Quote:
Originally Posted by eeyore  ....While there is "plenty" of uranium at the present rate of usage, if it was our prime or only source of energy there is only enough for arround 60 years of use (or less if demand increases).... |
Have to disagree on your statement eeyore.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA.org), advises: - "Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than 130US dollars per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years, the study states. Fast reactor technology would lengthen this period to over 2500 years".
IAEA also states: - "However, world uranium resources in total are considered to be much higher. Based on geological evidence and knowledge of uranium in phosphates the study considers more than 35 million tonnes is available for exploitation....... In the longer term, continuing advances in nuclear technology will allow a substantially better utilisation of the uranium resources. Reactor designs are being developed and tested that are capable of extracting more than 30 times the energy from the uranium than today´s reactors....... By 2025, world nuclear energy capacity is expected to grow to between 450 GWe (+22%) and 530 GWe (+44%) from the present generating capacity of about 370 GWe. This will raise annual uranium requirements to between 80 000 tonnes and 100 000 tonnes. The currently identified resources are adequate to meet this expansion".
Plus, the above extracts make no mention of the use of Thorium as fissile material. Current estimate of economically available Thorium reserves amounts to 1,200,000 tonnes, with further reasonably assured reserves in the order of 2,230,000 tonnes. Note also that Thorium is a radio-actively "cleaner" fuel than Uranium in terms of less problems with radio-active waste etc.etc., and reactor technology is progressing towards the potential of actually "burning" 100% of the Thorium, leaving in effect no waste.
In view of the above, and much more information (on all aspects of nuclear power) which can be obtained from organisations such as IAEA.org, World Nuclear Association etc., I would suggest that there is enough fuel for many years to come.
I don't think that nuclear power generation is a short term solution, but a long term solution that will in effect give time to enable the further advances in technology that will be needed before "renewable" energy sources can be made truly viable on a large scale.
With regards to the concept of using less energy, well that is very laudable, but there is only so much that can be done by going down that road, and unless there was a pan-global agreement on energy use, there would inevitably be the problems of "who uses what amount". For example, do you think there would be any sensible reaction from countries such as China, if it were put to them to use less energy?
Regards
Mike.