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 (571998)	6/16/2010 4:00:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1575614

At this rate of use, the uranium that could be mined economically would last about 80 years. 1 - Breeder reactors 2 - Currently undiscovered deposits. 3 - New techniques mean that more can be extracted economically 4 - Higher prices mean that more can be extracted economically 5 - Thorium The real problem is not lack of uranium, or even dealing with nuclear waste, its the high cost of building nuclear plants.

To: tejek who wrote (571998)	6/16/2010 4:20:27 PM
From: Elmer Phud	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575614

The author is ill informed on Breeder reactors. en.wikipedia.org A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates new fissile material at a greater rate than it consumes such material. Other experts insist the technology is viable and ready for commercial use right now. Interestingly, one of his main fears We shouldn't use it because Iran or N.Korea will use it. What an idiotic argument. They are using it. Another point, even without breeder reactors, we in the US don't recycle our spent fuel rods. They can be recycled up to 10 times but we don't do it for political reasons. Everybody else does and it multiplies their fuel supply by 10x and they have virtually no waste when done.