Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>
>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>> over budget!).
>>>>
>>>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
>>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
>>>> from the 1960s).
>>>>
>>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>>>
>>>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>>>> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>>> picked by me from here
>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>>
>>> "The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>>> conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
>>
>> That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
>>
>> Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
>>
>>
>> and 270
>>> years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>>
>> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
>>
>> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
>> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>>
>You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>world-wide for many years now.

Yet the population keeps increasing. And the major econonomic
systems are all based on continual growth, which relies on growth
in energy consumption.

Yes, "15 billion" is a stretch, but somewhere between 8 and 15 before
growth stops isn't unlikely, absent war.

Then, if all 8 billion current residents using as much energy per
capita as the United States, that would significantly increase the
planetary energy consumption beyond the current 18TW.

Regardless, it doesn't appear nuclear fission power production
can supply more than a fraction of planetary energy consumption
absent wishful thinking.

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>>>> the motivation.
>>>
>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>
>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>
>Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>in the USA.

Cite? Economically recoverable? At what environmental cost?

> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US

Cite? At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate? And who
has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?

> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
> wonders of fracking.

Ah, which goes back to cost.

And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.

Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
affect global temperatures.

On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>
>>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
>>>>> the motivation.
>>>>
>>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
>>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>>
>>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>>
>> Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>> in the USA.
>
> Cite? Economically recoverable? At what environmental cost?
>
>> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
>
> Cite? At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate? And who
> has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
>
>> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
>> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
>> wonders of fracking.
>
> Ah, which goes back to cost.
>
> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>
> Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
> CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
> affect global temperatures.

Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong. Just remember one
thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term
planning viewpoint.

First on your list should be to figure the difference between proven
reserves and unproven reserves. Those are legal terms and mean a big
deal to Exxon, Shell, and many others.

Lynn

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>world-wide for many years now.

Except in sub-saharan Africa, yes. But the reduction in population is a
very good thing because we could in fact consider global warming to really
just be a consequence of overpopulation. Still, we'd need a whole lot more
reduction a whole lot faster for it to help sufficiently.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2/7/2024 1:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the motivation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water.  We have an
>>>>> unlimited
>>>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Not in this case.  We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>>> in the USA.
>>
>> Cite? Economically recoverable?   At what environmental cost?
>>
>>> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
>>
>> Cite?  At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate?  And who
>> has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
>>
>>> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
>>> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets.  The
>>> wonders of fracking.
>>
>> Ah, which goes back to cost.
>>
>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>>
>> Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
>> CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
>> affect global temperatures.
>
> Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong.  Just remember one
> thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term
> planning viewpoint.
>
> First on your list should be to figure the difference between proven
> reserves and unproven reserves.  Those are legal terms and mean a big
> deal to Exxon, Shell, and many others.
>
There is a (sometimes very big) difference between "legal terms" and
"scientific terms".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/7/2024 2:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
....
>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>> experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>> world-wide for many years now.
>
> Yet the population keeps increasing. And the major econonomic
> systems are all based on continual growth, which relies on growth
> in energy consumption.
>
> Yes, "15 billion" is a stretch, but somewhere between 8 and 15 before
> growth stops isn't unlikely, absent war.
>
> Then, if all 8 billion current residents using as much energy per
> capita as the United States, that would significantly increase the
> planetary energy consumption beyond the current 18TW.
>
> Regardless, it doesn't appear nuclear fission power production
> can supply more than a fraction of planetary energy consumption
> absent wishful thinking.

“Keep a very careful eye on China's economy”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/02/keep-very-careful-eye-on-chinas-economy.html

"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100
million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."

Wow.

Lynn

On 2/7/2024 4:17 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
>>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the motivation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water.  We have an
>>>>> unlimited
>>>>> amount of each in the USA.
>>>>
>>>> "unlimited" is hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Not in this case.  We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
>>> in the USA.
>>
>> Cite? Economically recoverable?   At what environmental cost?
>>
>>> We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
>>
>> Cite?  At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate?  And who
>> has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
>>
>>> The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
>>> facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets.  The
>>> wonders of fracking.
>>
>> Ah, which goes back to cost.
>>
>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>>
>> Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
>> CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
>> affect global temperatures.
>
> Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong.  Just remember one
> thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term
> planning viewpoint.
>
> First on your list should be to figure the difference between proven
> reserves and unproven reserves.  Those are legal terms and mean a big
> deal to Exxon, Shell, and many others.

The phrase "Do your own research" is one of my berserk buttons.

That's not the way its done. You made a claim. Its up to YOU to
provide the evidence for your assertion, not for others to disprove
it.

If you have a well formed opinion on a topic, you should be able to
produce the evidence that led you to it. That's why actual research
papers have bibliographies showing the source of every claim made in
the paper, or how to duplicate the observations made of experimental
systems.

If you can't do that, you've got nothing, and deserve to be ignored.

This is formalized as "Hitchen's Razor", which states "What can
be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[See: I actually provided a citation for my claim!]

On top of that, telling everyone to 'do their own research' is
rude and inconsiderate. If you have the evidence, show it, and
save everyone else time and effort. That's how knowledge moves
forward, building on previous work.

Saying "Do your own research" puts you in the company of
flat-earthers, crystal fondlers, and conspiracy theorists.

Lynn, you're a smart guy. Do better.

pt

On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>
>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>> over budget!).
>>>
>>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there
>>> from the 1960s).
>>>
>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>>
>>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>>> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>>>
>>
>>Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>>picked by me from here
>>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>
>>"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>>rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>>conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
>
> That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
>
> Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
>
>
> and 270
>>years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>
> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>
>
>
>>Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>>for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
>
> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>
>
>>
>>We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
>>fail.
>
> Actually, we hit peak oil a few years ago.
>
>
> https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart
>
> And that's thanks to fracking, which just extends the end-date by a
> decade or two.
>
> And the abiogenic theories of crude formation are bullshit.
>>
>>If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.
>
> Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?
>
>>
>>So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
>>increase research efforts.
>
> No, a mix of sources (wind, solar, pumped storage, nuclear, hydro) all
> working together will provide energy security. No single source will.
>
> But there limits to all of them, solar included.
>
> You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
> on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
>
> It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
> to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
>
> It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their
> limitations. From a physics standpoint.

Nonsense.

You correctly castigate the 1970's doom-predicting running-out-of-oil
articles and then make exactly the same mistakes yourself!

Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U. The global supply of U is enough for many
thousands of years. Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
reserves?

The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.

The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
you dismiss the effect also. There was a tremendous improvement in
effectiveness in oil technology, even apart from fracking. Technology
will improve as it is exercised, and nuclear technology more than most
given it hasn't entered the large-scale commercial world yet; it's still
mostly custom design. Breeders would undoubtedly play a much more
important role as they get cheaper and energy gets more expensive. The
reason they are not getting more attention now is that there is no real
need at the moment. U is just too cheap.

U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
the operating cost by 10-25% (compare to natural gas 70-90%). A 1000
MWe nuclear plant uses about 27 tonnes of enriched U a year. The raw
cost of enriched U is $40/lb, which doesn't include costs like
fabrication but still gives an idea of cheapness of U. This is
mentioned by Murphy (15.4.4.1) "fuel cost is not the limiting factor
for nuclear plants" but then ignored other than to say proven
reserves would be a bit higher (more U deposits are cost effective).

Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in
today's world. Even you argue the 70's oil arguments weren't valid (the
ones claiming we would run out based on proven reserves, not the more
scientific ones estimating global supply).

Further nuclear economic reading (obviously biased but still full of facts):
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

Chris

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 2/7/2024 2:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>...
>>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>>> experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>>> world-wide for many years now.
>>
>> Yet the population keeps increasing. And the major econonomic
>> systems are all based on continual growth, which relies on growth
>> in energy consumption.
>>
>> Yes, "15 billion" is a stretch, but somewhere between 8 and 15 before
>> growth stops isn't unlikely, absent war.
>>
>> Then, if all 8 billion current residents using as much energy per
>> capita as the United States, that would significantly increase the
>> planetary energy consumption beyond the current 18TW.
>>
>> Regardless, it doesn't appear nuclear fission power production
>> can supply more than a fraction of planetary energy consumption
>> absent wishful thinking.
>
>“Keep a very careful eye on China's economy”
>
>https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/02/keep-very-careful-eye-on-chinas-economy.html
>
>"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
>university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
>rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
>with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
>saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
>by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
>rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
>death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
>now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
>for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100
>million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
>the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
>than it sounds."
>
>Wow.

A blog entry? By an ex-pastor?

Try again.

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

>Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

> The global supply of U is enough for many
>thousands of years.

That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
"mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.

? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>reserves?

You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
oil-death either way.

>
>The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
>ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
>nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.

I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.

>
>The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
>you dismiss the effect also.

I don't know who you're talking to here. I certainly take that into
account - in all respects from energy efficiency to energy production.

Clearly fracking, for example, has extended the usefulness of a lot
of played out oilfields. But, the output curves for fracking wells
are significantly shorter than regular production wells.

Fracking is a temporary blip in the exploitation of a fundamentally
limited resource. Technology can't create energy from nothing
(absent Stargate zed-pee-emms)

>
>U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
>Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the

Indeed. Look at Vogtle #3, which just came on line, or Vogtle #4.

That's for two 1GB reactors. Do the math. Who's gonna bankroll
additional nuclear plants using the current state of the art
technology?

Don't get me wrong - I believe nuclear fission power production
will always play a role in energy production. It cannot, however
ever produce enough to replace current a future fossil sources
by itself. I never wrote otherwise.

>operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
>dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase

You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).

"Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral
or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure
of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the
ground capable of being mined."

The chart shows 8 million tons assured and inferred resources as
of 2017. Of which 3 million have already been mined. Each reactor
requires 67,500 tonnes per year.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

They note the 90 year supply (for a four-hundred reactor fleet).

They go on to add

" Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the
basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources
as present ones are used up."

>Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in
>today's world.

I just posted the facts. You're posting speculation. I'll be happy
to see more economically discoverable Uranium on the market - I've been
a shareholder in CCJ for more than a decade. I just would not make
any plans that _count_ on it for survival.

I'll just note that fracking is like squeezing the last drops from
a sponge. Eventually, the sponge is dry.

In article <467a464c-e30e-897e-982c-b841d618f410@example.net>,
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> What are these people's position on nuclear power?
>>
>> My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
>> nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
>> They have another agenda entirely.
>
>I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where
>environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily agree.
>The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the
>technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the
>hysterics get less CO2.
>
>Everyone wins!

Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
really care about the environment, and aren't just using
it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.

And also assuming, of course, that the other side isn't
just a shill for the fossil fuel industries.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

In article <1RvwN.58394$24ld.10093@fx07.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?

According to a paper I read back in the early 80s, Japan
demonstrated sometime about 1979 an ion exchange process
that could extract uranium from seawater at a cost of about
$750/pound in 1979 dollars. Expensive, yes, but given the
energy content of uranium...

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On 2/7/2024 5:14 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>> On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>> global supply of U.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>
>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>> thousands of years.
>
> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
>
>
> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>> reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>> reserves?
>
> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
> oil-death either way.
>
>>
>> The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
>> ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
>> nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
>
> I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
> of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.
>
>>
>> The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
>> you dismiss the effect also.
>
> I don't know who you're talking to here. I certainly take that into
> account - in all respects from energy efficiency to energy production.
>
> Clearly fracking, for example, has extended the usefulness of a lot
> of played out oilfields. But, the output curves for fracking wells
> are significantly shorter than regular production wells.
>
> Fracking is a temporary blip in the exploitation of a fundamentally
> limited resource. Technology can't create energy from nothing
> (absent Stargate zed-pee-emms)
>
>
>>
>> U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
>> Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
>
> Indeed. Look at Vogtle #3, which just came on line, or Vogtle #4.
>
> That's for two 1GB reactors. Do the math. Who's gonna bankroll
> additional nuclear plants using the current state of the art
> technology?
>
> Don't get me wrong - I believe nuclear fission power production
> will always play a role in energy production. It cannot, however
> ever produce enough to replace current a future fossil sources
> by itself. I never wrote otherwise.
>
>> operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
>> dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
>
> You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
> of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
>
> "Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral
> or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure
> of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the
> ground capable of being mined."
>
>
> The chart shows 8 million tons assured and inferred resources as
> of 2017. Of which 3 million have already been mined. Each reactor
> requires 67,500 tonnes per year.
>
> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
>
> They note the 90 year supply (for a four-hundred reactor fleet).
>
> They go on to add
>
> " Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the
> basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources
> as present ones are used up."
>
>
>> Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in
>> today's world.
>
> I just posted the facts. You're posting speculation. I'll be happy
> to see more economically discoverable Uranium on the market - I've been
> a shareholder in CCJ for more than a decade. I just would not make
> any plans that _count_ on it for survival.
>
> I'll just note that fracking is like squeezing the last drops from
> a sponge. Eventually, the sponge is dry.

In the early 1900s, we were lucky to get 30% out of an oil reservoir.
With the addition of steam injection and water floods in the 1950s, we
upped that to 50% to 60%. We added directional drilling in the 1990s to
get up to 70% of a reservoir. If the oil reservoir is located in shale
rock formation (mostly USA lower 48), we added fracking in 2008 to get
up to 90% of a reservoir. Note that these are approximate values, the
reservoir type and the crude oil / natural gas mix play a big part in
this. Fracking does no good in a traditional sand type oil reservoir in
most of Earth.

Most unchoked wells play out in three months. If the well is 50% ???
choked then the well can last 20 to 50 years, the difference being that
the well has time to be repressurized by the bulk of the reservoir.
There are four natural gas wells within a mile of my office drilled back
in the 1960s by Exxon that are still flowing like crazy today.

Lynn

Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
>In article <1RvwN.58394$24ld.10093@fx07.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
>>sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>
>According to a paper I read back in the early 80s, Japan
>demonstrated sometime about 1979 an ion exchange process
>that could extract uranium from seawater at a cost of about
>$750/pound in 1979 dollars. Expensive, yes, but given the
>energy content of uranium...

Note that is for non fissile Uranium. Only 0.72% of that
is fissile 235U.

So don't forget the enrichment costs.

From Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet:

First, we take 0.72 % of the 7.6 million tons available to
represent the portion of uranium in the form of 235U. Enrichment (next
section) will not separate all of the 235U, and the reactor can't burn all of
it away before the fuel rod is essentially useless. So optimistically, we
burn half of the mined U in the reactor. Multiplying the resulting
27,300 tons of usable 235U by the 17 million kcal/g we derived earlier
yields a total of 2x10^21 J. Table 15.10 puts this in context against fossil fuel
proven reserves from page 127. We see from this that proven uranium
reserves give us only 20% as much energy as our proven oil reserves,
and about 5% of our total remaining fossil fuel supply. If we tried to get
all 18 TW from this uranium supply, it would last less than 4 years! This
does not sound like a salvation.

He then goes on to a discussion about breeder reactors, which can burn
the 238U without the expensive (and hazardous) enrichment processes
required to concentrate 235U. (238U + N = 239U. 23 minutes later, 239U - B = 239Np,
2.4 days later, 239Np - B = 239Pu).

The downsides of course are proliferation risks.

And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.

In article <nBWwN.270326$Ama9.40917@fx12.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
>if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.

Existing solutions to the waste issue need to be implemented
in spite of the omni-obstructionism of the people who don't
want any nuclear power at all, and are using the waste issue
they are blocking any solution for as a scare point.

We should reprocess, not throw away valuable fuel.

Transuranics (the long-lived stuff) can in principle be burned
up by putting them in new fuel rods. They'll alternately absorb
neutrons and decay until they hit a fissionable isotope, and
enter the fission product problem set. This is especially true
of everybody's favorite scare item, plutonium.

Fission products are the super-hot stuff, and they are
relatively short-lived. In a few hundred years, there is less
total radioactivity in the fission products than there was in
the ore that was mined to make the fuel that created that part
of the waste.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On 07/02/2024 22:55, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2/7/2024 2:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> ...
>>>> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
>>>> experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
>>>> world-wide for many years now.
>>>
>>> Yet the population keeps increasing. And the major econonomic
>>> systems are all based on continual growth, which relies on growth
>>> in energy consumption.
>>>
>>> Yes, "15 billion" is a stretch, but somewhere between 8 and 15 before
>>> growth stops isn't unlikely, absent war.
>>>
>>> Then, if all 8 billion current residents using as much energy per
>>> capita as the United States, that would significantly increase the
>>> planetary energy consumption beyond the current 18TW.
>>>
>>> Regardless, it doesn't appear nuclear fission power production
>>> can supply more than a fraction of planetary energy consumption
>>> absent wishful thinking.
>>
>> “Keep a very careful eye on China's economy”
>>
>> https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/02/keep-very-careful-eye-on-chinas-economy.html
>>
>> "The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
>> university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
>> rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
>> with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
>> saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
>> by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
>> rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
>> death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
>> now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
>> for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100
>> million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
>> the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
>> than it sounds."
>>
>> Wow.
>
>
> A blog entry? By an ex-pastor?
>
> Try again.

You describe Malthus.

On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>>Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>>global supply of U.
>
> Yes, that's what I said.
>
>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>>thousands of years.
>
> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.

The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
you claim that that cost won't go down?

>
> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>>reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>>reserves?
>
> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
> oil-death either way.

But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate. I
mistakenly gave you credit for understanding that the
total-oil-out-there estimates of scientists were the important
estimates, and those have indeed not changed much. However, the
known-reserves estimates that were used by the doomsayers back then were
quite inaccurate. Even the estimates of the mid-70s that had risen to
500-600 million barrels were badly off. We've already consumed about
twice that and the current remaining known-reserves are about three
times that now.

>>
>>The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
>>ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but
>>nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
>
> I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
> of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.
>
>>
>>The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
>>you dismiss the effect also.
>
> I don't know who you're talking to here. I certainly take that into
> account - in all respects from energy efficiency to energy production.
> Clearly fracking, for example, has extended the usefulness of a lot
> of played out oilfields. But, the output curves for fracking wells
> are significantly shorter than regular production wells.
>
> Fracking is a temporary blip in the exploitation of a fundamentally
> limited resource. Technology can't create energy from nothing
> (absent Stargate zed-pee-emms)
>
>
>>
>>U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
>>Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
>
> Indeed. Look at Vogtle #3, which just came on line, or Vogtle #4.
>
> That's for two 1GB reactors. Do the math. Who's gonna bankroll
> additional nuclear plants using the current state of the art
> technology?
>
> Don't get me wrong - I believe nuclear fission power production
> will always play a role in energy production. It cannot, however
> ever produce enough to replace current a future fossil sources
> by itself. I never wrote otherwise.

But you haven't proven that at all.

>>operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
>>dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
>
> You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
> of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).

Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb), not that it
changes much. The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more
than 1000 years.

> "Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral
> or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure
> of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the
> ground capable of being mined."
>
>
> The chart shows 8 million tons assured and inferred resources as
> of 2017. Of which 3 million have already been mined. Each reactor
> requires 67,500 tonnes per year.
>
> https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
>
> They note the 90 year supply (for a four-hundred reactor fleet).
>
> They go on to add
>
> " Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the
> basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources
> as present ones are used up."

They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is
available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical
support".

Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already? The lead
time on building nuclear plants is so large that there will be decades
before that 90 year supply is significantly affected even with massive
growth of nuclear power.

The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.
The capital costs are enormous and the other operating costs are more
than the uranium. The cost of uranium can easily rise by a factor of
5-10 before it really affects the economics, assuming that the capital
costs can be substantially diminished with the massive adaptation you
have been talking about.

>
>>Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in
>>today's world.
>
> I just posted the facts. You're posting speculation. I'll be happy
> to see more economically discoverable Uranium on the market - I've been
> a shareholder in CCJ for more than a decade. I just would not make
> any plans that _count_ on it for survival.
> I'll just note that fracking is like squeezing the last drops from
> a sponge. Eventually, the sponge is dry.

Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
1. There is a lot of uranium out there?
2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?
3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?
4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
financially worth-while looking for more?

There are reasonable arguments against nuclear power, eg capital costs,
waste management, danger. But availability of uranium is not a major
danger at all.

Chris

Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>
>Transuranics (the long-lived stuff) can in principle be burned
>up by putting them in new fuel rods. They'll alternately absorb
>neutrons and decay until they hit a fissionable isotope, and
>enter the fission product problem set. This is especially true
>of everybody's favorite scare item, plutonium.

From a technical standpoint this makes perfect sense. The problem is
that those transuranics are greatly desired by people who want to make
bombs. You don't need a lot of security to transport reactor-grade
uranium rods because nobody sane really wants to steal them. But stuff
containing even relatively small amounts of plutonium have to be kept
under pretty tight security because the difficulty of refining it to make
a bomb is not anywhere near as great.

>Fission products are the super-hot stuff, and they are
>relatively short-lived. In a few hundred years, there is less
>total radioactivity in the fission products than there was in
>the ore that was mined to make the fuel that created that part
>of the waste.

I'm not worried about radioactivity so much. There's plenty of it
out there already. I mean, I would like to eliminate it because I have
a freezer full of film that is being slowly degraded by cosmic radiation
already. But a little terrestrial radiation does not disturb me.

Proliferation of nuclear weapons disturbs me. I have enough trouble
with Google as it is... I don't want them to have a bomb...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.

This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
release.

But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
don't really have any incentive to solve it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <uq2nm8$7hs$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>>cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>
>This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
>wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
>the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
>it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
>to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
>release.
>
>But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
>is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
>don't really have any incentive to solve it.

It's a self-limiting problem, though. Once climate change begins
to significantly affect agriculture, the human population should
decline and with it demand. In the long run, no more serious than
the effects of the Siberian traps.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 8 Feb 2024 at 14:15:36 GMT, "Scott Dorsey" <Scott Dorsey> wrote:

> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
>> cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
>
> This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
> wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
> the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
> it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
> to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
> release.
>
> But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
> is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
> don't really have any incentive to solve it.
> --scott

The problem is that they're making money from it by externalising a vast
amount of their costs to, well, everyone else. Charge them a true rate
for environmental cleanup and suddenly the problem is solved.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
I hope I live long enough
to vindicate my pessimism
-- http://www.boasas.com/?c=1108

In article <l2k9lrFo4a6U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>
>The problem is that they're making money from it by externalising a vast
>amount of their costs to, well, everyone else. Charge them a true rate
>for environmental cleanup and suddenly the problem is solved.

One of the more horrifying shows I've House Managed was a scientist
from Alberta explaining how oil companies in Alberta manage to
circumvent laws about how wells are supposed to be dealt with once
they are no longer commercially viable.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>
>>>Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
>>>global supply of U.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I said.
>>
>>> The global supply of U is enough for many
>>>thousands of years.
>>
>> That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
>> dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
>> "mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
>
>The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
>agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
>The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
>you claim that that cost won't go down?
>
>>
>> ? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
>>>reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
>>>reserves?
>>
>> You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
>> oil-death either way.
>
>But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate.

No, I did not. I never addressed 1970's oil estimates at all.

I was discussing Uranium, not oil.

>> You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
>> of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
>
>Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb),

Yes. Typo.

not that it
>changes much.

Indeed.

The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more
>than 1000 years.

Assuming it can be economnically mined. and subsequently enriched.

>
>They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is
>available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
>supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
>go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical
>support".
>
>Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
>reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already?

Because the topic was replacing fossil fuels with U before they
run out. Do try to keep up.

>The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.

As I noted previously.

>Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
>1. There is a lot of uranium out there?

I quibble about economic extraction in useful quantities.

>2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?

Maybe, but I consider it unlikely to matter in this context.

>3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
> plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?

I didn't address this one way or the other. The cost of the physical
plant is irrelevent if you don't have fissile 235U (absent breeders).

Looking at the costs for Vogtle units 3 and 4, I'm not sanguine
about the changes for future builds.

>4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
> financially worth-while looking for more?

Wishful thinking, if you qualify it with 'economically retrieveable'.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'm not sanguine about the probability
thereof.

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>> picked by me from here
>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>
>> "The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>> conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources

I don't think we will progress. I will make a few brief notes where I
agree with you and where we disagree.

>> years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>
> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>

Undiscovered is not wishful thinking. As economics change new areas and
ways will become profitable to exploit. This has happend with oil and
will happen with any material that is traded on a free market.

>> Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
>
> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).

85 year is not set in stone. New deposits will be discovered and we can
reuse uranium which is now in storage. No need to panic.

>> We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
>> fail.
>
> Actually, we hit peak oil a few years ago.
>
>
> https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart
>
> And that's thanks to fracking, which just extends the end-date by a
> decade or two.

Incorrect. Remove all taxes, regulations and watch oil use explode. US
crude oil production has nothing to do with peak oil. New deposites,
technologies will be found and you admit fracking which proves my point.

>> If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.
>
> Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?

That's for the markets and innovators and consumers to decide. Remove
all regulations and tax penalties on nuclear and watch the price drop.
The reason current nuclear is so expensive is political and not
technical.

>> So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
>> increase research efforts.
>
> No, a mix of sources (wind, solar, pumped storage, nuclear, hydro) all
> working together will provide energy security. No single source will.

Aha! Here I agree. I believe nuclear could solve everything, but, that
does not mean I am against any other source that can survive on a free
market without political subsidies.

> But there limits to all of them, solar included.

Assuming we're not talking about mining asteroid belts and tapping other
suns, but limit ourselves to the planet, everything has a limit. I agree
given this assumption.

> You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
> on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
>
> It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
> to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.

Thank you. I will make a note of it, but I won't promise to read it
tonight.

> It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their
> limitations. From a physics standpoint.

Best regards,
Daniel

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>
>>>> As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
>>>>
>>>> Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
>>>> over budget!).
>>>>
>>>> So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
>>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and
>>>> there
>>>> from the 1960s).
>>>>
>>>> Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
>>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in
>>>> quantities
>>>> sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
>>>>
>>>> Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
>>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
>>>> 70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
>>> picked by me from here
>>> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
>>>
>>> "The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
>>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
>>> conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
>>
>> That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
>>
>> Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
>>
>>
>> and 270
>>> years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
>>
>> Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
>>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
>>
>> Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
>> wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
>>
> You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing
> population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many
> years now.

Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.

That would have implications on the argument above.

Best regards,
Daniel