On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> On 2/8/2024 11:40 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 12B is definitely at the high end of estimates.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects.svg
>
> the median estimate is closer to 10B, and I suspect it will be less.

Interesting! Thank you very much for the pointer.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Chris Buckley wrote:

> On 2024-02-08, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>
>>> 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's not clear it's worth it. Murphy is a doom predictor of the same ilk
> as the Club of Rome in the 60s or the oil doom-sayers of the 70s.
>
> From a review in the American Journal of Physics.
> https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/89/9/897/593796/Energy-and-Human-Ambitions-on-a-Finite-Planet
> The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect of the
> author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's future
> is in great peril. On the spectrum that runs from technological
> optimists to Malthusian pessimists, Murphy lies near the
> Malthusian extreme.
> ...
> He advises his readers to learn to grow their own food, choose a
> career that doesn't depend too much on technology, take up
> backpacking as a way to “toughen up” for a “less cushy” lifestyle,
> and consider the “toll on our planet” of choosing to have
> children.
>
> Murphy ignores evidence and arguments that don't advance his central
> thesis. At least he did that in chapter 15 on nuclear fission (the
> only one I read) with his arguments on the scarcity of uranium. No
> reputable scientist in the area would now base anything on "proven
> reserves". Even in the 70s oil estimates, most scientists knew much
> better; it was just the popular press that considered proven reserves
> instead of global resource supply. See for example "Oil Forecasts,
> Past and Present" in
> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/014459802321615108

Thank you for bringing this up Chris. You saved me a lot of time. I'm a
balanced fanatic believer in science and very optimistic by nature, so it
is very difficult for me to accept doom & gloom people.

As I stated above, I see now problem with our energy future, I do agree
with Scott that other power generation technologies are good, since they
can complement nuclear, but I do believe nuclear is our god and saviour in
the near-future (0-50 years).

I also believe nuclear will become better, safer and more efficient over
time. Now fusion power... that's a different matter. Maybe it's at least
10 years away? ;)

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> Lynn, you are a hero! How does one start to work in the oil industry? My
>> Chevron shares have been very kind to me the last couple of years! =)
>
> I did some free work for Chevron a couple of years ago. When I started
> asking for payment, they shut the project down. Turns out they were using me
> to beat on their current software supplier who could not get the job done.
> Typical.
>
> I have been working in the crude oil and natural gas business since 1975, I
> was 15. I was writing software for my father way back then.
>
> Lynn

Wow!

I imagine a multi-generation software shop for the oil business. That's a business I
would like to be in! =)

Sorry to hear about Chevron, but I've experienced the same. Just deny
and move on (sadly).

Best regards,
Daniel

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> 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!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>
>>>> Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>> planet.
>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make
>>>> more
>>>> of what we need.
>>>>
>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>> https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>> Lynn! =)
>>
>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>
> I am used to it. And Lynn is not my first name.
>
> Lynn

I apologize. I only blame not being a native english speaker and
ignorance. =(

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

>> 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.
>
> Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>
> Lynn

I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
is...

How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?

At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.

Best regards,
Daniel

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>> The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
>> day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
>
> cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
>
> Worldometer states:
> "The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
> 4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
> imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
> consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
>
> EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
>
> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>
>
> And as you say, expensive.
>
>
>> The current
>> USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>> $45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>>

Let me add this to the thread (from perplexity.ai):

"The United States has proven reserves equivalent to about 5 years of
oil left at current consumption levels, excluding unproven reserves and
imports1 . The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that in
2021, U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate increased
to 44.4 billion barrels4 . Additionally, the U.S. Geological Survey
estimates there are 373.1 billion barrels of technically recoverable
reserves of crude oil in the United States."

Source:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/oilgas.pdf
and
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2Z72AC/ .

Best regards,
Daniel

On 2024-02-08, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
> Let's look at economics. There will be several sources of additional
> reserves, but let's just consider seawater extraction for now.
>
> Going backwards, suppose we allow the total cost of nuclear energy to
> increase increase by 10% due completely to the cost of uranium
> increasing. How much did uranium go up?
>
> Roughly speaking, the ratio of amortized capital costs vs operating costs
> for nuclear is about 9 to 1 (depends *strongly* on interest rates). A 10%
> overall increase means that operating costs doubled. According to the
> calculations in economic citation I gave earlier, for the best US plants
> a 10-fold increase will double the operating cost. Stating it going forwards
> (which I probably should have done in the first place but I'm not going
> to rewrite), if uranium prices increase by a factor of 10, overall cost per
> kWh of nuclear energy will go up by 10%.
>
> Thus seawater extraction of uranium is already in the ballpark of cost
> effectiveness if we allow the cost of nuclear power to increase by
> 10%. And that assumes the capital costs of nuclear power remain
> constant. Given the massive expansion of the scenario (thousands of
> plants), the capital costs should diminish dramatically; the overall
> cost should diminish. And any improvement in seawater extraction
> efficiency (point 2 above) will definitely have a direct impact on overall
> cost.

Correction: When doing the above calculation, I completely forgot
about the effect of raising the price of uranium by 10 times would
have on capital costs (due to the cost of the initial uranium). It
would a bit more than double the capital costs. Sigh...

So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being
economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
Availability of uranium is not a worry.

Chris

On 8 Feb 2024 22:24:12 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

<snippo>

>How can I possibly keep up when you keep on snipping the parts of
>my responses that are relevant!

If he didn't do /that/, he wouldn't be able to "win".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:

>So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being
>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
>to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
>Availability of uranium is not a worry.

You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).

Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.

I still classify it as wishful thinking at this time.

Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, I'm not
holding my breath that there will be a substantial reactor
fleet by 2050 (and some of the existing fleet will be decomissioned
by then - they do have a lifetime in the 60 year range due to
the effects of constant radiation exposure).

As for Chris' summary of the Energy and Human Ambitions textbook,
realize that summary isn't universally shared. Read the entire
textbook yourself and come to a conclusion based on the physics
and facts - don't rely on some anonymous poster to summarize it
for you. Yes, it is not all is sunshine, but then that describes
the real world.

On 2/9/2024 4:32 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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!).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>>> planet.
>>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>>> make more
>>>>> of what we need.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>>> 2052.  I
>>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>>> Lynn! =)
>>>
>>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>>
>> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> I apologize. I only blame not being a native english speaker and
> ignorance. =(

No worries !

Lynn

On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>>
>
>>
>> The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
>> day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
>
> cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
>
> Worldometer states:
> "The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
> 4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
> imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
> consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
>
> EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
>
> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>
>
> And as you say, expensive.
>
>
>> The current
>> USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>> $45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>>
>> Lynn

As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry.
With 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot more
than the government puts out. The amount of crude oil and natural gas
in the USA is just amazing since directional drilling started in the
1990s and fracking starting in 2008.

However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few
sources (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect
on the oil and gas business in the USA. There used to be 15 million of
us employed in the oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and it is
still dropping. There used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in 1980 and
that has dropped to 90 now.

Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to build
coal to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my software jumped
like crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu
in 2008. And the price of crude oil jumped from $40/bbl to $130/bbl.
Today those prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl respectively. The demand
for my software has dropped considerably.

Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were
closed off. Now it is 50% are closed off. More pipelines are being
built but most of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants on
the Gulf Coast. Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12 billion
each !) but nobody knows if they will all be finished.

Lynn

On 08/02/2024 17:09, Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 10:43 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> 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!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>
>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>> inevitiable.
>>>
>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers
>>> are continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on
>>> the planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure
>>> out how to make more of what we need.
>>>
>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052.
>>> I wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>   https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>>
>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>> Lynn! =)
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>>
>
> There really needs to be a gender identifying version of Lynn, such as
> Frances/Francis.

If I didn't already suggest announcing
one's pronouns, then I do so now,
waiting to hear perhaps Lynn's head
exploding (he, him).

On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>
>>So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being
>>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
>>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
>>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
>>to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
>>Availability of uranium is not a worry.
>
> You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
> the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
> be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).

Agreed. But mined uranium is not enriched either. Please give your
calculations showing the added costs for enriched seawater uranium
make it economically infeasible in the future.

> Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
> nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.

Agreed. But that's not and never has been the topic at hand. The only
issue here is your ridiculous claim that lack of uranium will keep nuclear
fission from being an answer.

Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself (your
multiple thousands of reactors that use up all proven resources in 4
years), I expect the answer will be a combination of technologies with
nuclear fission playing a very important part.

> I still classify it as wishful thinking at this time.
>
> Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, I'm not
> holding my breath that there will be a substantial reactor
> fleet by 2050 (and some of the existing fleet will be decomissioned
> by then - they do have a lifetime in the 60 year range due to
> the effects of constant radiation exposure).
>
> As for Chris' summary of the Energy and Human Ambitions textbook,
> realize that summary isn't universally shared. Read the entire
> textbook yourself and come to a conclusion based on the physics
> and facts - don't rely on some anonymous poster to summarize it
> for you. Yes, it is not all is sunshine, but then that describes
> the real world.

Are you really questioning the credentials of the review in the
American Journal of Physics??? That wasn't just my summary. And who
is this "anonymous poster" you are talking about? It's certainly not
me. You can google me and see (you may have to add "information
retrieval" to distinguish me from others with the same name).

This indeed isn't my research area, but coincidentally the very first
lecture I gave as a Teaching Assistant to a class was a dissection of
the Club of Rome's _Limits of Growth_. I've maintained an interest
in improper extrapolation and improper computer modeling ever since.

I'll end with another quote from the quite negative American Journal
of Physics review:
We do tremendous harm if we mislead students into believing that
physical constraints will require large parts of the world to
return to a pre-industrial state of deep poverty and high child
mortality.

Chris

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/9/2024 4:32 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> D <nospam@example.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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!).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers are
>>>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
>>>>>> make more
>>>>>> of what we need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. 
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>>>    https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>>>> Lynn! =)
>>>>
>>>> He may not appreciate that remark.
>>>
>>> I am used to it.  And Lynn is not my first name.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> I apologize. I only blame not being a native english speaker and ignorance.
>> =(
>
> No worries !
>
> Lynn
>
>
Thank you Lynn! =)

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
>>> day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
>>
>> cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
>>
>> Worldometer states:
>> "The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
>> 4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
>> imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
>> consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
>>
>> EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
>>
>> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>>
>>
>> And as you say, expensive.
>>
>>
>>> The current
>>> USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>>> $45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>
> As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry. With
> 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot more than the
> government puts out. The amount of crude oil and natural gas in the USA is
> just amazing since directional drilling started in the 1990s and fracking
> starting in 2008.
>
> However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few sources
> (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect on the oil and
> gas business in the USA. There used to be 15 million of us employed in the
> oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and it is still dropping. There
> used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in 1980 and that has dropped to 90 now.
>
> Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to build coal
> to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my software jumped like
> crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu in 2008.
> And the price of crude oil jumped from $40/bbl to $130/bbl. Today those
> prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl respectively. The demand for my software has
> dropped considerably.
>
> Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were closed
> off. Now it is 50% are closed off. More pipelines are being built but most
> of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants on the Gulf Coast.
> Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12 billion each !) but nobody
> knows if they will all be finished.
>
> Lynn

From an investment point of view, what do you say about US oil companies
the next 5 to 10 years?

Best regards,
Daniel

On 2/9/2024 2:54 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On 08/02/2024 17:09, Jay E. Morris wrote:
>> On 2/8/2024 10:43 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> 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!).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
>>>>>> oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
>>>>>> some time before the present day?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.    And without fracking, the prediction from the
>>>>> 70's would pretty accurate.   Fracking just delays the
>>>>> inevitiable.
>>>>
>>>> Always with the negative thoughts !  You and the other Peak Oilers
>>>> are continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on
>>>> the planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure
>>>> out how to make more of what we need.
>>>>
>>>> In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
>>>> 2052. I wonder what it will be next decade.
>>>>   https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
>>> Lynn! =)
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>
>> There really needs to be a gender identifying version of Lynn, such as
>> Frances/Francis.
>
> If I didn't already suggest announcing
> one's pronouns, then I do so now,
> waiting to hear perhaps Lynn's head
> exploding (he, him).

Dorothy thought that we were headed to a generic they / them for all
pronouns but, I kinda doubt it.

Lynn

On 2/9/2024 3:53 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels
>>>> per
>>>> day.  That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
>>>
>>> cite?  Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
>>>
>>> Worldometer states:
>>>     "The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
>>>      4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
>>>      imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
>>>      consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
>>>
>>> EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
>>>
>>> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> And as you say, expensive.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The current
>>>> USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>>>> $45/bbl (Exxon).  Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>>>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>
>> As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry.
>> With 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot
>> more than the government puts out.  The amount of crude oil and
>> natural gas in the USA is just amazing since directional drilling
>> started in the 1990s and fracking starting in 2008.
>>
>> However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few
>> sources (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect
>> on the oil and gas business in the USA.  There used to be 15 million
>> of us employed in the oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and
>> it is still dropping.  There used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in
>> 1980 and that has dropped to 90 now.
>>
>> Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to
>> build coal to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my
>> software jumped like crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from
>> $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu in 2008. And the price of crude oil jumped from
>> $40/bbl to $130/bbl. Today those prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl
>> respectively.  The demand for my software has dropped considerably.
>>
>> Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were
>> closed off.  Now it is 50% are closed off.  More pipelines are being
>> built but most of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants
>> on the Gulf Coast. Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12
>> billion each !) but nobody knows if they will all be finished.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> From an investment point of view, what do you say about US oil
> companies the next 5 to 10 years?
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel

There will be continued consolidation of energy companies in the USA.
The USA is quite unique in that it has both extensive natural resources
and multiple energy companies. Most other countries with natural
resources only have one national energy company.

Crude oil wells will continue to be drilled in the USA but natural gas
only wells will not be drilled or produced. Note that several small
wildcatters are redrilling old natural gas only wells from the 1980s and
1990s, fracking them, and getting mixed crude oil and natural gas out of
them for a 50% increase in production cost. We call that a win.

Conversion of the coal baseload power plants in the USA to natural gas
gas turbines peakers will continue in the USA as electricity demands are
growing with the population growth in the South and other areas across
the USA. More and more electrical baseload is being covered by Solar
Power Plants and Wind Turbines, especially in Texas and other Southern
states. Battery power plants are being built rapidly also but, they
only store power with a 10% loss, they do not generate power.

Would I invest in Exxon and Chevron ? I am invested in those companies
but nothing compared to my investments in real estate, Netflix, and Amazon.

Lynn

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>
>>>So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being
>>>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
>>>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
>>>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
>>>to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
>>>Availability of uranium is not a worry.
>>
>> You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
>> the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
>> be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).
>
>Agreed. But mined uranium is not enriched either. Please give your
>calculations showing the added costs for enriched seawater uranium
>make it economically infeasible in the future.
>
>> Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
>> nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.
>
>Agreed. But that's not and never has been the topic at hand. The only
>issue here is your ridiculous claim that lack of uranium will keep nuclear
>fission from being an answer.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.

>
>Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself (your
>multiple thousands of reactors that use up all proven resources in 4
>years), I expect the answer will be a combination of technologies with
>nuclear fission playing a very important part.

That's what I've said at least a half dozen times in this thread,
maybe quibbling over the word 'very'.

>Are you really questioning the credentials of the review in the
>American Journal of Physics???

Did you offer the cite so I can judge the article myself?

>I'll end with another quote from the quite negative American Journal
>of Physics review:
> We do tremendous harm if we mislead students into believing that
> physical constraints will require large parts of the world to
> return to a pre-industrial state of deep poverty and high child
> mortality.

I've certainly never said anything like that, nor has Dr. Murphy.

Parts of the world are in a state of deep poverty and high child
mortality today, and growing worse.

But vague promises of unlimited energy in the future don't convince me.

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:

>Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself

Murphy took many scenarious to the point of absurdity (and said
so) to make a point, including this one.

I did find that review, by Daniel V. Schroeder that
you have referred to.

So, Schroeder writes;

"The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect
of the author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's
future is in great peril."

He's putting words in the author's mouth. Murphy does point out
the absurdity of the growth of energy consumption continuing as it
has in the past, it's physically unsurvivable.

He also points out that the sources of energy currently available
to us are insufficent to support such growth.

Schroeders opinion is strong, but IMO just opinion. He does
like overall that the physics in the textbook is strong
if a bit above the typical undergrad level in areas.

I stand by my suggestion that one should read the textbook
and draw ones own conclusions rather than relying on the
opinion of a book reviewer.

And I was certainly able to determine how a combination of
technologies could supply sustainable power from the textbook
even if Schroeder was unable to do so.

So, support your assertion that there is boundless supply
of usable fission fuel that can, in a relatively short
time, replace fossil fuels world-wide (when oil runs out,
and it will run out, it will be too late).

How many years from today before the first reactors come
on-line? Financing? Politics?

Would it not be better to invest in solar, wind and storage?
Vogtle units 3 and 4 has cost $35 billion. So far.

It's easy to state that's because of regulations, etc. et. al.

So, please suggest exactly which regulations can be eliminated
to streamline the build process and significantly reduce the cost.

Not vague statements like "less regulation", be specific. Which
regulations are unnecessary? Which regulations lead to the
cost overruns? What's the impact of eliminating the regulation?

On 2024-02-10, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being
>>>>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
>>>>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
>>>>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
>>>>to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
>>>>Availability of uranium is not a worry.
>>>
>>> You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
>>> the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
>>> be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).
>>
>>Agreed. But mined uranium is not enriched either. Please give your
>>calculations showing the added costs for enriched seawater uranium
>>make it economically infeasible in the future.
>>
>>> Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
>>> nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.
>>
>>Agreed. But that's not and never has been the topic at hand. The only
>>issue here is your ridiculous claim that lack of uranium will keep nuclear
>>fission from being an answer.
>
> Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
> will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
> be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.

What words did I put in your mouth either before or here (but see below)?
Please read and understand that last paragraph since it's clear you
haven't yet. The only focus of my argument has been whether there is
enough uranium to supply the 10,000 plants you claim are needed for
nuclear fission to replace gas,oil,coal. I have never claimed that it's
feasible to build those plants.

>>
>>Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
>>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself (your
>>multiple thousands of reactors that use up all proven resources in 4
>>years), I expect the answer will be a combination of technologies with
>>nuclear fission playing a very important part.
>
> That's what I've said at least a half dozen times in this thread,
> maybe quibbling over the word 'very'.

Here I apologize. I was confusing your overall position (a combination
solution with nuclear playing a niche part) with your position in
your uranium argument with the 10,000 plants.

>>Are you really questioning the credentials of the review in the
>>American Journal of Physics???
>
> Did you offer the cite so I can judge the article myself?

Yes. Have you actually been reading my posts???

>
>>I'll end with another quote from the quite negative American Journal
>>of Physics review:
>> We do tremendous harm if we mislead students into believing that
>> physical constraints will require large parts of the world to
>> return to a pre-industrial state of deep poverty and high child
>> mortality.
>
> I've certainly never said anything like that, nor has Dr. Murphy.

Here again I should not have included you - you have not talked about
consequences at all. Murphy on the other hand was certainly implying this
with his prognostications of doom and the necessity to reduce our
technology. More on Murphy in my next response.

> Parts of the world are in a state of deep poverty and high child
> mortality today, and growing worse.
>
> But vague promises of unlimited energy in the future don't convince me.

Chris

On 2024-02-10, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>>On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>>> Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
>
>>Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
>>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself
>
> Murphy took many scenarious to the point of absurdity (and said
> so) to make a point, including this one.

The problem is that he then assumed these absurd scenarios represented
truth and then based his central thesis on them (at least he did in
the chapter on nuclear fission.) I see no problems with Murphy's
knowledge of physics but it's clear he has only a rudimentary
knowledge of modeling and a massive lack of understanding of "proven
reserves".

"Proven reserves" is a commercial/economic term, not a scientific
term. It represents the part of the global supply of a resource that
has been or will be economically worthwhile to find, test, claim, and
eventually produce. As the economics change, the proven reserves will
change. No reputable scientist of the past 50 years would use a
proven reserve estimate as indicative of anything except the very near
future. Scientists use estimates of global supply instead.

A 90 year proven supply for uranium is abnormally high for any
mineral. The only reason it's so high is that companies gambled and
lost the bet that nuclear power would expand now. Spending money
finding new resources that won't be recouped for 90 years is not going
to be profitable!

Murphy using the 90 year proven reserve number as the basis to decide
that fission can't supply enough energy to replace fossil fuel is
ridiculous. That's particularly true for uranium which not only has
the guarantee of increasing conventional mine reserves, but the
possibilities of alternative sources such as reprocessing, breeder
reactions for enriching, and the seawater extraction I've talked
about. This argument would never be allowed in a peer-reviewed paper
or textbook.

The book's central thesis is that since limited resources like uranium
prevent any alternative from replacing fossil fuels, we must drastically
reduce our energy usage. But that argument doesn't work if uranium is
not a limiting factor.

> I did find that review, by Daniel V. Schroeder that
> you have referred to.
>
> So, Schroeder writes;
>
> "The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect
> of the author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's
> future is in great peril."
>
> He's putting words in the author's mouth. Murphy does point out
> the absurdity of the growth of energy consumption continuing as it
> has in the past, it's physically unsurvivable.
>
> He also points out that the sources of energy currently available
> to us are insufficent to support such growth.

No. He incorrectly claims that. (You even say that below).

> Schroeders opinion is strong, but IMO just opinion. He does
> like overall that the physics in the textbook is strong
> if a bit above the typical undergrad level in areas.

No. Schroeder backs up most of his opinions with concrete topics
that Murphy handles poorly.

>
> I stand by my suggestion that one should read the textbook
> and draw ones own conclusions rather than relying on the
> opinion of a book reviewer.
>
> And I was certainly able to determine how a combination of
> technologies could supply sustainable power from the textbook
> even if Schroeder was unable to do so.

It's not that Schroeder couldn't do so. I'm sure both of you could.
It's that Murphy did not do so. Or alternatively, Murphy did not show
that it was impossible for a combination to replace fossil fuels.
This is a humongous flaw that seemingly invalidates Murphy's entire
thesis. Murphy "showed" that no single alternative could replace
fossil fuels by itself and then falsely concluded that it was thus
imperative all humans reduce their technology and energy usage, spending
the last few chapters on what was needed and how this could be done.
He didn't consider a combination of alternatives.

This is perhaps the primary reason (among several) that this book
could not possibly pass the peer-review process of an academic
publisher. It is a self-published book and it needed to be.

> So, support your assertion that there is boundless supply
> of usable fission fuel that can, in a relatively short
> time, replace fossil fuels world-wide (when oil runs out,
> and it will run out, it will be too late).

I have done so already, though hundreds of years, not a boundless
supply. You have not refuted my claim that if you allow energy prices
to double (or a bit more), then the current technology of seawater
extraction of uranium will be economically feasible. (And I think no
one would expect that extraction process not to rapidly improve.)

The supply of uranium is just a comparatively modest economic problem
as opposed to all the other problems building 10,000 plants will
encounter. The uranium will not be the limiting factor.

> How many years from today before the first reactors come
> on-line? Financing? Politics?
>
> Would it not be better to invest in solar, wind and storage?
> Vogtle units 3 and 4 has cost $35 billion. So far.
>
> It's easy to state that's because of regulations, etc. et. al.
>
> So, please suggest exactly which regulations can be eliminated
> to streamline the build process and significantly reduce the cost.
>
> Not vague statements like "less regulation", be specific. Which
> regulations are unnecessary? Which regulations lead to the
> cost overruns? What's the impact of eliminating the regulation?

Those are fine questions that would have to be answered by somebody
claiming that fission can replace all fossil fuels. But that is not
me; I don't believe it can be done. My claim throughout has been
much more modest: that your (and Murphy's) statement that there is
not enough uranium for it is ridiculous and not supported by the science.

Chris

On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/9/2024 3:53 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>>> 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:
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
>>>>> day.  That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
>>>>
>>>> cite?  Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
>>>>
>>>> Worldometer states:
>>>>     "The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
>>>>      4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
>>>>      imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
>>>>      consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
>>>>
>>>> EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And as you say, expensive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The current
>>>>> USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
>>>>> $45/bbl (Exxon).  Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
>>>>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry.
>>> With 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot more
>>> than the government puts out.  The amount of crude oil and natural gas in
>>> the USA is just amazing since directional drilling started in the 1990s
>>> and fracking starting in 2008.
>>>
>>> However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few
>>> sources (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect on
>>> the oil and gas business in the USA.  There used to be 15 million of us
>>> employed in the oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and it is
>>> still dropping.  There used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in 1980 and
>>> that has dropped to 90 now.
>>>
>>> Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to build
>>> coal to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my software jumped
>>> like crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu
>>> in 2008. And the price of crude oil jumped from $40/bbl to $130/bbl. Today
>>> those prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl respectively.  The demand for my
>>> software has dropped considerably.
>>>
>>> Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were closed
>>> off.  Now it is 50% are closed off.  More pipelines are being built but
>>> most of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants on the Gulf
>>> Coast. Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12 billion each !) but
>>> nobody knows if they will all be finished.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> From an investment point of view, what do you say about US oil companies
>> the next 5 to 10 years?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel
>
> There will be continued consolidation of energy companies in the USA. The USA
> is quite unique in that it has both extensive natural resources and multiple
> energy companies. Most other countries with natural resources only have one
> national energy company.
>
> Crude oil wells will continue to be drilled in the USA but natural gas only
> wells will not be drilled or produced. Note that several small wildcatters
> are redrilling old natural gas only wells from the 1980s and 1990s, fracking
> them, and getting mixed crude oil and natural gas out of them for a 50%
> increase in production cost. We call that a win.
>
> Conversion of the coal baseload power plants in the USA to natural gas gas
> turbines peakers will continue in the USA as electricity demands are growing
> with the population growth in the South and other areas across the USA. More
> and more electrical baseload is being covered by Solar Power Plants and Wind
> Turbines, especially in Texas and other Southern states. Battery power
> plants are being built rapidly also but, they only store power with a 10%
> loss, they do not generate power.
>
> Would I invest in Exxon and Chevron ? I am invested in those companies but
> nothing compared to my investments in real estate, Netflix, and Amazon.
>
> Lynn

Thank you for the analysis Lynn. I am invested as well, and I'm not
worried about the near future, but decades in the future I could see other
technologies slowly taking over.

On the other hand the oil companies see (and plan) for this too, so
consolidation is one way and slowly diversifying away from oil is another
way. I think, but can't remember for sure at the moment, that Chevron has
quite some cash reserves.

Well, let's see what the future holds.

Best regards,
Daniel

On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
....
>> Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>>
>> Lynn
>
> I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
> is...
>
> How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
> environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
>
> At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
> however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
> elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
> putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
>
> Best regards, Daniel

I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were
specially built with water ringed centers for crew protections during
solar storms. The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more
frequent.

Lynn

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
> ...
>>> Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
>> is...
>>
>> How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
>> environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
>>
>> At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
>> however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
>> elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
>> putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
>>
>> Best regards, Daniel
>
> I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
> space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were specially
> built with water ringed centers for crew protections during solar storms.
> The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more frequent.
>
> Lynn

I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible
until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.

It seems like there are some early stage startups here and there working
on it, and I wonder how many years before one of them succeeds?

That would surely revolutionize nuclear waste management.

I wonder if lowering the cost of launching something to space with a
facetor of 10 or 100 will make it possible for other sci fi concepts to
finally become true, such as space-based solar power, beaming electricity
back to earth?

Best regards,
Daniel

On 10/02/2024 21:31, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
> ...
>>> Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
>> is...
>>
>> How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
>> environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
>>
>> At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
>> however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
>> elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
>> putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
>>
>> Best regards, Daniel
>
> I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
> space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun.  The haulers were
> specially built with water ringed centers for crew protections during
> solar storms.  The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more
> frequent.
>
> Lynn

This sounds like an allegory of terrestrial
climate change. Is the message that the
nuclear power industry is ruining the Sun?
So it's back to oil and coal, then, eh?

Can someone remind me which one of E.E. Smith's
futurologial fictions has Earth importing
its fossil fuels from extra-solar planets?
I hope it's only one.