Uranium: the new coal?

[Never Give In]

Check this site (http://www.taipanfinancialnews.com/uraniuminvesting.html?gclid=CLLh54DJl40CFSWQGgodS3-Q6A) out.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all, that page is trying to sell something, hardly making it a trustworthy resource.

Secondly, that page talks as if Uranium is the only fissionable in existence, which quite simply isn't true. Thorium is being considered as an alternative once Uranium is no longer viable. Also using breeder reactors and reprocessing will significantly extend the useful lifetime of fissionable fuels.

[apathy maybe]

One: Please don't just link to sites and ask us to read them, quote a few interesting bits and offer some commentary.

Two: Please don't link to sites like this that are trying to sell stuff.

Three: This site is obviously wrong about a number of things, including "Bottom line: Nuclear power is a safe, clean, cheap, and limitless energy source." (no fucking way is it limitless...). The site also quotes politicians (including the US President, G dubba Bush), I don't trust politicians, and especially not conservative scum fuckers like Bush.

Four: The site is trying to sell something, namely stock. I wouldn't trust them, it sounds too good to be true (and that generally means it is...). Wait! They aren't sell stock, they are selling subscriptions to BreakAway Investor (selling? they keep talking about how things are Free!), for "only" $49 (normal price $145) a year. Sounds good doesn't!

To sum up, the site is a scam, it doesn't offer any trust worth information about anything (uranium or otherwise). Uranium is running out, it isn't limitless, and NoXion is correct, thorium reactors are being developed which will make uranium reactors obsolete (being, among other things, more efficient).

So no, uranium isn't the next coal. There is much more available and easy to use coal then there is available and easy to use uranium (by that, I mean 235 U, which is less then 1% of naturally occurring uranium).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Some objections.


Three: This site is obviously wrong about a number of things, including "Bottom line: Nuclear power is a safe, clean, cheap, and limitless energy source." (no fucking way is it limitless...).

Compared to coal, nuclear power is clean. Waste products are kept onsite during energy production in a nuclear plant, whereas in a coal plant they are simply let into the air. They are also more concentrated and thus much more easy to manage.

It's also safe to the point where the engineers at Chernobyl had to remove several safety features and be working with a cheapo reactor design in order for a disaster to happen. Saying that nuclear power is unsafe on the basis of the Chernobyl accident is like saying that cars are unsafe and demonstrating this by cutting the brake lines, or banning modern ocean liners on the basis of the Titanic's accident.

It's also cheaper on a fundamental level that no chemical reaction can match - not only can fuel use be extended, but the energy comes from atomic reactions that are inherently more effecient than any chemical reaction. The main expense of setting up a nuclear power station is wading through all the beureacratic red tape that government slapped down in the wake of non-disasters like three-mile island.

[apathy maybe]

I wasn't contesting safe. I do contest clean (but only because I include the manufacture and decommissioning of the plant, mining and shipping the uranium and dealing with the waste), whether or not it is cleaner then coal I don't know. I was contesting mainly, however, the limitless bit.


Oh, and of course, you shouldn't forget that nuclear power stations are reliant on a 19th century technology. The steam engine. They heat water, which turns a turbine! (Coal does the same thing of course.)

[Never Give In]

I kind of wanted to get a debate started about nuclear power as opposed to coal and oil. I didn't know how to really word it, so I just linked onto a site claiming that Uranium and Nuclear Power is the better choice. I didn't know that it was selling anything actually, but yeah. I'll produce better threads next time around.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fissionables are not limitless but they have a dmna sight brighter future than fossil fuels.


I do contest clean (but only because I include the manufacture and decommissioning of the plant, mining and shipping the uranium and dealing with the waste), whether or not it is cleaner then coal I don't know.

Lets compare the environmental impacts of the two, shall we?

Fuel Extraction

Large amounts of coal have to be dug out compared to fissionables. This results in a larger general impact on the environment.

Fuel Use

When coal is burned, large amounts of soot, ash and greenhouse gasses are released into the atmosphere. The fumes also contain Radon-219 and the heavy metals Selenium and Mercury.

Nuclear power stations' main waste product is heat, which can be more easily used for useful work.

Disposal and Decomissioning

A nuclear power plant lasts on average about 50-60 years. When decomissioned there will be some residual radioactivity that means the plant should be shut down in a responsible manner. But, consider the overall environmental impact - during it's lifetime, the nuclear power plant will not have been contributing to climate change, contaminating the greater environment with heavy metals, contributing to smog and acid rain, and many other effects that fossil fuels have.

Now, I'm not saying that you support coal power stations, but I also want to point out that renewables will not cut it either - they would be useful as a supplementary energy source, but renewables lack the energy densities required to supply the bulk of today's energy needs, let alone tomorrow's.


Oh, and of course, you shouldn't forget that nuclear power stations are reliant on a 19th century technology. The steam engine. They heat water, which turns a turbine! (Coal does the same thing of course.)

And did you know that turbines are reliant on an even more ancient technology - the wheel! Which of course does not invalidate their usefulness any more than using steam to turn those turbines.

Just because a given technology is simple does not mean it is outdated or useless.

[socialistfuture]

so petrol is used for the extraction, transport and use of the nuclear fuel as well. it is used in the construction of a nuclear power plant. so a nuclear power plant is not this ideal - no fossil fuels used fix. let alone that uranium is a finite resource and there is no way to properly dispose of it - only ways to store it.

there is at current no other fuel to replace uranium and make nuclear cleaner and safer.

i'd say the smart thing to do would be invest in energy sources that are known to be clean and reliable - ie solar and wind technologies, thereby making them cheaper and more efficient as more research is done. nuclear is an old technology - they have been going on about fussion and fission for ages, like coal companies go on about 'clean' coal when they use a dirty fossil fuel. and like how war profiteers go on about peace.

nuclear is the new coal in that it is more of the same and not a solution, at best a quick fix, at worst another problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

so petrol is used for the extraction, transport and use of the nuclear fuel as well.

But in using our petrol reserves to extract uranium from the ground we get a net energy gain, as opposed to using petrol to try and extract more oil, which is a vicious cycle of net energy loss. Don't forget that petrol is also used in the construction of solar panels and wind farms.


it is used in the construction of a nuclear power plant. so a nuclear power plant is not this ideal - no fossil fuels used fix.

And it was never claimed so - but liberating vast amounts of coal and oil that would otherwise have gone towards municipal energy is a good thing, is it not?


let alone that uranium is a finite resource and there is no way to properly dispose of it - only ways to store it.

Storage is a sensible method of disposal, enabling us to keep an eye on it until radiation reaches safe levels (IE, background levels or less).


there is at current no other fuel to replace uranium and make nuclear cleaner and safer.

But nuclear power is a damn sight cleaner and more safe than petro-chemical power which provides the majority of energy.


i'd say the smart thing to do would be invest in energy sources that are known to be clean and reliable - ie solar and wind technologies,

Solar and wind are not "Reliable". They are (along with other renewables) dependant on specific local conditions, whereas nuclear power stations can operate at night and when there is hardly any wind. They also take up considerably less land than solar or wind, and have a much greater energy density.
As supplementary energy sources they'll do just fine, but for providing society's main source of energy they just won't cut it.


thereby making them cheaper and more efficient as more research is done.

That will take time we don't have. We have mature nuclear technologies ready and waiting for full implementation.


nuclear is an old technology -

So is the wheel. Doesn't make either of them any less useful.


they have been going on about fussion and fission for ages,

So what? Fission is a proven technology, and as for fusion we've made a lot of progress. Don't let the cold fusion fiasco colour your judgement of serious fusion research.


like coal companies go on about 'clean' coal when they use a dirty fossil fuel. and like how war profiteers go on about peace.

Guilt by association fallacy.


nuclear is the new coal in that it is more of the same and not a solution, at best a quick fix, at worst another problem.

A naive view typically promoted by the ignorant.

[socialistfuture]

Storage is a sensible method of disposal, enabling us to keep an eye on it until radiation reaches safe levels (IE, background levels or less).

any idea when that would be?



there is at current no other fuel to replace uranium and make nuclear cleaner and safer.


But nuclear power is a damn sight cleaner and more safe than petro-chemical power which provides the majority of energy.

i agree that it is cleaner emissions wise, but on other fronts (and thats excluding nuclear weaponry and arsenals)..

not when you consider nuclear testing and nuclear waste dumped in the oceans and Chernobyl + depleted uranium in eastern europe and places like Iraq and other places that has had nuclear testing by countries like france did in the pacific islands.





they have been going on about fussion and fission for ages,


So what? Fission is a proven technology, and as for fusion we've made a lot of progress. Don't let the cold fusion fiasco colour your judgement of serious fusion research.

care to give a rough date for fusion? maybe it'll come out the same year that 'clean' coal comes out aii...? come on 30 years? when.....



like coal companies go on about 'clean' coal when they use a dirty fossil fuel. and like how war profiteers go on about peace.


Guilt by association fallacy.

maybe because both are hugely backed by energy and oil corporations, and largely fund people like george bush. guess this is going into politics, oil and mining companies are very linked - huge similar PR campaigns, both have really high powered lawyers and have a huge reach in modern states.



nuclear is the new coal in that it is more of the same and not a solution, at best a quick fix, at worst another problem.



A naive view typically promoted by the ignorant.

care to back that up rather than make a personal attack?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

any idea when that would be?

I don't know, but remember that the more intense the radiation is from a given isotope, the shorter it's half-life is, meaning that we won't have to wait long before the worst of the stuff has gone.


i agree that it is cleaner emissions wise, but on other fronts (and thats excluding nuclear weaponry and arsenals)..

Considering that many more people have died due to conventional arms as opposed to nuclear, I think you should worry about the rest of the arms trade more.


not when you consider nuclear testing and nuclear waste dumped in the oceans and Chernobyl + depleted uranium in eastern europe and places like Iraq and other places that has had nuclear testing by countries like france did in the pacific islands.

And yet none of that shit has caused global climate change, sea level rises, polar ice melting and many other things that affect or could affect the vast majority of humanity. The sooner we switch over to nuclear power the more cushioned the blow will be, when it comes.


care to give a rough date for fusion? maybe it'll come out the same year that 'clean' coal comes out aii...? come on 30 years? when.....

Why should that date matter, you imbecile, as long we are working on the problem? Personally I would like commercial nuclear fusion to come along as swiftly as possible, but reality dictates that it will take time. It's still no reason not to support fusion research, which has made measurable progress.


maybe because both are hugely backed by energy and oil corporations, and largely fund people like george bush. guess this is going into politics, oil and mining companies are very linked - huge similar PR campaigns, both have really high powered lawyers and have a huge reach in modern states.

If the nuclear industry is so beloved by the administration, why aren't they doing better? Why aren't General Electric getting juicy contracts in Iraq instead of Halliburton? You're accusation of complicity with the government by the nuclear industry is irrevent anyway to the fact that we need nuclear power now more than ever, while we still have enough oil left.


care to back that up rather than make a personal attack?

My last two posts have been "backing that up". Are you even paying any proper fucking attention?

[socialistfuture]

yeah, have you responded to nuclear testing in the pacific and hiroshima and ngasaki?
plus depleted uranium used in modern munitons.

nuclear energy will not solve climate change, could u show me some reports that suggest otherwise...?

what country do you live in Nixion?

[Kenhoma]

Hmmm... if there is a resurgence in Uranium mining will that be an opportunity to Unionize those workers involved?

[Dr Mindbender]

USA will never allow it cause there will be far too much potential for more nuclear 'new kids on the block' like Iran and DPRK.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

yeah, have you responded to nuclear testing in the pacific and hiroshima and ngasaki?
plus depleted uranium used in modern munitons.

I answered that. None of the situations you describe has remotely resulted in the kind of environmental and humanitarian crises we face today, including climate change and peak oil - neither of them caused by nuclear technology, but by fossil fuels.


nuclear energy will not solve climate change, could u show me some reports that suggest otherwise...?

Strawman. I never said that nuclear power could "solve" climate change, only that immediately beginning to replace our fossil fuel stations with nukes would save us a lot of trouble, by freeing up the leftover oil and reducing our collective contribution to carbon emissions.


what country do you live in Nixion?

UK, but why does it matter? It's a global problem.

[socialistfuture]

the problems are created by a system that values consumption and economic growth above all else, nuclear simply allows this process to continue without dealing with the core problem.

we are causing a mass extinction of species daily, much of the majority world is starving and there are endless resource wars, our socieites are not sustainable. uranium leads to nuclear power which is the only thing that can lead to nuclear weapons.

which countries have nuclear weapons; britain, the US, israel, russia... is it concidence they also have nuclear power?

you havent proved nuclear is SAFE, or that nuclear leads to a reduction in fossil fuel use, in fact i dont think you even want a reduction. you are fine with constantly draining each resource and moving onto new ones. that has a pattern - it is similar to a virus, i would recomment you study environmental politics and sciences and in particular the term 'sustainability'.

[TheTickTockMan]

Yes, while fissiondoes not produce pollutant emissions, I'd be very worried about the environmental impact of mining, transportation, enrichment, and eventual storage of fissionable materials.

1) Uranium mining is at least as environmentally disruptive as coal mining. It is also a highly energy-intensive process which, at our current technological level, still relies on combustion fuels.

2) Having mined our fissionable materials -- be they uranium or thorium or what have you -- what shall we do to get them to the reactors? Trucks and trains, that's how! Again, the combustion problem.

3) Construction. Nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive and complex -- they require vast amounts of concrete, steel, and other resources, which otherwise might be put to other uses. Construction usually takes place over a period of ten years or more -- a huge investment of manpower and energy. The construction process itself produces emissions and particulate matter, not to mention the incidental environmental disruptions produced by all the sub-industries that must go into manufacturing the raw materials for the nuclear plants.

Unless the infrastructure surrounding fission power can be mended, it will never be zero-emissions.

3) Storage. In addition to spent fuel rods, used reactor materials also remain highly dangerous and environmentally unfriendly for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Where can we store these nuclear wastes where they won't produce severe environmental damage?

Nevertheless, fission power is a high-energy alternative to petroleum, at least until a reliable fusion power system can be created. But, having spent fifty years or more in building fission reactors everywhere and phasing out petroleum, how can we be sure that fusion power won't have already been invented before we invested all this time and energy?

?~TTTM

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the problems are created by a system that values consumption and economic growth above all else, nuclear simply allows this process to continue without dealing with the core problem.

It is those advocating renewables only who are dodging the issue, namely that they simply don't provide enough energy for today's needs let alone tomorrow's. Growth occurs independently of capitalism.


we are causing a mass extinction of species daily, much of the majority world is starving and there are endless resource wars, our socieites are not sustainable. uranium leads to nuclear power which is the only thing that can lead to nuclear weapons.

And yet despite 50+ years of nuclear technology being commercially available, we have yet to be consumed by a nuclear fireball. Not even the Cold War could achieve that. Global thermonuclear war is even less likely today.

Oil encourages a lot more wars. Does the name Iraq ring a bell?


which countries have nuclear weapons; britain, the US, israel, russia... is it concidence they also have nuclear power?

Does it really matter as long as those weapons aren't used? Really, for all your screeching about nuclear proliferation, history seems to indicate that possessing nuclear weapons is a safe option. Do you think that America would have nuked Japan if they could have replied in kind?


you havent proved nuclear is SAFE,

It is safe enough, especially compared to fossil fuels.


or that nuclear leads to a reduction in fossil fuel use,

It won't be up to us. The increasing cost of oil will see to that.


in fact i dont think you even want a reduction. you are fine with constantly draining each resource and moving onto new ones. that has a pattern - it is similar to a virus, i would recomment you study environmental politics and sciences and in particular the term 'sustainability'.

Draining one resource then moving onto another is sustainable, as long as you have another one available. It's just not your tree-hugging flower child kind of sustainability that would have us all living in mud huts and caves.

Fissionables combined with reprocessing will give us centuries of fuel, more than enough time to build giant solar panels in space or to perfect nuclear fusion.

Our place is among the stars, not huddling around fires fearful of the night.


Originally posted by TheTickTockMan
1) Uranium mining is at least as environmentally disruptive as coal mining. It is also a highly energy-intensive process which, at our current technological level, still relies on combustion fuels.

And how do think the metal and silicon for wind farms and solar panels is mined? Fairy dust?


2) Having mined our fissionable materials -- be they uranium or thorium or what have you -- what shall we do to get them to the reactors? Trucks and trains, that's how! Again, the combustion problem.

Trains can be run purely on electricity. Sure, that electricity may be generated by fossil fuel stations at first but that only makes it even more important for us to phase out fossil fuel plants, as quickly as possible.

Use your imagination!


3) Construction. Nuclear reactors are incredibly expensive and complex -- they require vast amounts of concrete, steel, and other resources, which otherwise might be put to other uses. Construction usually takes place over a period of ten years or more -- a huge investment of manpower and energy. The construction process itself produces emissions and particulate matter, not to mention the incidental environmental disruptions produced by all the sub-industries that must go into manufacturing the raw materials for the nuclear plants.

Unless the infrastructure surrounding fission power can be mended, it will never be zero-emissions.

No industry can be zero-emissions. But the investment, both in economic and environmental terms, will be worth it if we start building nuclear power stations right now!


3) Storage. In addition to spent fuel rods, used reactor materials also remain highly dangerous and environmentally unfriendly for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Where can we store these nuclear wastes where they won't produce severe environmental damage?

That's a question for the engineers, but I can think of one or two places, including a storage facility in the reactor complex itself. It's not an insurmountable issue and neither should we treat it as one.


Nevertheless, fission power is a high-energy alternative to petroleum, at least until a reliable fusion power system can be created. But, having spent fifty years or more in building fission reactors everywhere and phasing out petroleum, how can we be sure that fusion power won't have already been invented before we invested all this time and energy?

Well, commercial nuclear fusion won't just simply appear on the market in a puff of magic. It could take years, maybe even decades for fusion to become commercially viable.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I have to agree with Noxion here. Nuclear energy is the best option we have right now.

As for nuclear weapons:

"Imperialist countries like the U.S. and imperialist-oppressed countries like the DPRK are not on equal footing. A nuclear power on the offensive, and small isolated country on the defensive are very different. While it should be our ultimate goal to rid the world of nuclear weapons completely, it must be realized that that can only happen when the oppressed masses take power in the imperialist countries. In the meantime, calling on countries like the DPRK to disarm (which a number of “leftist” and “progressive” groups and individuals have done) is tantamount to supporting the imperialist war machine.

"We don’t call on the DPRK to disarm for the same reason we wouldn’t tell a child not to fight back if she were being assaulted by a group of much larger bullies!"
Imperialist hands off North Korea! U.S. troops out of South Korea! (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?220)

[TheTickTockMan]

Originally posted by TheTickTockMan
1) Uranium mining is at least as environmentally disruptive as coal mining. It is also a highly energy-intensive process which, at our current technological level, still relies on combustion fuels.

And how do think the metal and silicon for wind farms and solar panels is mined? Fairy dust?

May I remind my dear comrade that avoiding the question at hand by asking a tangential question presuming the opposing party's beliefs to be a certain way, is not a particularly convincing method of argument?

No further questions.

#~TTTM

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by TheTickTockMan+August 07, 2007 05:09 am--> (TheTickTockMan @ August 07, 2007 05:09 am)


TheTickTockMan
1) Uranium mining is at least as environmentally disruptive as coal mining. It is also a highly energy-intensive process which, at our current technological level, still relies on combustion fuels.

And how do think the metal and silicon for wind farms and solar panels is mined? Fairy dust?

May I remind my dear comrade that avoiding the question at hand by asking a tangential question presuming the opposing party's beliefs to be a certain way, is not a particularly convincing method of argument?

No further questions.

#~TTTM [/b]
And that invalidates anything else I've said how?

Care to address the rest of my post, chickenshit?

[socialistfuture]

keep to the arguements, no need for insults.


nuclear is better for the atmosphere but not for waste. both need mining (coal and uranium) and have waste problems, nuclear also has ethical implications because nuclear weapons can be made after someone has nuclear technology and energy.

depleted uranium is a huge issues in iraq and kosovo amongst other places.
you still havent sorted out how to get rid of the current waste - why make more?

wind power is part of the solution. india etc run on around 70% coal power - the states and china are real high too. this needs to change - i dont think going more into nuclear would change things - part of the problem is what all the energy is going into - the foresty industry which causes deforestation in tropical areas and rainforests, huge factories with toxic and other forms of pollutions, we have a massive waste problem and countless others.

energy is only part of them problem with climate change - nuclear cant long term help things - its a desperate fix - and barely one at that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by socialistfuture
keep to the arguements, no need for insults.

He insulted me by not having the manners or the intellectual honesty to address the rest of my post.

Therefore in addition to asking him to address the rest of my post, I returned the favour.


nuclear is better for the atmosphere but not for waste. both need mining (coal and uranium) and have waste problems, nuclear also has ethical implications because nuclear weapons can be made after someone has nuclear technology and energy.

These are not insurmountable issues. You don't need as much uranium to run a nuclear reactor compared to the amount of coal/oil needed to power a fossil fuel station. Atomic reactions have a much greater energy potential than chemical reactions.
Based on the lessons of history, nuclear proliferation turns out to be nowhere near as harmful as the conventional weapons trade.


depleted uranium is a huge issues in iraq and kosovo amongst other places.
you still havent sorted out how to get rid of the current waste - why make more?

Depleted uranium has less radiation than background levels - that's why it's called "depleted". The danger of depleted uranium is the fact that it's a toxic heavy metal like lead. What makes you think tank projectiles made of a different material with similar properties will be any less toxic?

There is no problem with nuclear waste compared to the problems with fossil fuel waste. Nuclear power produces small amounts of manageable waste, and you get less waste if you reprocess it. Fossil fuels produce large amounts of ash and smoke which has nowhere the amount of health and safety protocols binding it compared with nuclear waste. Often it's simply released into the atmosphere with no treatment at all.

Nuclear waste is not a problem if you deal with it properly.


wind power is part of the solution.

As is nuclear.


india etc run on around 70% coal power - the states and china are real high too. this needs to change - i dont think going more into nuclear would change things - part of the problem is what all the energy is going into - the foresty industry which causes deforestation in tropical areas and rainforests, huge factories with toxic and other forms of pollutions, we have a massive waste problem and countless others.

So the real issue is revealed. Your problem is not with the way we produce energy, but the amount and where it's going. The amount we currently use is what it takes to run a civilisation like ours, we can of course strive to be more effecient but I don't think your problem is with effeciency either.
As for where it's going, that's a seperate issue.


energy is only part of them problem with climate change - nuclear cant long term help things - its a desperate fix - and barely one at that.

Nonsense. Fissionable may be a finite resource in geological terms but in resource consumption terms it's effectively limitless - combined with reprocessing nuclear fuel use will last us centuries, more than enough time to develop nuclear fusion to maturity.
It'll only be desperate if we leave the switchover too late. That applies to all alternatives as well as nuclear.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:58 pm




so petrol is used for the extraction, transport and use of the nuclear fuel as well.

But in using our petrol reserves to extract uranium from the ground we get a net energy gain, as opposed to using petrol to try and extract more oil, which is a vicious cycle of net energy loss. Don't forget that petrol is also used in the construction of solar panels and wind farms.
Extracting oil still has a higher EROEI than nuclear, six to four if i'm not mistaken.
Wind has a very high eroei usually, depending on location, above ten.



i'd say the smart thing to do would be invest in energy sources that are known to be clean and reliable - ie solar and wind technologies,

Solar and wind are not "Reliable". They are (along with other renewables) dependant on specific local conditions, whereas nuclear power stations can operate at night and when there is hardly any wind. They also take up considerably less land than solar or wind, and have a much greater energy density.
As supplementary energy sources they'll do just fine, but for providing society's main source of energy they just won't cut it.

You're not correct in this. The total available wind power is about five times the current use of total world power consumption. Furthermore wind and solar are complementary in that when it blows there is no sun and vice-versa. This will give you extra reliability, furthermore wind may be unreliable for one place, but not over a larger area, same goes for solar. Furthermore we can use hydro-electric to store the energy. We can also predict wind and sun and then use that information to price power such that people, industry, whatever shift their energy-usage. An airco/refrigerator/whatever need not operate continuously. Protocols to indicate this already exist. You can simply put a signal on power cables.



thereby making them cheaper and more efficient as more research is done.

That will take time we don't have. We have mature nuclear technologies ready and waiting for full implementation.
Well, wind and solar are also mature technologies. Windmills especially, ever read Don Quichote? ;-) You also shouldn't forget that the production capacity of the nuclear industry is quite limited, they simply can't build all those reactors. Wind and solar don't have such problems.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Extracting oil still has a higher EROEI than nuclear, six to four if i'm not mistaken.
Wind has a very high eroei usually, depending on location, above ten.

Nice figures. Care to show your working? And in any case, Peak Oil will ensure that uranium becomes economical.


You're not correct in this. The total available wind power is about five times the current use of total world power consumption.

That optimistically assumes optimum harnessing of available wind power, which ain't gonna happen, since the wind isn't always as strong as we would like it to be.


Furthermore wind and solar are complementary in that when it blows there is no sun and vice-versa.

Clearly you have never been outside. It is perfectly possible for it to be both a still day and to be overcast.


furthermore wind may be unreliable for one place, but not over a larger area, same goes for solar.

Our ability to predict weather conditions does not change the fact that they are not constant, whereas nuclear decay is constant whatever the location and/or weather conditions.


Furthermore we can use hydro-electric to store the energy.

Hydro-electric does not store electricity, it produces it.


We can also predict wind and sun and then use that information to price power such that people, industry, whatever shift their energy-usage.

Nuclear would easily fill in such gaps left by solar and wind, if only people like you would let it.


An airco/refrigerator/whatever need not operate continuously. Protocols to indicate this already exist. You can simply put a signal on power cables.

Actually, some things like refrigerators and factories and electric train networks do need to operate continuously. Such things would need a constant energy source.


Well, wind and solar are also mature technologies. Windmills especially, ever read Don Quichote? ;-) You also shouldn't forget that the production capacity of the nuclear industry is quite limited, they simply can't build all those reactors. Wind and solar don't have such problems.

That just means we need to start building nuclear reactors sooner rather than later. Yes, I would love to see countries like the UK try and get all of their power from renewables, if only because it would be a failure of epic proportions.

And please don't insult my intelligence by comparing windmills to wind turbines.

[Wilfred]

Extracting oil still has a higher EROEI than nuclear, six to four if i'm not mistaken.
Wind has a very high eroei usually, depending on location, above ten.

Nice figures. Care to show your working? And in any case, Peak Oil will ensure that uranium becomes economical.
For wind, try this: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/10/17/18478/085
And no, uranium will only become economical if there is enough of it and against competetive prices.


You're not correct in this. The total available wind power is about five times the current use of total world power consumption.

That optimistically assumes optimum harnessing of available wind power, which ain't gonna happen, since the wind isn't always as strong as we would like it to be.
Well, five times current total power consumption is a lot. Just for reference that includes energy used in heating, transport and the electrical grid. And this already includes the variability of it.


Furthermore wind and solar are complementary in that when it blows there is no sun and vice-versa.

Clearly you have never been outside. It is perfectly possible for it to be both a still day and to be overcast.
Yes, but still this does help.



furthermore wind may be unreliable for one place, but not over a larger area, same goes for solar.

Our ability to predict weather conditions does not change the fact that they are not constant, whereas nuclear decay is constant whatever the location and/or weather conditions.
What I said implies that we can easily shift demand to when we have power, because we know when we will have power.


Furthermore we can use hydro-electric to store the energy.

Hydro-electric does not store electricity, it produces it.
I'm sorry, but now I'm starting to question either your knowledge or sincerity.
Just google for "Pumped storage". And for that matter, there is also compressed air storage.




We can also predict wind and sun and then use that information to price power such that people, industry, whatever shift their energy-usage.

Nuclear would easily fill in such gaps left by solar and wind, if only people like you would let it.
[/QUOTE]
You do realize nuclear has the reverse problem, you can't simply turn it off?
Also as I said, nuclear can't, there is no production capacity for it, which can be swiftly increased. I can also assure you that I'm saying this not out of malice, but out of concern, nuclear simply isn't an option. Your remarks indicated to me that you might have thought that.



An airco/refrigerator/whatever need not operate continuously. Protocols to indicate this already exist. You can simply put a signal on power cables.

Actually, some things like refrigerators and factories and electric train networks do need to operate continuously. Such things would need a constant energy source.
Do you actually know anything about refrigerators?