run the plants. Bad idea.

ENRON. Haliburton. No other argument is needed.

About two years ago, there was a major hissy-fit among Republican pundits over the cost of using helicopters to spot, and human pick-up crews to remove, rabbit poo from the Hanford reservation.

You want to trust these people to do it in a way that does not threaten our very existance as a species?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

While this is true, there are potential energy security and cost issues for western europe, since it lacks it's own uranium deposits. Hopefully the wide spread of other deposits would allow competition between resource-rich countries to keep prices down, but if western europe converts completely to nuclear and then gets told that the price of uranium just tripled (through cartels, war, or whatever), then western europe is in trouble. Renewable energies don't come with these problems.

The vast differences in energy density between nuclear and conventional fuels completely change the rules. A 6 month fuel supply for a 1000 MW reactor can fit into the bed of a common pick-up truck. While a 1000 MW coal plant can burn upwards of 6,000 tons of fuel per day. Nuclear fuel costs can't rise the way conventional fuel prices do because costs like transportation for large amounts are nearly identical to those for small amounts.

Even if they did, that pick-up truck could cost a million, 2 million or 5 million dollars (current uranium prices are roughly 50 to 150 USD per kg). But since it will light a medium sized city for half a year, it will still be a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of railroad cars worth of coal that would need to be brought in for the same amount of power, heat and light. Unlike coal, oil and natural gas, fuel prices for nuclear are a very small portion of its overall cost.

One of the big problems with nuclear energy is that the results of a human screw-up may be irremdiable. Once radiation levels reach a certain level, there is the chance of causing lethal mutations throughout entire species, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

Lefty, if you could tear yourself away from chasing phantoms in green T-shirts, maybe you could give this paper a read; "Nuclear Energy, Health and the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis" by Nuclear Engineer and Radiation Biologist, Dr. Jerry Cuttler,. (here is a pdf of the power point presentation he gave based on his paper at the 2009 Canadian Nuclear Society Conference in Calgary Alberta).

Dr. Cuttler handily destroys the nonsensical bilge you smeared on your screen prior to hitting the "Post" button.

 

[Unabogie]

Lefty, if you could tear yourself away from chasing phantoms in green T-shirts, maybe you could give this paper a read; "Nuclear Energy, Health and the Benefits of Low-Dose Radiation Hormesis" by Nuclear Engineer and Radiation Biologist, Dr. Jerry Cuttler,. (here is a pdf of the power point presentation he gave based on his paper at the 2009 Canadian Nuclear Society Conference in Calgary Alberta).

Dr. Cuttler handily destroys the nonsensical bilge you smeared on your screen prior to hitting the "Post" button.

Cuttler and Teabagger Whacktard Art Robinson. I tend to agree with you that nuclear power should be pursued, but lolwut? You want to sprinkle the nuclear waste on me? Not likely.

A cursory Google search on hormesis classifies it solidly in the woo department.

 

[daenku32]

No need to get mean, but just so that we will not argue about what a theory is. I have provided the definition from Merriam-Webster.

Theory

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2. abstract thought : SPECULATION
3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art *music theory*
4. a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action *her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn* b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory *in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all*
5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena *the wave theory of light*
6. a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject *theory of equations*

Of these I would like to think that the theory of CO2 caused global warming fits nicely into 1, 2 and 5.
CO2 caused global warming is only a theory nothing more, nothing less.

Next week I got couple of tests coming up. I think I'll do what TK is doing here. Instead of trying to learn the theorems as they are written in the textbook, I'll just refer to the dictionary and pick the ones that are easiest for me to comprehend. Even if they don't actually say the same thing as the text book.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Cuttler and Teabagger Whacktard Art Robinson.

You have Dr. Cuttler and his co-author Dr. Myron Pollycove (Visiting Medical Fellow, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Emeritus Laboratory Medicine and Radiology, University of California, San Francisco) confused with someone else.

I tend to agree with you that nuclear power should be pursued, but lolwut? You want to sprinkle the nuclear waste on me? Not likely.

The section of Cuttlers paper on waste management makes no mention of sprinkling it on people who are not made of straw.

A cursory Google search on hormesis classifies it solidly in the woo department.

Your investigoogling was either too cursory or you have made errors similar to your misidentification of Dr. Cuttler and his colleagues.

Next time, try googling in the right place.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know SOT, after talking to people I've found that for some people nuclear has unacceptable risks. You can talk and present facts and promise the waste will be taken care and some people still won't sleep at night thinking about what could happen. And people value their sleep.
A lot of the fear is irrational, and it's not coming from irrational people. It's coming from people that would prefer a billion windwills to 1 reactor.
I think it's going to take another 50 years with a tentative approach and a spotless safety record for people to even begin to consider nuclear as the primary baseload source of electricity.

 

[Unabogie]

You have Dr. Cuttler and his co-author Dr. Myron Pollycove (Visiting Medical Fellow, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Professor Emeritus Laboratory Medicine and Radiology, University of California, San Francisco) confused with someone else.



The section of Cuttlers paper on waste management makes no mention of sprinkling it on people who are not made of straw.



Your investigoogling was either too cursory or you have made errors similar to your misidentification of Dr. Cuttler and his colleagues.

Next time, try googling in the right place.

You must have missed Art Robinson during the election, because that's what I was referring to. I didn't say he was Cuttler's partner. Robinson did indeed suggest sprinkling the waste over the American public.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You must have missed Art Robinson during the election, because that's what I was referring to. I didn't say he was Cuttler's partner. Robinson did indeed suggest sprinkling the waste over the American public.

The theory of radiation hormesis is as vulnerable as any field of serious study to being misinterpreted and picked up by easily excited laypersons and stretched into absurdity. It's unfair to tie the work of legitimate researchers to "whacktards" who misinterpret it. Dr. Cuttler has never suggested dousing people with radioactive waste, nor would he.

I was at the 2009 CNS conference where Dr. Cuttler presented his paper. I saw a lot of bald heads, gray goatees and tweed jackets with elbow patches. But I didn't see many "No Way, No How, NObama" T-shirts. I've spoken with Dr. Cuttler several times and politically, he's quite liberal. He's no friend of the tea partiers and if one of them was misrepresenting his work, he would be quite offended.

 

[Trakar]

I don't know SOT, after talking to people I've found that for some people nuclear has unacceptable risks. You can talk and present facts and promise the waste will be taken care and some people still won't sleep at night thinking about what could happen. And people value their sleep.
A lot of the fear is irrational, and it's not coming from irrational people. It's coming from people that would prefer a billion windwills to 1 reactor.
I think it's going to take another 50 years with a tentative approach and a spotless safety record for people to even begin to consider nuclear as the primary baseload source of electricity.

I sincerely hope you are wrong.

If a whole lot more people don't mature in their considerations, or start going back to the valium to help the rest of us deal with their paranoia, big issues like global climate change are going to move way down on the list concerns behind a lot of more immediate survival concerns.

Liberals may dislike guns, progressives simply see them as means of marketing specialty technology to paranoid conservatives.
(kinda like making "fantasy swords" for Renaissance Fair enthusiasts - hey, dragon outbreaks happen!)

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Next week I got couple of tests coming up. I think I'll do what TK is doing here. Instead of trying to learn the theorems as they are written in the textbook, I'll just refer to the dictionary and pick the ones that are easiest for me to comprehend. Even if they don't actually say the same thing as the text book.

You must be misunderstanding what I was writing. Unless you want to argue that your definition of what theory means in the English language is more correct then what is printed in Merriam-Webster dictionary.
First definition of theory in Merriam-Webster is "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another". If you analyzed the fact the temperature has been rising since 1973 and so has humans CO2 emissions and say that they are related, then you have made a theory of CO2 and temperature correlation.
2nd definition is "abstract thought : SPECULATION". You sit on your balcony in Toronto in January and is sweating and thinking man it is getting warmer all the time and look there is more cars on the roads than ever, then you speculate that maybe there is a correlation between more cars and higher temperature. You have by definition 2 a theory of cars and temperature.
5th is " a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena". You are a scientist and you want to figure out what good CO2 is in our atmosphere. You find out that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it helps keep the planet warm. You prove this through some experiments and then publish your theory (as per definition 5) about CO2 in the atmosphere.

You are a bit sly in using theorem instead of theory. Theorem does not have the same meaning as theory. Here is the entry from Merriam-Webster.

Theorem

1. a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions
2. an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : PROPOSITION
3. STENCIL
4. a painting produced especially on velvet by the use of stencils for each color

See not the same as theory.
So you can have a theory about how many theorems you need to do in order to prove you theory. You can also have a theorem that leads you to another theory that then forces you to make even more theorems.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Once again you have shown that you dont understand the meaning of the word "theory" in scientific terms.

I waiting for you to enlighten me and maybe I will go like this.

 

[Unabogie]

The theory of radiation hormesis is as vulnerable as any field of serious study to being misinterpreted and picked up by easily excited laypersons and stretched into absurdity. It's unfair to tie the work of legitimate researchers to "whacktards" who misinterpret it. Dr. Cuttler has never suggested dousing people with radioactive waste, nor would he.

I was at the 2009 CNS conference where Dr. Cuttler presented his paper. I saw a lot of bald heads, gray goatees and tweed jackets with elbow patches. But I didn't see many "No Way, No How, NObama" T-shirts. I've spoken with Dr. Cuttler several times and politically, he's quite liberal. He's no friend of the tea partiers and if one of them was misrepresenting his work, he would be quite offended.

Fine, but is there any official body who does not equate radiation with tumors?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Fine, but is there any official body who does not equate radiation with tumors?

For medium to high doses, everyone understands that radiation is hazardous or fatally toxic.

It's low dose radiation where the work on hormesis is currently being applied.

Truth is, however, that hormesis has little to do with why I linked Dr. Cuttlers article. It's everything else in it aside from hormesis that I wanted lefty to see. I wanted Lefty to see that those who specialize in the field of radiations effects on living tissue do not share his ignorant "OHMIGODWE'REALLGUNNADIE" attitude towards nuclear energy.

 

[DC]

Store it in a secure facility in a place like a desert.

Seriously, the storage issue is so overblown it's funny. It's like saying we're running out of landfill space. The actual amount of space needed isn't huge, the long term risk is smaller than popularly perceived, and most of the waste has already been created.

yeah sounds all easy, but still nowhere on this planet is there such a storage.
we first have to solve that problem before we create more waste without having a solution.

 

[DC]

So you believe that every nation that has a nuclear power facility should have its own long-term storage facility?

seems the EU wants to go that direction as the want to outlaw export of nuclear waste, pretty stupid.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

we first have to solve that problem before we create more waste without having a solution.

More advanced solutions will become economical once we have the installed user base. We need to build the reactors first.