Re: Nova/Frontline

[Glenn Roberts <glenn@u1st.com>]

The original posting contained valuable information.  However, further
consideration is warranted.

The estimate for 10 years of nuclear power is based on current knowledge
of uranium deposits.  Recall that large deposits of oil and coal
resources were found as the more readily available deposits were
consumed.  It's all supply, demand, and economics (and politics).  As
the availability of alternatives dwindle and the environment declines,
political and public view may change.  Then, decisions will be on an
economical basis.  Perhaps, the shift may be such that uranium
extraction from sea water is economical, which is certainly not factored
into the 10 year estimate.

Just a few thoughts in between work projects.

Glenn Roberts





Susan Gawarecki wrote:
> 
> Glenn Carlson wrote:
> > 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."
> 
> Seriously: I wonder if this takes into account the enriched U in storage
> as bombs and bomb-grade materials that could be down-blended into the
> appropriate enrichment for reactor fuel.  It seems to me that the double
> benefit of disposing of this potential for nuclear conflict as well as
> producing emission-free energy should be considered.  Certainly the
> energy needed to enrich the uranium has already been expended in the
> case of weapons materials, also.
> 
> and Ruth Weiner wrote:
> > Which brings me to an absolutely and truly heretical response to global
> > warming: namely, SO WHAT?  So the climate changes.
> 
> Not so seriously: I've always thought the Dutch could branch out in a
> big way (they'd probably have to) --> DIKES R US.  And the ruins of the
> beachfront condos would make great artificial reefs.
> 
> All opinions expressed are my own.
> 
> Regards,
> Susan
> --
> ==================================================
> Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director
> Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee, Inc.
> 136 S Illinois Ave, Ste 208, Oak Ridge, TN 37830
> Phone (865) 483-1333; Fax (865) 482-6572; E-mail loc@icx.net
> ==================================================
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
begin:vcard 
n:Roberts;Glenn
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:UniTech Services Group, Inc.
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:glenn@u1st.com
title:Corporate Heatlth Physicist
end:vcard