The U.S. Is Poised to Hit a New Oil Gusher

[GaryC 7]

nuclear is the most viable of all including oil. We just have tree huggers that don't like it. 2007 was the first approved nuclear plant approval since the 70's. It looks like they are realizing that nuclear is the only future.

But uranium is just as finite a resource as oil. Should we be really just switching between each finite resource until we use them all up?

I think we have enough to tide us over.

Availability of Usable Uranium

Uranium is present at an abundance 2 - 3 parts per million in the Earth's crust which is about 600 times greater than gold and about the same as tin. The amount of Uranium that is available is mostly a measure of the price that we're willing to pay for it. At present the cost of Natural Uranium ($165 per kg) is a small component in the price of electricity generated by Nuclear Power. At a price of $US110 per kg the known reserves amount to about 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with an expected further 500 years supply in additional or speculative reserves. The price of Uranium would have to increase by over a factor of 3 before it would have an impact of the cost of electricity generated from Nuclear Power. Such a price rise would stimulate a substantial increase in exploration activities with a consequent increase in the size of the resource (as has been the case with every other mineral of value). The price of Uranium rose to a peak of over 300/kg in 2007 but has since declined to $165 by early 2008.. The world reserves of Uranium have increased by around 50% since the end of 2003.

However advanced technologies are being developed which are far more efficient in their use of Uranium or which utilize Thorium which is 3 times more abundant than Uranium. If perfected these technologies can make use of both the spent fuel from current nuclear reactors and the depleted Uranium stocks used for enrichment. Taken together these provide enough fuel for many centuries of energy production. This will mitigate the demand for newly mined Uranium.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHom...OfUsableUranium

The key is at current consumption. But nuclear power only makes up a small portion of our energy needs at this time. But we were talking about expanding nuclear power.

You missed this part. with an expected further 500 years supply in additional or speculative reserves.

In the 70's we were told we would run out of oil in 30 years. Now we have a larger estimated oil reserve than we did then. If the demand goes up so will exploration.

Currently about 6-7% of the worlds energy is derived from nuclear power. Double that, your 500 year supply drops to 250. Probably somewhat less as at the same time, our total energy needs will continue to increase. Its not hard to see that if we push for a huge expansion of nuclear power that we will eventually strain our resources for it.

But don't you think in 250 years we would be able to develope something better? It gives us a long term solution that isn't burning fossil fuels. Using nuclear power to convert water to hydrogen through electrolasis would keep us going for a very long time. The added benefit would be energy independance and elemination of CO2 (if you think that is a problem).

[Dan J 277]

nuclear is the most viable of all including oil. We just have tree huggers that don't like it. 2007 was the first approved nuclear plant approval since the 70's. It looks like they are realizing that nuclear is the only future.

But uranium is just as finite a resource as oil. Should we be really just switching between each finite resource until we use them all up?

I think we have enough to tide us over.

Availability of Usable Uranium

Uranium is present at an abundance 2 - 3 parts per million in the Earth's crust which is about 600 times greater than gold and about the same as tin. The amount of Uranium that is available is mostly a measure of the price that we're willing to pay for it. At present the cost of Natural Uranium ($165 per kg) is a small component in the price of electricity generated by Nuclear Power. At a price of $US110 per kg the known reserves amount to about 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with an expected further 500 years supply in additional or speculative reserves. The price of Uranium would have to increase by over a factor of 3 before it would have an impact of the cost of electricity generated from Nuclear Power. Such a price rise would stimulate a substantial increase in exploration activities with a consequent increase in the size of the resource (as has been the case with every other mineral of value). The price of Uranium rose to a peak of over 300/kg in 2007 but has since declined to $165 by early 2008.. The world reserves of Uranium have increased by around 50% since the end of 2003.

However advanced technologies are being developed which are far more efficient in their use of Uranium or which utilize Thorium which is 3 times more abundant than Uranium. If perfected these technologies can make use of both the spent fuel from current nuclear reactors and the depleted Uranium stocks used for enrichment. Taken together these provide enough fuel for many centuries of energy production. This will mitigate the demand for newly mined Uranium.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHom...OfUsableUranium

The key is at current consumption. But nuclear power only makes up a small portion of our energy needs at this time. But we were talking about expanding nuclear power.

You missed this part. with an expected further 500 years supply in additional or speculative reserves.

In the 70's we were told we would run out of oil in 30 years. Now we have a larger estimated oil reserve than we did then. If the demand goes up so will exploration.

Currently about 6-7% of the worlds energy is derived from nuclear power. Double that, your 500 year supply drops to 250. Probably somewhat less as at the same time, our total energy needs will continue to increase. Its not hard to see that if we push for a huge expansion of nuclear power that we will eventually strain our resources for it.

But don't you think in 250 years we would be able to develope something better? It gives us a long term solution that isn't burning fossil fuels. Using nuclear power to convert water to hydrogen through electrolasis would keep us going for a very long time. The added benefit would be energy independance and elemination of CO2 (if you think that is a problem).

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

[GaryC 7]

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

[Heracles 417]

Here I found the solution. Steven is going to love it..

http://www.powercubeenergy.com/

The PowerCubeTM makes deployable renewable energy simple. By integrating the latest solar energy, power storage and power management technologies, the PowerCube is engineered for home use, emergency response, construction, and any other remote power needs.

I wonder how many of these babies can be get onto a boeing plane..

Edited April 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

There is enough Uranium being extracted in Australia alone to power the world.

[Dan J 277]

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

So we go from one non-renawable resource to another non-renewable resource and hope that technology will someday provide a better solution before we happen to run out of those resources?

Thats basically like spending money like you got a promotion, before you actually know that you have the promotion.

[Heracles 417]

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

Here are some interesting facts..

How much uranium is out there?

Uranium resources are reported by confidence level and production cost category. In 2005, 32 countries reported total conventional resources in all confidence and cost categories of 14.8 million tU. This is enough for over 250 years at current consumption rates and over 8 000 years if fast reactor technology and recycling are used.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2006/...and_answers.pdf

Edited April 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Dan J 277]

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

Here are some interesting facts..

How much uranium is out there?

Uranium resources are reported by confidence level and production cost category. In 2005, 32 countries reported total conventional resources in all confidence and cost categories of 14.8 million tU. This is enough for over 250 years at current consumption rates and over 8 000 years if fast reactor technology and recycling are used.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2006/...and_answers.pdf

You bolded the wrong part.

[Heracles 417]

Here are some interesting facts..

How much uranium is out there?

Uranium resources are reported by confidence level and production cost category. In 2005, 32 countries reported total conventional resources in all confidence and cost categories of 14.8 million tU. This is enough for over 250 years at current consumption rates and over 8 000 years if fast reactor technology and recycling are used.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2006/...and_answers.pdf

You bolded the wrong part.

Therefore we need to direct money towards researching nuclear energy technology again. Still the one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available. Can you imagine we harnessed fusion power..

As well as funding and backing hydrogen technology.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Dan J 277]

Here are some interesting facts..

How much uranium is out there?

Uranium resources are reported by confidence level and production cost category. In 2005, 32 countries reported total conventional resources in all confidence and cost categories of 14.8 million tU. This is enough for over 250 years at current consumption rates and over 8 000 years if fast reactor technology and recycling are used.

http://www.nea.fr/html/general/press/2006/...and_answers.pdf

You bolded the wrong part.

Therefore we need to direct money towards researching nuclear energy technology again. Still the one of the safest and most reliable forms of energy available.

As well as funding and backing hydrogen technology..

We should, but thats not a particular prioirty in this country right now. The priority is oil and how to get more of it.

[GaryC 7]

The question is how much of our power should be nuclear power? If we were to convert a signficant portion of our power generation to nuclear. That 500 year stockpile would be reduced to under 100 years. Not only that, our energy needs are increasing all the time. So even if we keep a relative percentage of nuclear power the same, we would still be increasing our consumption of uranium.

But at the same time, we can't rely on the next new technology to solve all of our problems, sometimes we have to make do with what we have.

You sound like your just making exuses. If you are opposed to nuclear power for other reasons then just say so. In the mean time it sounds like we could get a lot of power from nuclear, a lot more than we get from fossil fuels. It's a technology that we know how to do and it works. I say use what you have.

So we go from one non-renawable resource to another non-renewable resource and hope that technology will someday provide a better solution before we happen to run out of those resources?

Thats basically like spending money like you got a promotion, before you actually know that you have the promotion.

No, since there is NO renuable solution that can take over any time soon we need to give ourselves time. Nuclear power can give us that time. Even if it only gives us 50 years that will be enough time to develope something renuable. What you want just isn't possible and will foster us staying on the very same path we are on now. You do want to get away from oil don't you?

[Heracles 417]

We should, but thats not a particular prioirty in this country right now. The priority is oil and how to get more of it.

We need to tap the oil sources for now but clearly the research grants need to go to other technologies. Shutting off oil overnight is simply not an option. Therefore the no drilling embargo needs to be lifted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I thought that the US was in talks with France to build some new nuclear plants...

[GaryC 7]

I thought that the US was in talks with France to build some new nuclear plants...

Several new plants are in the works. I would like to see many more.

[Heracles 417]

I thought that the US was in talks with France to build some new nuclear plants...

Several new plants are in the works. I would like to see many more.

Plus drilling any remaining US crude oil sites. China is drilling the oil here for crying out loud..