Reassurance on availability of uranium

[amblincork]

A number of members raised the limited supplies of uranium as an objection to the use of nuclear power so this letter from today's Irish Times offers reassurance on that point:
Madam, – Tom Kelly (June 16th) points out that supplies of uranium are limited. The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently published (June 2006) the latest edition of its Red Book, a publication which has reported on uranium resources, production and demand over decades. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations also participates in the gathering of the data contained. The document states that the amount of uranium available today is 4.7 million tonnes, which is enough to fuel the present fleet of reactors for 85 years. However, it goes on to state that based on geological evidence some 35 million tonnes are available for exploitation.

By 2025 the world nuclear energy capacity is expected to grow to by between 22 per cent and 44 per cent, but the OECD believes the currently identified resources are adequate to meet this expansion.

In the longer term, continuing advances in nuclear technology will allow substantially better utilisation of these resources: reactors will be capable of extracting some 50 to 60 times as much energy from the uranium as present-day reactors do. There is sufficient uranium available to power nuclear reactors for the foreseeable future; also, it is expected that other elements such as thorium will be used to fuel fission reactors. In the long term fusion energy will provide virtually endless power. – Yours, etc,

DAVID SOWBY,

[Digout]

There is loads and loads of it in Western Australia.Australia's Uranium Resources

[soubresauts]

David Sowby can be relied on to trot out the pro-nuclear propaganda, and the Irish Times can be relied on to publish his letters. And if you're inclined to be pro-nuclear yourself, like amblincork, you'll probably be "reassured".

Sowby shows how reliable he is in statements like: "In the long term fusion energy will provide virtually endless power." Who believes that? The IT bins most of the letters sent to the editor, but they happily publish guff like that.

Get real. Nuclear is a byword for deception, corruption and incompetence. Because of cover-ups, extending to the highest levels of government as well as the media, the reality of nuclear is largely hidden from the general public. Occasionally we get a glimpse of what's happening, such as in The Observer on Sunday:

1,750 faults at nuclear plants in 7 years
In a secret health and safety report, the chief nuclear inspector admits Britain's watchdog force is short of experienced staff...

And if you think the French nuclear industry has significantly higher standards, you're just not well-informed.

While it sometimes seems as if the Irish always go wrong in making major decisions, at least we didn't make the mistake of embracing nuclear power.

[amblincork]

David Sowby can be relied on to trot out the pro-nuclear propaganda, and the Irish Times can be relied on to publish his letters. And if you're inclined to be pro-nuclear yourself, like amblincork, you'll probably be "reassured".

Sowby shows how reliable he is in statements like: "In the long term fusion energy will provide virtually endless power." Who believes that? The IT bins most of the letters sent to the editor, but they happily publish guff like that.

Get real. Nuclear is a byword for deception, corruption and incompetence. Because of cover-ups, extending to the highest levels of government as well as the media, the reality of nuclear is largely hidden from the general public. Occasionally we get a glimpse of what's happening, such as in The Observer on Sunday:


And if you think the French nuclear industry has significantly higher standards, you're just not well-informed.

While it sometimes seems as if the Irish always go wrong in making major decisions, at least we didn't make the mistake of embracing nuclear power.

I was getting worried that I mightn't get the ' you must be mad' type of emotional, non detached response !

[wombat]

I was getting worried that I mightn't get the ' you must be mad' type of emotional, non detached response !

If we can persuade a majority of students to study science at least to Junior cert. level, we may in ten years time be able to discuss nuclear power in a rational manner, in the meantime, save your breath to cool your porridge.

[soubresauts]

I was getting worried that I mightn't get the ' you must be mad' type of emotional, non detached response !

I don't know if you have a point to make, amblincork. What's the point of discussions like this? As the Minister for the Environment says (here):

Ireland is and will remain a non-nuclear state.

Now I don't advise people to simply take John Gormley at his word (see my sig). Look around you. The nuclear industry is really on its last legs, even in rabidly pro-nuclear Britain. The Financial Times reported a month ago (here):

Lack of support threatens future of UK nuclear power, EDF warns
By Ed Crooks in London
Published: May 26 2009
New nuclear power stations will not be built in Britain unless the government provides financial support for the industry, the head of the country's biggest nuclear generator has warned…
Ed Miliband, the UK energy secretary, recently told the Financial Times the government's policy was not to subsidise nuclear power. "I think we are right not to subsidise new nuclear power stations because we have an obligation to get to a low-carbon future at the lowest cost to the billpayer," he said.

[fiannafailure]

If we can persuade a majority of students to study science at least to Junior cert. level, we may in ten years time be able to discuss nuclear power in a rational manner, in the meantime, save your breath to cool your porridge.

wombat
I can discourse for hours, nay weeks even, on the advantages and ramifications of E=MC2. A nuclear power station is the most efficient generator of usable energy in use today, and this crown can only be taken away by the domestication of nuclear fusion.

Now if the accountants had not arrested the development of the nuclear fission power station, and research into the safe and economic use or disposal of the waste products of fission were to take place in a meaningful way, I will be supporter alpha,

But at present and mainly because of the interference of said accountants (they really are a dangerous breed) the nuclear fission model is also the most efficient generator of non usable energy in use today.
Discourse ?