Nuclear Energy Good for Iran, Bad for the US

Watermark said:
In that regard, no energy is "renewable", since all energy comes from the sun, and that resource won't last forever.

Fusion uses deuterium, and it produces four times as much energy from that as fission produces from a simialar piece of uranium. It is literally going to be impossible to significantly impact the water supplies of the earth in the entirety of our civilization if our sole power source is fusion.

The key is no "renewable", it's "clean". Nothing lasts forever.
Click to expand...

Watermark said:
Dumbass. The living carbon cycle is self-sustaining. Plants get rid of the CO2 that nature produces. When we throw much more than normal into that equilibrium, it fucks things up. Fucking moron. You should be shot.
Click to expand...

Watermark said:
No, dickface.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that The Southern Man doesn't know what the carbon cycle is? :lmao:
 
Damocles said:
We don't have to, we import it because we shut down productive mines.
Click to expand...

Are you sure we don't have to?

Here are the prod stats from wiki.

In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.[43] Kazakhstan continues to increase production and may become the world's largest producer of uranium by this year (2009) with an expected production of 12,826 tonnes, compared to Canada with 11,100 tonnes and Australia with 9,430 tonnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves
 
Known world uranium reserves

tonnes U percentage of world
Australia 1,243,000 23%
Kazakhstan 817,000 15%
Russia 546,000 10%
South Africa 435,000 8%
Canada 423,000 8%
USA 342,000 6%
Brazil 278,000 5%
Namibia 275,000 5%
Niger 274,000 5%
Ukraine 200,000 4%
Jordan 112,000 2%
Uzbekistan 111,000 2%
India 73,000 1%
China 68,000 1%
Mongolia 62,000 1%
other 210,000 4%
World total
5,469,000

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

More reserves are being discovered but not in the USA much it seems.
And I am not sure how much we use or would use if we converted to mostly nuke power.
 
Whomever said:
Known world uranium reserves

tonnes U percentage of world
Australia 1,243,000 23%
Kazakhstan 817,000 15%
Russia 546,000 10%
South Africa 435,000 8%
Canada 423,000 8%
USA 342,000 6%
Brazil 278,000 5%
Namibia 275,000 5%
Niger 274,000 5%
Ukraine 200,000 4%
Jordan 112,000 2%
Uzbekistan 111,000 2%
India 73,000 1%
China 68,000 1%
Mongolia 62,000 1%
other 210,000 4%
World total
5,469,000

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

More reserves are being discovered but not in the USA much it seems.
And I am not sure how much we use or would use if we converted to mostly nuke power.
Click to expand...

From your link:
* Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
* Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
* Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
* The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.

Uranium is ubiquitous on the Earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.
Click to expand...
 
Whomever said:
correct, but from my research the 15% increase in reserves was not in the USA.

As was said before Nuke power is a part of the solution but not THE soloution.

But storage of the waste remains a problem.
Click to expand...
Radioactive Waste

The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily handled with great care. This "high level waste" will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced in the natural habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is one billion years. If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity.

The much larger volume of much less radioactive (low level) waste from nuclear plants will be buried at shallow depths (typically 20 feet) in soil. If we assume that this material immediately becomes dispersed through the soil between the surface and ground water depth (despite elaborate measures to maintain waste package integrity) and behaves like the same materials that are present naturally in soil (there is extensive evidence confirming such behavior), the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.
Click to expand...
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
 
the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.


Yeah sounds like good stuff to swim in and drink.
 
Topspin said:
That is usged it took a while but the shallow 1 google depth of his knowledge base verifies.
Click to expand...

Who is usged? I have recently been called usc and uscitizen, but not usged.

Call me whomever you want, but I will only answer to whomever.
 
Whomever said:
Are you sure we don't have to?

Here are the prod stats from wiki.

In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.[43] Kazakhstan continues to increase production and may become the world's largest producer of uranium by this year (2009) with an expected production of 12,826 tonnes, compared to Canada with 11,100 tonnes and Australia with 9,430 tonnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves
Click to expand...
Again, we closed almost all of our mines.

Because in the US the Uranium that is mined is of lower quality and needs more processing in order to make weapons grade it was more cost effective to import Uranium.

We do not need to import Uranium, we do it because it is cheaper and more cost effective.

In 2001 we began opening mines again as the price for Uranium rose and made it profitable to produce Uranium from US mines.

From your own link:

Although uranium production has declined to low levels, the United States has the fourth-largest uranium resource in the world, behind Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan.[7] United States uranium reserves are strongly dependent on price. At $30 per pound U3O8, reserves are estimated to be 265 million pounds; however, at a price of $50 per pound, reserves are an estimated 890 million pounds.[8] Rising uranium prices since 2001 have increased interest in uranium mining in Arizona, Colorado, Texas and Utah.[9][2] The states with the largest known uranium ore reserves (not counting byproduct uranium from phosphate) are (in order) Wyoming, New Mexico, and Colorado.[10]
Click to expand...

The reason we shut down the mines isn't because we don't have it, it is because it was more cost effective to import it. Much like oil. However, if you want off the foreign energy teat we will need to accept higher prices.
 
Whomever said:
the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.


Yeah sounds like good stuff to swim in and drink.
Click to expand...
...the [high level] waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity.
Click to expand...
:readit:
 
Mottleydude said:
Dude, you just want to sell more oil! LOL
Click to expand...

Obviously,
having said that sitting on BILLIONS of dollars of natural resources and not tapping them because of the liberal litmus test is about the dumbest policy decion dems could ever make. I'll get my laugh ready for your response which is hopefully faster than Ohio slows secondary or the outfield that lost 37-6 to lowely FSU in BASEBALL not basketball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top