A point often missed...

[gforce]

Originally Posted by TheMessiahComplex

I'm wondering if we made a large scale shift towards nuclear how long it would be before we're back in the same situation all over again.
From what I remember from the environmental engineering course I took, nuclear makes up about 10% of the energy made in the US, and most countries don't have any nuclear power at all, though I know there are some countries that use it more heavily than the US does.
Now I'm asking because I genuinely don't know, exactly how much nuclear fuel do we have access to compared to how much oil we have available?

we're already consuming twice as much uranium as we are producing, the only thing keeping us going is stocks. Ok so some of this can be put down to problems with mines in various countries and a glut in uranium prices up to a few years ago slowing down production but to that scale is massive. If my memory serves me correct production is around 65-70 million pounds a year while use is at 150+ million pounds a year. Thats a massive deficit.

In europe we use quite a bit more nuclear power i believe, The UK has 20% of its electricity generation and france generates 75% of it's electricity from nuclear.

whether production will pick up is debatable but we are going to see a squeeze for uranium fuel in the coming years which has already started with increases in prices

[RemadE]

invest/buy a load of Oil

..i can see this place turning into something from Mad Max

[gforce]

Originally Posted by RemadE

invest/buy a load of Oil

..i can see this place turning into something from Mad Max

the time to do that was about 4 months ago when oil was $50 a barrel, now between $65, you could of made $15 profit a barrel

[MasterPython]

Another think that politicians are missing is that there are other polutants besides CO2. The enviroment minister in Ontario decides against haveing scrubbers installed on coal fired power plants because they only remove toxic things that kill kids and old people with lung problems while doing nothing to reduce CO2 emitions. And banning light bulbs to save electricity forcing people to use flourecents containing mercury.

[MasterPython]

Originally Posted by gforce

we're already consuming twice as much uranium as we are producing, the only thing keeping us going is stocks.

The Uraanium feul for reactores can be re-refined to remove the contaminent that stop it from being useful. Only two percent of it is actualy used up durring it's life in a reactor.

[Seriously]

The U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors. All of which were built after 1970. No more have been built since about 1990, I think. All of these reactors have a lifespan of 30 yrs. So, we are going to see more energy shortages very soon as many of these will need to be decomissioned at about the same time.

Some of them are actually over their 30 year lifespan and are kept running because there has been nothing built to take it's place. This is going to be a problem. The materials used to build a nuclear facility become brittle after 30 years and increase the risk of another Chernobyl occuring. Even if they are triple redundant.

As far as coal and oil go; the U.S. generates most of it's electricity from coal-fired power plants. Almost no oil is used for production of electricity. The States have a very large amount of coal but we are using so much of it so fast that we only have about 60 years supply left (give or take 20 I forget). Also, all power plants in the U.S. are generating at or near full capacity and the demand for electricity is expected to continue to increase. This is why so many power companies recommend, nay, promote energy conservation. There is barely enough to go around as it is.

In order to solve this problem the power companies have brilliantly decided to build more coal-fired power plants. As of June 2006, there are plans to build 255 more of them. So I'm guessing the coal shortage will come sooner rather than later. But, dues, I'm afraid you're ahead of the times. Americans probably aren't going to do anything until it's perceived as an imminent threat, as is the case with global warming. Then again, if the word is spread and more research is done perhaps the focus could shift some from global warming to an energy crisis. The "energy crisis" could act as a middle ground where those who know about global warming and those who don't think it's anthropogenic could come together to work on the same problem under a different name.

[boozehound420]

HYDRO. Everybody will start flocking to areas with rivers, and hydro electricity. Well people are stupid so probably not. But the smart people will.

Here in BC were almost completly hydro. Only like 5% or somethign like that is Coal. And thats for the small northern towns. Theres plans in the works for another big damn to go up. With rescent global warming its getting a 70% public approval rating. Which was previosly unheardof because the hippies convinced people it hurts the river. Ya fuck you hippies, its the best option. I dont care if a little bit dirt gets washed down stream and a salmon run or two gets fucked for that area.

[Dark_Magneto]

Pretty much all the good hydro prospects here in the states are being utilized.

As was previously mentioned, uranium supplies are currently half of current reactor requirements, which evidently the idiots investing in U-235 reactors are oblivious to.

What would be interesting would be to put aquatic turbines in the gulf stream. I bet one could produce a lot of electricity that way.

But the main issue in energy we're facing right now is going to be liquid fuel.

[OdayJuarez]

These nuclear dead-ends sure are hard to work through. Might as well turn back and look for a better solution...

[Ryangeneral]

As my dad said, we should make lots of wind farms, with nets under each windmill. The nets should feed to a conveyor, that feeds the bodies of the birds into an incinerator. The sides of the windmil should be covered in solar panels as well, saving surface area of other places.