Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Uranium Supply Thread pt 4 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 04 May 2008, 16:54:55

yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.

I'd already accepted that there is no 100% accuracy in stating that humans will not outlive the solar system, but it is a reasonable statement to make. Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere. I might even say it's a good working assumption but you would probably say that we can't assume anything until it has happened.

Let me offer you a way out of this, yesplease. You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.

I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 04 May 2008, 20:16:12

TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.
Accuracy has different definitions. The one pertaining to logic/math is...
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
If you had simply asked what I had meant perhaps we wouldn't have gone on this long about this.
TonyPrep wrote:Since you think reasonableness implies total accuracy then I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
No I don't. I've already told you several times, including a quote of the definition I was using, what I meant. Words have different definitions, and if you were unsure about the definition I don't see why you wouldn't ask about it before flying into paragraph long statements about something I wasn't talking about in the first place.
TonyPrep wrote:You are absolutely right that the word "know", in its strict meaning, implies 100% knowledge and so was the incorrect word for me to use. In my defence, let me say that I was using conversational English. In normal, everyday, English we often use the word "know" to mean having a high degree of confidence that something is true.
Why wouldn't you just say that in the first place? And even then, while you and Miss Cleo may have a high degree of confidence about your abilities to predict the future, I don't. As rational and logical beings, the only thing we could say about the future, especially that far into it, discounting of course trivial examples (short time periods and stuff that has to happen by definition), is that we don't know what will happen. You can assume the human specieis won't outlive/etc the solar system, but that's a long way from "know" or even a high degree of confidence, unless of course you aren't guided by rationality/logic and your high degree of confidence in your predictive abilities comes from a source that doesn't depend on the accuracy of those predictions.
TonyPrep wrote:I'm sure you'll argue about that also, yesplease. If so, please argue with yourself. I'm done.
M'kay. Like I said before, I ain't arguing with you. I'm just typing/communicating and pointing out what I feel is an unreasonable statement for a logical/rational being to make. If you're arguing w/ me, that's fine I suppose, but all I'm doing is typing along *clickity clackity noises* expressing my views. If you dislike them to the point where you feel I am arguing with you, that's fine too.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 05 May 2008, 02:18:46

yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.
Accuracy has different definitions.
:-D To help you research your error, yesplease, this is where you used the word "accurately", not "accuracy". It is the former word that you need to look up the meaning of. Have fun. (BTW, to ease the pain, I admit that, with the word "accuracy", "100%" was not redundant, though it was used in relation to your use of "accurately").
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 05 May 2008, 02:33:41

Oh! Ya got me. Coulda sworn it was accuracy, but hey, certainly isn't the first time I've been wrong. :lol: So, for the record, I meant the definition I posted and wrote something that I didn't mean.

That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.
TonyPrep wrote:Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
:lol:
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 05 May 2008, 04:16:20

yesplease wrote:That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.
TonyPrep wrote:Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
:lol:
In case Miss Cleo doesn't answer, let me try my take.

Not many species have lasted billions of years. Chances are, the human species won't either. If is does, then it would have to have moved to the outer planets by the time the sun expands to consume the earth. As there are currently no other habitable planets in the solar system, humans would have to terraform some outer planet or build artificial habitats that can maintain a viable human population. Humans would also have to figure out how to survive a surfeit of solar energy as it expands to a red giant. Then they would have to manage on a lot less as it collapsed to a white dwarf. In the meantime, all sorts of solar related catastrophes have to be overcome, as well as keeping their fingers crossed that they manage to stay in orbit. Eventually the sun will become a stellar corpse so any humans left will have had to find other means of sustenance well before then. This involves travelling many light years to the closest star systems and hoping that at least one planet is habitable, that there are enough humans left (after generations of travel without any significant input of energy) to be able to build a new habitat and procreate.

Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.

Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English. Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.

So I have a high degree of confidence that the human species won't survive the demise of the solar system.

If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 05 May 2008, 04:59:58

TonyPrep wrote:Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.
So what (roughly) are those probabilities over the next ~billion years?
TonyPrep wrote:Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English.
How horrible it would be for you to use science, logic, or math instead of conversational English, which you are clearly quite good at as we can see from these statements in the same post, ironically enough.
TonyPrep wrote:I am also perfectly able to use the English language properly
TonyPrep wrote:yesplease, you're post count is over a thousand.

TonyPrep wrote:Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.
Roughly speaking, not exactly, since you don't seem to like such things, what are those probabilities?
TonyPrep wrote:If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?
"No se" pendejito! TonyPrep, if you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say anything except for "purple", what would you say? C'mon d00d, no one put a gun to your head and forced you to say this batshitcrazy stuff, and constructing scenarios where others can't say they "don't know" to validate your PO psychic hotline only makes you seem nuttier. :lol:
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 05 May 2008, 05:20:36

yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.

However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 05 May 2008, 05:43:18

TonyPrep wrote:yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.
Hey meng, I'm just bringing up an instance of your conversational English, which you were talking about. I don't see how it's off topic. Remember, don't shoot the messenger! In any event, I don't think those little gems will be worth the electrons they're sent on given how many other gaffs I've seen on your end, the latest example being how you "know" the future of the human species. :-D
TonyPrep wrote:However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.
Unlike you, who are serious about your claim to "know" what will happen to the human species in the future? C'mon... If I thought for a second you were interested in any serious discussion of anything I'd be up for it, but all you seem to do is "know" that others "imply" stuff they don't literally write, while "interpreting" the writings of those you seem fond of in a favorable way, regardless of what they literally wrote. :roll:
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Uranium Utilizing Bacteria

Unread postby Kylon » Sun 11 May 2008, 19:49:42

THis is from Science Daily
"Bacteria Use Radioactive Uranium To Convert Water Molecules To Useable Energy
ScienceDaily (Oct. 19, 2006) — Researchers from Indiana University Bloomington and eight collaborating institutions report in this week's Science a self-sustaining community of bacteria that live in rocks 2.8 kilometers below Earth's surface. Think that's weird? The bacteria rely on radioactive uranium to convert water molecules to useable energy.

The discovery is a confirmed expansion of Earth's biosphere, the three-dimensional shell that encompasses all planetary life. The research has less Earthly implications, however. It will likely fuel optimism that life exists in other deep subsurface environments, such as in groundwater beneath the permafrost on Mars. "We know surprisingly little about the origin, evolution and limits for life on Earth," said IUB biogeochemist Lisa Pratt, who led IU Bloomington's contribution to the project. "Scientists are just beginning to study the diverse organisms living in the deepest parts of the ocean. The rocky crust on Earth is virtually unexplored at depths more than half a kilometer below the surface. The organisms we describe in this paper live in a completely different world than the one we know at the surface."

Bacteria living in groundwater or in other subsurface environments is not news. Until now, however, it was not known whether subterranean microorganisms were recent arrivals bound for extinction or whether they were permanent fixtures of an unlikely habitat. Also, many scientists have been skeptical of subsurface bacterial communities being completely disconnected from surface ecologies fed by the sun's light.

Pratt, Princeton University geomicrobiologist Tullis Onstatt and former graduate student Li-Hung Lin (the paper's lead author, now at National Taiwan University) and colleagues present evidence the bacterial communities are indeed permanent -- apparently millions of years old -- and depend not on sunlight but on radiation from uranium ores for their existence.

Coauthors of the present paper learned of a new water-filled fracture inside a South African gold mine near the Johannesburg metropolitan area and viewed it as an opportunity to study subsurface rock uncontaminated by human activities. Lin and others in the research team traveled to the mine and descended the hot, gas-choked shafts to study water slowly seeping from the crack.

The scientists sampled the flowing fracture water many times over 54 days to determine whether the community of microbes, if present, changed in composition and character, and to determine whether contamination had occurred. The researchers also examined the age of the fracture water and its chemical composition. This fracture water contained hydrocarbons and hydrogen not likely to have been created through biological processes, but rather from decomposition of water exposed to radiation from uranium-bearing rocks.

High density DNA microarray analysis revealed a vast number of bacterial species present, but the samples were dominated by a single new species related to hydrothermal vent bacteria from the division Firmicutes. The ancient age of the fracture water and comparative DNA analysis of the bacterial genes suggests subsurface Firmicutes were removed from contact with their surface cousins anywhere from 3 million to 25 million years ago. The bacteria's rocky living space is a metamorphosed basalt that is about 2.7 billion years old. How surface-related Firmicutes and other species managed to colonize an area so deep within Earth's crust is a mystery.

Some surface Firmicutes species are known to consume sulfate and hydrogen as a way to get energy for growth. Other bacteria can then use the by-products of the Firmicutes as a source of food. The scientists found that the fracture Firmicutes are also able to consume sulfate. Firmicutes do not use radiation directly as a source of energy, however.

Radiation emanating from uranium minerals in or near the fracture allows for the formation of hydrogen gas from decomposition of water and formation of sulfate from decomposition of sulfur minerals. Hydrogen gas is highly energetic if it reacts with oxygen or other oxidants like sulfate, as the Hindenburg disaster demonstrated. Firmicutes are able to harvest energy from the reaction of hydrogen and sulfate, allowing other microbes in the fracture community to use the chemical waste from the Firmicutes as food.

In a way, Firmicutes serve the same function as photosynthetic organisms, such as plankton and trees at Earth's surface, that capture sunlight energy ultimately to the benefit of everything and everyone else. In the deep subsurface case, Firmicutes species are the producers, capturing the energy of radiation-borne hydrogen gas to support microbial communities.

Pratt is the project director of the continuation of this research, which examines deep "extremophile" subsurface environments in South African and the Canadian Arctic mines. Pratt is also the director of the Indiana-Princeton-Tennessee Astrobiology Institute (IPTAI), a NASA-funded research center focused on designing instruments and probes for life detection in rocks and deep groundwater on Earth during planning for subsurface exploration of Mars. IPTAI's recommendations to NASA will draw on findings discussed in the Science report. For more information about IPTAI visit: http://www.indiana.edu/~deeplife/.

Tullis Onstott (Princeton University), Lisa Pratt and graduate student Eric Boice (IU Bloomington), Li-Hung Lin and Pei-Ling Wang (National Taiwan University), Douglas Rumble (Carnegie Institution of Washington), Terry Hazen, Gary Andersen and Todd DeSantis (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory), Duane Moser (Desert Research Institute), Barbara Sherwood Lollar (University of Toronto), Dave Kershaw (Mponeng Mine, South Africa) and Johanna Lippmann-Pipke (GeoForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany) are contributors to the research. It was supported by grants from NASA, the National Science Foundation and several other entities."

You know what this means? This means that if we go extinct, and even if we destroy the top of the biosphere, life will go on. In a few hundred million years, another group of creatures may emerge, to take our place!
Last edited by Ferretlover on Fri 13 Mar 2009, 09:23:55, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Uranium Thread.
User avatar
Kylon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 836
Joined: Fri 12 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby M_B_S » Tue 03 Jun 2008, 21:54:40

Hi guys here I am again!

Atomic lights in India went off:

Reason: acute uranium shortage on the sub-continent

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Fu ... ts/318353/

The uranium shortage has affected existing atomic power plants, which are running below capacity. Due to insufficient uranium supply, power production at NPC’s plants fell to about 16,960 million units in 2007-08 from 18,000 MU a year earlier. Nuclear Power Corporation has highlighted this problem at various forums.....
**********************************************

There is plentiful uranium on earth: in seewater, granite, sandstone ....

but not in India..... :twisted:
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby MCrab » Wed 04 Jun 2008, 06:16:43

Tsk, tsk, M_B_S, as the article you cite makes clear, the lack of fuel is temporary while India seeks to ratify an agreement that will allow it to import nuclear fuel. This is something it has been unable to do since it tested a nuclear device in 1974, four years after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect. From an economic point of view it thus makes sense for them to wait while import restrictions are relaxed rather than spend money developing indigenous expensive low grade uranium resources.


Now....

***M_B_S Warning*** DO NOT READ BELOW THIS POINT. IT IS LIABLE TO MAKE YOU CRY.:twisted:

Rejoice! Rejoice! It's that special time all right-thinking nuclear supporters wait for with baited breath......yes, the publication of the Red Book. For those not in the know, this is published biennially by the NEA and IAEA and compiles uranium statistics from over 40 countries. It is particularly beloved by those of us who like to fondle our fuel rods because it invariably shows increases in all categories of uranium reserves, despite production. So what does the Red Book 2007 say? Let's see:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/ENF_E ... 06082.html

Worldwide around 5.5 million tonnes of uranium that could be economically mined has been identified. The figure is up 17% compared to that from the last edition of the Red Book because of a surge in exploration for uranium prompted by a dramatic price increase.


and

In addition to these identified resources, the category of uranium that could be expected to be found based on the geologic characteristics of known resources has grown by 500,000 tonnes to 10.5 million tonnes.


To those who have followed the long, tortuous but frequently rewarding path of this thread, none of this should come as much of a surprise. And, of course, the fact that the Red Book figures refer only to conventional resources (i.e. excluding phosphates, coal ash, etc) mineable for less that $130/kg and that the speculative resource estimates currently exclude some countries such as Australia, should almost need to go unsaid.

So, it would seem the foundations of the nuclear renaissance continue to get stronger.


If, M_B_S, you ignored my warning, please consider that the emotional distress you now incur may prove a useful experience in overcoming a far greater trauma when Germany abolishes its nuclear phase-out. :twisted:
User avatar
MCrab
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed 06 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Mark_i » Thu 05 Jun 2008, 17:09:54

thankx mr. crab for this information :)
User avatar
Mark_i
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bavaria, Germany - for the Americans here: this is in Europa ;o)

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby M_B_S » Tue 10 Jun 2008, 05:41:24

World uranium production up in 2007 : 43300 t ?! +10%

But verify the numbers carefully :twisted:


http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html


There are some differences in the numbers from Kasakhstan :!:

Look here the official number is smaller ~10%

http://www.kazatomprom.kz/15000/?nc7&version=
According to the results of year 2007 the volume of uranium production in Kazakhstan was 6637 tons of uranium compared with 5281 tons of uranium in 2006; the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%.

:!:

So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!

:twisted:
Last edited by M_B_S on Wed 11 Jun 2008, 17:09:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Mark_i » Wed 11 Jun 2008, 16:00:37

M_B_S wrote:World uranium production up in 2007 : 43300 t ?! +10%

But verify the numbers carefully :twisted:


http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html


There are some differences in the numbers from Kasakhstan :!:

Look here the official number is smaller ~10%

http://www.kazatomprom.kz/15000/?nc7&version=

:!:

So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!

:twisted:



I'm sure when contacted, Wise-uranium would give you further details about this.

Since 2007, Kazatomprom is not the state monopolist on uranium mining anymore

South Inkai and Akdala Uranium Mine are two mines that have a JV with Toronto-baed Uranium One (UUU), with of a production share from Akdala mine alone of 700t for UUU in 2007 that are not accounted for Kazatomprom.




I beg you pardon for this inconvenience :wink:

If interested have a look at their both projects in KZ

http://www.uranium1.com/indexu.php?sect ... cts&page=1
User avatar
Mark_i
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bavaria, Germany - for the Americans here: this is in Europa ;o)

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby M_B_S » Wed 11 Jun 2008, 17:14:12

Mark_i wrote:
M_B_S wrote:World uranium production up in 2007 : 43300 t ?! +10%

But verify the numbers carefully :twisted:


http://www.wise-uranium.org/umaps.html


There are some differences in the numbers from Kasakhstan :!:

Look here the official number is smaller ~10%

http://www.kazatomprom.kz/15000/?nc7&version=

:!:

So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!

:twisted:



I'm sure when contacted, Wise-uranium would give you further details about this.

Since 2007, Kazatomprom is not the state monopolist on uranium mining anymore

South Inkai and Akdala Uranium Mine are two mines that have a JV with Toronto-baed Uranium One (UUU), with of a production share from Akdala mine alone of 700t for UUU in 2007 that are not accounted for Kazatomprom.




I beg you pardon for this inconvenience :wink:

If interested have a look at their both projects in KZ

http://www.uranium1.com/indexu.php?sect ... cts&page=1


According to the results of year 2007 the volume of uranium production in Kazakhstan was 6637 tons of uranium compared with 5281 tons of uranium in 2006; the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%.

Kasakhstan = Kasakhstan = 100%


M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Mark_i » Thu 12 Jun 2008, 01:41:47

Pardon but these are the words of Kazatrompro.


It seems that it doesn't have reached the IR department that Kazatrompro is not the only miner in Kazakhstan anymore and there are some JV-partners who hopefuly also get their part of their share
:P

I`ve just written an email to Kazatompro for clairifying. Let`s just wait on their answer.
User avatar
Mark_i
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Bavaria, Germany - for the Americans here: this is in Europa ;o)

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby MCrab » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 01:23:48

Mark_i, there really is no need to go to the trouble of emailing Kazatrompro. The not-so-secret secret of debunking M_B_S is just to read in full the articles he references. As sure as night follows day, you'll find his very selective quotes are the very inverse of the truth.

His claim about disparities in the figures from WISE (an anti-nuclear organisation) is baseless as the data for 2007 are explicitly stated to be projections rather than measured production. When reading the article from Kazatrompro we find out why the projections were wrong:

Due to postponing of launch of the Balkhash sulfuric acid plant by Kazakhmys Corporation with the capacity over 1 million tons, from May 2007 until the second quarter of 2008, Kazatomprom was forced to adjust towards reduction its plans for production in 2007 by 1000 tons.


But that wasn't the only thing M_B_S failed to include in his quote:

* the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%
* In 2008 it is planned to produce around 9,600 tons of uranium.
* The program task of the Company is to bring production of natural uranium to the level of over 15,000 tons by 2010

Only M_B_S could read all that and declare:

stagnation!


If you want to know the real reason for his seemingly increasing disconnect from reality then I think this may have something to do with it:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 ... 61,00.html

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian bloc has come out firmly in favor of a return to nuclear power, seeing a vote-getter ahead of federal elections due in 15 months.


The anti-nuclear decision, passed into law by the government of her Social Democrat predecessor Gerhard Schroeder, was "absolutely wrong," Merkel said as the meeting ended Monday.


Still, he's always worth reading for the comedic value alone.
User avatar
MCrab
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed 06 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 13 Jun 2008, 02:44:19

He's quite simply a troll whos goal is to bloat this thread with as much crap as possible.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby mkwin » Mon 16 Jun 2008, 16:32:18

The uranium supply question is effectively over. The 17% increase in proven reserves 2005 to 2007 show the idea that there are massive uranium resouces ready to be developed at very economic costs prove, even using dated ineffcient reactors, nuclear energy can be maintained and expanded. The EWG 20 years supply is less than one fith of the 100 year proven supply the IAEA state.

This is ignoring fast breeder and 3rd and 4th generation technology, higher extraction costs expanding the economicly recoverable reserves without a significant impact on the cost of nuclear energy and the other 200 years worth of probable supply.

Case closed.
User avatar
mkwin
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Uranium Supply

Unread postby Dezakin » Mon 16 Jun 2008, 17:11:55

One would have thought Epicurus's observation of the problem of evil would have closed the case on an omnipotent omnibenevolant god, but here we ware 2500 years later and still people chose to believe in that.

MBS will flood this thread with more nonsense for another 50 pages I expect.
Last edited by Dezakin on Wed 18 Jun 2008, 14:55:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests