Philosophical Vegan Forum

What?

EquALLity wrote:What?

Sounds like whoever this was didn't understand the question.

Ah, so bio-engineering is genetic engineering.

Hm, I'm guessing nuclear energy isn't in that 'etc.', but I'll ask.

She didn't get back to me. >.<

Oh, finally:
So she thinks that nuclear energy is debatable as renewable energy. I guess that's not so bad. I can probably study it along with other forms of alternative energy.

>.<

How long will nuclear energy last?

EquALLity wrote:>.<

How long will nuclear energy last?

There is a common misconception that uranium is running out quickly. We're just running out of the best uranium ore, which is 1/300 of all economically recoverable uranium. Since uranium delivers so much energy per ton, the price of uranium is a tiny fraction of the price (0.2c per kWh right now, compared to a total cost of 11.4c per kWh) of nuclear energy. It doesn't matter much if uranium is expensive to obtain, because that won't make nuclear energy much more expensive.

According to Richard Muller, if we include low-grade uranium ore, it could cover the world's current electricity (note: electricity =/= energy, transport and heating use fossil fuels directly) demand for 9000 years. If we go full-nuclear, our electricity demand would rise. Our electricity demand will also rise with growing population and welfare in the developing world. I don't have time to do all the calculations right now, but it's safe to assume it will last us at least 900 years (a ten-fold increase in electricity use). By then, we have no idea what technology looks like. Fusion might very well be economical, or perhaps we found out something entirely new. Perhaps we're all dead by then. Either way, 900 years is plenty sustainable.

You may want to remind her that fissile material is recyclable in breeder reactors, and that uranium is also available from ocean water and less concentrated geological sources, and given that, estimates put the available energy well beyond a human timescale. Longer, at least, than human civilization has existed so far.

miniboes wrote:

EquALLity wrote:>.<

How long will nuclear energy last?

There is a common misconception that uranium is running out quickly. We're just running out of the best uranium ore, which is 1/300 of all economically recoverable uranium. Since uranium delivers so much energy per ton, the price of uranium is a tiny fraction of the price (0.2c per kWh right now, compared to a total cost of 11.4c per kWh) of nuclear energy. It doesn't matter much if uranium is expensive to obtain, because that won't make nuclear energy much more expensive.

According to Richard Muller, if we include low-grade uranium ore, it could cover the world's current electricity (note: electricity =/= energy, transport and heating use fossil fuels directly) demand for 9000 years. If we go full-nuclear, our electricity demand would rise. Our electricity demand will also rise with growing population and welfare in the developing world. I don't have time to do all the calculations right now, but it's safe to assume it will last us at least 900 years (a ten-fold increase in electricity use). By then, we have no idea what technology looks like. Fusion might very well be economical, or perhaps we found out something entirely new. Perhaps we're all dead by then. Either way, 900 years is plenty sustainable.

You meant 900 here too, right?

Thanks for the info! Do you have a source I could check out?

brimstoneSalad wrote:You may want to remind her that fissile material is recyclable in breeder reactors, and that uranium is also available from ocean water and less concentrated geological sources, and given that, estimates put the available energy well beyond a human timescale. Longer, at least, than human civilization has existed so far.

A credible estimate from a pro-nuclear source is a lot lower than nine-hundred (which doesn't seem to be well beyond the human timescale... at least I hope not).

"Steve Fetter, dean of the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, supplies an answer: If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... sits-last/

It does also say that the more approximate estimate (230 years) will likely double with more advancements.

Oh, however, it also says:
Two technologies could greatly extend the uranium supply itself. Neither is economical now, but both could be in the future if the price of uranium increases substantially. First, the extraction of uranium from seawater would make available 4.5 billion metric tons of uranium—a 60,000-year supply at present rates. Second, fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

Ah, wow, that's interesting.