Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (183939)	3/3/2004 2:10:40 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574302

Ted Re...At present rates of consumption, we have only 30 years of uranium left. So much for nuclear power picking up the slack. I read the story, looking for the part, where he said there was only 30 yrs of uranium left. That guy, or your professor, whoever is an idiot. It was thought, in the 60's that there would be shortages, that is why breeder reactors were developed. However, since then, with new uranium discoveries, and better centrifuges; even refining spent fuel rods, isn't economical. There, is enough uranium for several hundreds of yrs, not to mention the isotopes of thorium, and lithium. The oceans actually have a far amount of uranium in them, and coal also has higher than normal concentrations, of uranium. So that 30 yrs statement is ridiculous. Also, we may not need more than 50 yrs, before fusion becomes a reality.