Tanada wrote:We also know that accessing Wind or Wave or Solar requires a large energy investment up front, to build the turbines or arrays. By some estimates, and I don't have a link handy, it takes about the same quantity of concrete to errect similer levels of wind turbine generating capacity as it does for a 1 Gwe fission power plant. If that is the case should we build enough wind turbines to provide intermittent power while filleting flocks of birds or one constant baseload source of fission power that produces in its entire lifetime of 60 years 1200 tons of high level waste that would occupy a few acre's of dessert in dry storage containers?
In the latter case, it is assumption that it will be able to provide that baseload power for 60 years. In the former case, are you saying that wind farms threaten the extinction of any bird species? If so, we need better designs, but the wind source will be guaranteed for 60 years and more.
Tanada wrote:Take a look at the hundreds of abandoned industrial sites in the USA and compare it to decomissioned fission facilities. Even the government owned facilities in Oak Ridge and Hanford are better than many of the industrial sites abandoned around the country.
That's great but I don't know what it has to do with the discussion at hand.
1.The world's endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste.
Patently false, nobody who has studied resources for 15 minutes would beleive this statement.
Sorry, I only studied if for 14 minutes but I think David Fleming has studied it for a lot longer than 15 minutes. I don't think your sort of comment is helpful except to illustrate that there is a difference of opinion, which is what we all know to be true.
2. It is essential that the waste should be made safe and placed in permanent storage. High-level wastes, in their temporary storage facilities, have to be managed and kept cool to prevent fire and leaks which would otherwise contaminate large areas.
A) if it is essential why are they opposing permanent facilities at every turn and B) modern temporary dry storage casks could absorb a direct impact from a wide body jumbo jet ala 9/11 or a hit with an shoulder fired anti-tank type armor peircing weapon.
There are many reasons why a particular storage facility might be opposed. Are you saying that David Fleming has opposed all such storage facilities on spurious grounds, and has been successful in every case?
3. Shortages of uranium - and the lack of realistic alternatives - leading to interruptions in supply, can be expected to start in the middle years of the decade 2010-2019, and to deepen thereafter.
Well gee we have an 85 page thread all around you disputing this factoid on many levels.
Are you saying that the uranium supply situation is guaranteed, or that you, and others, believe it is guaranteed? I'm not totally against nuclear power, if society can hold together, and was a firm supporter before I learned of resource depletion. I'm saying that there are certainly dissenting voices (and not just of lay people), whilst supply is certainly not proven.
4. The task of disposing finally of the waste could not, therefore, now be completed using only energy generated by the nuclear industry, even if the whole of the industry's output were to be devoted to it. In order to deal with its waste, the industry will need to be a major net user of energy, almost all of it from fossil fuels.
Not only false, but baseless on the face of it. How much energy is it suppossed to take to haul waste to the desert and bury it anyhow?
Well, the base of the argument is laid out later in the document. I can't answer the last question personally but the document suggests about a quarter of the total energy produced in the lifetime of the plant would have to go to decommisioning and in dealing with the waste long term. No doubt you disagree.
5. Every stage in the nuclear process, except fission, produces carbon dioxide. As the richest ores are used up, emissions will rise.
Come again? France manages to produce fuel quite efficiently using fission powered electricity to run the manufacturing plants and 1970's era gasseous diffusion enrichment plants. The new American Centerfuge plant being built in Piketon, Ohio uses just 5% of the electricity per SWU as the Gasseous Diffusion plant in Paducah, KY it is being built to replace. So once again we have a patently false claim.
The details are in the document. I assume that you completely disagree.
7. An independent audit should now review these findings. The quality of available data is poor, and totally inadequate in relation to the importance of the nuclear question. The audit should set out an energy-budget which establishes how much energy will be needed to make all nuclear waste safe, and where it will come from. It should also supply a briefing on the consequences of the worldwide waste backlog being abandoned untreated.
Sounds lovely, why doesn't this group seek funds for an independent unbiased audit instead of making up facts as they go along?
It suggests an independent audit. Do you disagree? The study lays out some opinions but doesn't state that they must be correct, instead suggesting an independent audit. Sounds reasonable.
Tanada wrote:8. There is no single solution to the coming energy gap. What is needed is a speedy programme of Lean Energy, comprising: (1) energy conservation and efficiency; (2) structural change in patterns of energy-use and land-use; and (3) renewable energy; all within (4) a framework for managing the energy descent, such as Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs).
I support the first three suggestions in point 8, I don't beleive the last point is acheivable without some sort of fascist controlling state being implemented and I oppose that wholeheartedly.[/quote]And yet the last one may be the only fair way of managing the downslope. I would guess that you think market forces will take care of it and that those who can't afford the energy they want or need should simply do without?
In any case, this gets us away from the main point of this discussion, uranium supply, and my suggestion about guaranteed supply of the fuel source.