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 (184701)	3/14/2004 11:35:27 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Fission uses pure U-235......best estimates are there is a 35-40 year supply. Who cares? If something isn't done about the impending collapse of the giant ponzi scheme known as Social Security (privatization, the only viable way out of the quagmire), we won't be able to pay our utility bills anyway -- since the required 60% Social Security Payroll Tax will effectively eliminate all disposable income for such extras as electricity. If you need something to worry about, I would suggest SS provides a hell of a lot more fodder than does some electricity scare. Hell, you guys can't get past one scare tactic before you're on to the next.

To: tejek who wrote (184701)	3/15/2004 1:11:03 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Ted Re...Fission uses pure U-235......best estimates are there is a 35-40 year supply. Breeders would lengthen that usage period considerably but they are unstable and no one wants to fool with them. Man, I can't believe how close you were with that guess. You were only off by 5 billion yrs, not 50, 500, 5 mln, or 500 mln, but really 5 billion yrs. I don't plan on living that long. How much uranium is there in seawater? Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years. However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year. Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium. He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource. www-formal.stanford.edu

To: tejek who wrote (184701)	3/15/2004 11:49:11 AM
From: hmaly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Ted Re...Three oil shale plants were built in the US and abandoned by the 90s. It took huge amounts of shale to make just a little oil. The process is hardly cost competitive. In addition, it left big gaps in the landscape and large mounds of crushed rock after the kerogen had been squeezed out. Which is why I said nuclear is the better alternative. There is enough uranium in seawater, to last us forever, you don't make a worse mess mining it, carbon dioxide levels are reduced,and in the end, there is less radiation in the seas, all at competitive costs. Nonetheless, shale oil and tar sands will guarantee we won't run out of oil, it just costs more environmentally. The facts don't support your position re nukes What facts? Yes, all of those are do able but we need to really focus on them now. Japan and other countries continue to be way ahead of us on alternative fuels. They know what its like to be short. Ford should not have to buy its hybrid engines from Toyota. First off, the toyota hydrids, aren't alternative fuel cars, they are alternative power supply. They all use gas, just more efficiently. They are cars which specialize in conservation of energy, and efficiency of energy. Secondly, if you read my article on uranium, from seawater, Japan leads the world in that research. While not cost effective now, it will be, and unless the US gets going, we will let Japan have the lead in the next big thing. PS As a side note to the seawater article, Cohen states that the seawater is saturated to its maximum concentration now, and the excess floated to the bottom. Mining uranium, won't actually lower uranium levels, just release a comparable amount sitting on the bottom, to stabilize the uranium at a certain parts/bln level, what ever that is. Just as taking uranium out, won't make a difference in radiation levels, putting radiation in won't raise that level either. Therefore the sea bottom could be a good place to dispose of waste, as that would just add a minute amount to the uranium already there, on the bottom.