Wildwell wrote:I think we can finally put a lot of this to rest.
Great!
Wildwell wrote:Here are the basic facts.
"This is rumour control : here are the facts".
Wildwell wrote:1. In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)
Ok - lemme stop you there. As cost of uranium is such a negligible part, clearly availability is not the issue. If cost of uranium was the only factor, then we should be awash with nuclear reactors. Its the whole host of other reasons that make nuclear problematic, the capital cost, disposal, weapon proliferation.
By claiming to have "solved the problem", then addressing completely the wrong issue, then admitting that you have no answer for the real issue, you are just making yourself look foolish.
I have seen this type of articles so many times, its really quite boring. The author says there is plenty of X to last Y million years. Then says the only problem is exploiting it cheaply and in large scale. Well DUH!