Re: Nova/Frontline

[Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 GlennACarlson@aol.com wrote:

> An option to combat global warming?  Is this just hearing what we want to 
> hear?  
> 
> According to the program (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/beyond/), "If we 
> look at the estimates of the available uranium ore around the world, at cost 
> effective prices, and we ask the question, if we were to burn it in 
> light-water reactors (conventional nuclear reactors used in the United States 
> and Western Europe), how long would the reserves of uranium last if we were 
> to extract energy at the rate of ten terawatts [which equals the current 
> total energy consumption of all humankind]?  Well, it turns out that you only 
> have about ten years of U-235 power from all of the cost-effective uranium 
> reserves."
> 
> Unless we go with breeders, it sounds like nuclear is at best a short-term 
> solution.  And, considering how long it takes to build even one nuclear 
> plant, it's probably not even that.  

	--Obviously, we cannot convert all of the world's energy to
nuclear power in ten years, but the global warming problem is not a 10
year problem. At very best, we could convert most of the world's
electricity -- that is one third of the world's energy use --to nuclear
over the next 50 years. That would give plenty of time to develop and
start using breeder reactors which can then supply all the world's energy
for billions of years. If the increase in CO2 could be stopped in 50
years, no one would worry about global warming.
	Aside from all that, estimates of available uranium resources have
been notoriously short of reality. Uranium is now cheaper than ever, so
cheap that all U.S. mines have gone (or are about to go) out of business.

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html