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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robin Plunder who wrote (101719)	7/1/2013 1:11:50 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 218910

Uranium? I have no idea what uranium prices have done. But with Fukushima, all those German reactors, and a lot more besides, hasn't the price of uranium already fallen a lot? Fission reactors are not looking very popular at present. Who is building, other than Iran, and they just want noocular bombs to raze Israel. Iran has plenty of oil and gas if they just want energy. Heck, they have enough gas to export it by multi$billion pipeline to India. So they obviously do not need a noocular power plant for energy. It's bombs they want. Because mining uranium takes oil too, and oil prices are staying at around $100 a barrel, I guess uranium prices have fallen somewhat since the Fukushima tsunami but that as oil goes down in price, uranium will fall further. Fusion reactors have been promising for decades, with those promises no more bankable than O'Bama's promises, so there's no imminent threat of economic fusion. But when it's done, uranium will be like lead in petrol - harmful, dangerous and expensive. 55 years ago I got a book out of the Carnegie library in Onehunga which described nuclear reactors and the promise of pretty much free electricity. It didn't work out anything like that. Fusion has been investigated for decades. My old company, BP, used to spend considerable money on fusion research. It's tricky. I'm not a physicist, but from what I do know, and can imagine, perhaps fusion is more of a probabilistic event than simply a smash them together matter. There might be more to cold fusion than con fusion. But there's something better than fusion for fuel. There's matter. When we look around, there are petatons of rocks and water and salt and rubbish and whatnot just sitting there staring at E = mc2. When the stuff teams up with anti-matter, the matter turns into E. That's a lot of E sitting there just in slag heaps and sloshing around the beach. Normally, the matter on which we are sitting stays stable until it gets into a cosmic crunch with gravitational forces leading people to think in terms of event horizons, Hawking radiation and black holes, where matter and anti-matter become entangled in quite a maelstrom of activity, following which anti-matter shoots out the back and matter [us] shoots out the front. It might be a bit tricky to re-enact turning matter into anti-matter in a controlled way to heat things up, but perhaps some physicists are pondering matter, anti-matter, quantum physics, probabilistic processes at event horizons, Goedelian logic and graviton spin reversal which would be handy for personal transport in dinky little car floating up and zipping around cities [Jetson style]. The idea that energy is in short supply would be seen as absurd once E = mc2 is used in such energy production [rather than in fission and fusion]. The Cosmos is made of energy. The problem is that the heat is not where we want it. Putting heat where we want it is the tricky part. Mqurice