"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow

[Lynn McGuire]

"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/

A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the well
printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books
in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very proud of
myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was
tempted at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise of the
book but I do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.

The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the
haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class in the
future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles:
A Family, 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.

https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/

The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways.
The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of
Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social
programs. The walkaways have literally walked away from society and
live individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to
participate in the cities. The walkaways are not highly regarded by
society and are severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass
deaths. More and more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which
has the zottas extremely concerned.

My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)

Lynn

[John]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the
well printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor
Books in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very
proud of myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I
was tempted at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise
of the book but I do see the possibility of the events in it
occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between
the haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class
in the future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The
Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas
by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and
walkaways. The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to
failures of Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other
federal social programs. The walkaways have literally walked away
from society and live individually or gathered together in communes,
choosing not to participate in the cities. The walkaways are not
highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted by the zottas,
to the point of mass deaths. More and more have-nots are becoming
walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

It sounds exactly as subtle as most of Doctorow's work so I'll commend
him on his consistency.

john

[Hamish Laws]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
A Family, 2029-2047".

Documented has a meaning, that's not it

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Hamish Laws

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
A Family, 2029-2047".

Documented has a meaning, that's not it

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Lynn

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the well
printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books in
2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very proud of myself, I
never threw the book against the wall even though I was tempted at least a
half dozen times. I do not agree the premise of the book but I do see the
possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30 years
later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the haves and
the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class in the future. The
haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the tremendous inflation
caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in 2029 as documented by Lionel
Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047". The haves
are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways. The
wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of Social
Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social programs. The
walkaways have literally walked away from society and live individually or
gathered together in communes, choosing not to participate in the cities.
The walkaways are not highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted
by the zottas, to the point of mass deaths. More and more have-nots are
becoming walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one
where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat?

Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

[John]

Post by D
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is
one where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back
seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Or perhaps Heinlein uses -isms that you find less objectionable and
therefore don't notice as much. As much as I enjoy his stories, I've
always found his characters' habit of stopping everything to lecture
about some topic or another for several pages a bit tiring, whether the
topic is libertarianism (early Heinlein) or
having-sex-with-your-kids-ism (late Heinlein).

john

[D]

Post by John

Post by D
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is
one where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back
seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Or perhaps Heinlein uses -isms that you find less objectionable and
therefore don't notice as much. As much as I enjoy his stories, I've
always found his characters' habit of stopping everything to lecture
about some topic or another for several pages a bit tiring, whether the
topic is libertarianism (early Heinlein) or
having-sex-with-your-kids-ism (late Heinlein).

No, that's not it. I found whithur we (or however its spelled) very
tedious despite it being heavily libertarian. But thank you for the
suggestion anyway.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
  https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future.  I read the
well printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor
Books in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023.  I was very
proud of myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I
was tempted at least a half dozen times.  I do not agree the premise
of the book but I do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later.  The primary focus of the book is the struggle between
the haves and the have-nots of the future.  There is no middle class
in the future.  The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The
Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047".  The haves are nicknamed the zottas
by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and
walkaways. The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to
failures of Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other
federal social programs.  The walkaways have literally walked away
from society and live individually or gathered together in communes,
choosing not to participate in the cities. The walkaways are not
highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted by the zottas,
to the point of mass deaths.  More and more have-nots are becoming
walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating:  4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating:  4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one
where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Tough to say. The story is well woven between the isms. However, the
isms are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich
are bad, we need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad,
hydrogen fuel is good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are
good, money is bad, ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.

The problem that I had was the communes. Work is voluntary but eating
is necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people into
working, etc. It is a good story and one possible outlook over the next
hundred years that I find not likely just due to human nature.

Definitely not a Heinlein. Or a Scalzi. Or a Steven Gould. You have
my six star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list. But,
"Little Brother" was the closest.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/

Lynn

[D]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
  https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future.  I read the well
printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books in
2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023.  I was very proud of
myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was tempted
at least a half dozen times.  I do not agree the premise of the book but I
do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later.  The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the
haves and the have-nots of the future.  There is no middle class in the
future.  The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the tremendous
inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in 2029 as
documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: A Family,
2029-2047".  The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways.
The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of
Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social
programs.  The walkaways have literally walked away from society and live
individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to participate
in the cities. The walkaways are not highly regarded by society and are
severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass deaths.  More and
more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which has the zottas
extremely concerned.
My rating:  4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating:  4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in fact,
what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one where the
"ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while having
story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Tough to say. The story is well woven between the isms. However, the isms
are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich are bad, we
need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad, hydrogen fuel is
good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are good, money is bad,
ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.
The problem that I had was the communes. Work is voluntary but eating is
necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people into working,
etc. It is a good story and one possible outlook over the next hundred years
that I find not likely just due to human nature.
Definitely not a Heinlein. Or a Scalzi. Or a Steven Gould. You have my six
star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list. But, "Little Brother"
was the closest.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/
Lynn

Thank you very much for the clarification Lynn. I have read Little Brother
and it was ok but not great. I will look up Scalzi and Gould instead. =)

Best regards,
Daniel

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
  https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future.  I read the
well printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by
Tor Books in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023.  I was
very proud of myself, I never threw the book against the wall even
though I was tempted at least a half dozen times.  I do not agree
the premise of the book but I do see the possibility of the events
in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly
30 years later.  The primary focus of the book is the struggle
between the haves and the have-nots of the future.  There is no
middle class in the future.  The haves are billionaires and
trillionaires after the tremendous inflation caused by the semi
failure of the USA Dollar in 2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's
masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047".  The haves
are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and
walkaways. The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to
failures of Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other
federal social programs.  The walkaways have literally walked away
from society and live individually or gathered together in communes,
choosing not to participate in the cities. The walkaways are not
highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted by the
zottas, to the point of mass deaths.  More and more have-nots are
becoming walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating:  4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating:  4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is
one where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back
seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Tough to say.  The story is well woven between the isms.  However, the
isms are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich
are bad, we need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad,
hydrogen fuel is good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are
good, money is bad, ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.
The problem that I had was the communes.  Work is voluntary but eating
is necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people
into working, etc.  It is a good story and one possible outlook over
the next hundred years that I find not likely just due to human nature.
Definitely not a Heinlein.  Or a Scalzi.  Or a Steven Gould.  You have
my six star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list.  But,
"Little Brother" was the closest.
  https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/
Lynn

Thank you very much for the clarification Lynn. I have read Little
Brother and it was ok but not great. I will look up Scalzi and Gould
instead. =)
Best regards,
Daniel

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

Lynn

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by D

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
  https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future.  I read the well
printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books
in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023.  I was very proud of
myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was
tempted at least a half dozen times.  I do not agree the premise of the
book but I do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later.  The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the
haves and the have-nots of the future.  There is no middle class in the
future.  The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
A Family, 2029-2047".  The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the
have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways.
The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of
Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social
programs.  The walkaways have literally walked away from society and
live individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to
participate in the cities. The walkaways are not highly regarded by
society and are severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass
deaths.  More and more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which
has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating:  4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating:  4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn

Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one
where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.

Tough to say.  The story is well woven between the isms.  However, the
isms are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich are
bad, we need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad, hydrogen
fuel is good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are good, money is
bad, ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.
The problem that I had was the communes.  Work is voluntary but eating is
necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people into
working, etc.  It is a good story and one possible outlook over the next
hundred years that I find not likely just due to human nature.
Definitely not a Heinlein.  Or a Scalzi.  Or a Steven Gould.  You have my
six star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list.  But, "Little
Brother" was the closest.
  https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/
Lynn

Thank you very much for the clarification Lynn. I have read Little Brother
and it was ok but not great. I will look up Scalzi and Gould instead. =)
Best regards,
Daniel

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Change
XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so is John
Varley, another excellent author.
Lynn

Looking forward to it! And I am very skeptical when it comes to man
made climate doomsday scenarios myself, so depending on the X:s and
what they mean, that could actually be a bonus. ;)

Best regards,
Daniel

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

[Titus G]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

New Zealand officially disapproves of nuclear power but turned a blind
eye to the USA's Antarctic plant being transported through Christchurch
airport. I am not familiar with details of our position but think it is
electricity we are depending on to phase out coal though we still export
coal to China! Our current government pays lip service to "climate
whatever".

[D]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

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!

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by D

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.  All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.  So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

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!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing
something. "Change is EVIL!"

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by D

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.  All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.  So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

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!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing
something. "Change is EVIL!"

And here is a word for them:

plastic

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

=20
=20
=20

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =

are

Post by Mike Van Pelt

excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =

Scalzi, so

Post by Mike Van Pelt

is John Varley, another excellent author.

What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

=20
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =

agree.=20

The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
something. "Change is EVIL!"

plastic

chemical feedstocks in general.

But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

=20
=20
=20

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =

are

Post by Mike Van Pelt

excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =

Scalzi, so

Post by Mike Van Pelt

is John Varley, another excellent author.

What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

=20
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =

agree.=20

The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
something. "Change is EVIL!"

plastic

chemical feedstocks in general.
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

=20
=20
=20

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =

are

Post by Mike Van Pelt

excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =

Scalzi, so

Post by Mike Van Pelt

is John Varley, another excellent author.

What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

=20
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =

agree.=20

The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
something. "Change is EVIL!"

plastic

chemical feedstocks in general.
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.

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.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=3D20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" =

or=3D20

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

just because they can't handle being told about better ways of =

doing=3D20

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

something. "Change is EVIL!"

plastic

=20
chemical feedstocks in general.
=20
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

=93It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.=94 - Upton Sinclair

It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.

By that time, the damage will be irreversable, if it isn't already.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

=20
=20
=20

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =

are

Post by Mike Van Pelt

excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =

Scalzi, so

Post by Mike Van Pelt

is John Varley, another excellent author.

What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

=20
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =

agree.=20

The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!

Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20
something. "Change is EVIL!"

plastic

chemical feedstocks in general.
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.” - Upton Sinclair

It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.
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.

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.
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.

I perceive that your "natural gas"
is fossil reserves of methane.
Which is worse to let into the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
on a human lifespan scale. But there
are many varied plastics.

There also are new alternative "plastics"
made from sustainable material, notably
plants, and strictly speaking biodegradable.
Look for this in your tea bags, because
if the dinosaurs had had tea bags like our
standard ones, then we'd be finding the
little plastic tea bag skeletons that
they have.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
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. We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural
gas in the USA. The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
wonders of fracking.

As far as sea water, unlimited definitely applies in this case.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
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".

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
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

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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?

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

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! =)

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
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.

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

[James Nicoll]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Yup, only 70-90% of life dies, and only a few million years to recover.

pt

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

[James Nicoll]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by Mike Van Pelt

I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.  All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.  So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

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!

The SMRs just got canceled in the USA. "The collapse of NuScale’s
project should spell the end for small modular nuclear reactors.
Although there were problems specific to the Utah Associated Municipal
Power Systems project, the financial challenges and cost trends
witnessed in that case will afflict any SMR project."

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

Not good.

Lynn

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by D

Post by Mike Van Pelt
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.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by D

Post by Mike Van Pelt
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.

What 'other agenda' are you proposing?

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.

I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

[D]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to it
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 years
or so.

[Paul S Person]

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to it
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 years
or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?

Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

Not very likely:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300

and

https://www.knxt.se/studsvik

Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.

This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

Best regards,
Daniel

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

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.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

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.

You're aware that France already generates nearly 3/4 of its
electricity with nukes? To me, that's quite a bit of 'displacement'.

pt

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

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.

You're aware that France already generates nearly 3/4 of its
electricity with nukes? To me, that's quite a bit of 'displacement'.
pt

Yes. I'm also aware that they have a population of 67 million,
which on a planet with almost eight billion humans is almost in the noise.

Consider that the planet has a global usage rate of 18TW (per Murphy, see below)

France has 56 reactors producing 61 GW.

That is less than 1% (.3%) of the global total if my math is right.

On a global scale that is definitely in the noise.

Scaling it up to displace the full 18TW (we can adjust
downward somewhat if we remove hydro and renewables and
just consider coal and CH4). So, let's say we need
10 TW (assuming 8TW of renewables/hydro) supplied
by fission reactors.

That's 10,000 1GW reactors. Leaving aside the cost
(Vogle 3 was $15 billion _over_), there's not enough
known reserves of U to run that size fleet for more
than a few weeks (assuming standard low-enriched U235).

Using breeders reactors will extend that time period,
but it's not clear how long.

Completely ignoring waste disposal here, but that must also
factor into the solution.

Thorium? Who knows. There aren't any working power producing
reactors yet (although India is developing one), and I wouldn't
expect any substantial power production from such for a couple
of decades.

Use it, sure. Don't expect it to supplant fossil fuels.

Full discussion here, see chapter 15.

-Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet-
Professor Tom Murphy, UCSD

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#***@tocid.16

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Scott Lurndal
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? That for
the time being, there's more uranium to find?
As I said, I'm not in love with how we use
the stuff, but I want to have the facts straight.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Or Michael and Michaela. Of course, there is Lynn and Lynne.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

[Tony Nance]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

But it _is_ Nolan Ryan's first name.[1]
- Tony
[1] I'm assuming your first name is not Nolan, but that would make for
some mildly interesting symmetry.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Tony Nance

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

But it _is_ Nolan Ryan's first name.[1]
- Tony
[1] I'm assuming your first name is not Nolan, but that would make for
some mildly interesting symmetry.

I did not know that !

Lynn

[Jay E. Morris]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

Robin?

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jay E. Morris

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

Robin?

Michael.

Lynn

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Haha, true. That's what I get for not being a native english speaker. But
I'm not fragile, so I think I can take the potential wrath of Lynn,
alternatively, I might be lucky and the compliment might get through
although a bit damaged. ;)

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=

so

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
is John Varley, another excellent author.

=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
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.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=

=20

of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =

it=20

and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =

years=20

or so.

And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/

What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.

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 and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources. With breeders, this
is extended to 8,500 years.[187]"

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.

We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
fail.

If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.

So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
increase research efforts.

Best regards,
Daniel

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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).

Post by D
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.

Post by D
If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.

Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?

Post by D
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.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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]

On 2/7/2024 2:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
...

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Dimensional Traveler
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

[Scott Lurndal]

...

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Dimensional Traveler
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.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Dimensional Traveler
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.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Dimensional Traveler
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

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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's an increase of 50% from today. With a corresponding increase
in global energy consumption. Good luck with that. The horseman
will likely ride first, if they haven't already started....

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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's an increase of 50% from today. With a corresponding increase
in global energy consumption. Good luck with that. The horseman
will likely ride first, if they haven't already started....

I disagree.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by D

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered.  Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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.

pt

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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
"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

Post by D
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.

Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.

Post by D
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).

Post by D
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.

Post by D
If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.

Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?

Post by D
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

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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)

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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."

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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)

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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."

Post by Chris Buckley
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

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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?

Post by Scott Lurndal
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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)

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal
"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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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?

Post by Scott Lurndal
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

Post by Chris Buckley
changes much.

Indeed.

The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more

Post by Chris Buckley
than 1000 years.

Assuming it can be economnically mined. and subsequently enriched.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.

As I noted previously.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?

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

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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?

Post by Scott Lurndal
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Oh????
...

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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). ...

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.

As I said on the part you snipped, since the 70s we've already
consumed about twice the 70s proven reserves. Proven reserves say
very little; few scientists in the area direcctly use those figures.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

Post by Chris Buckley
changes much.

Indeed.
The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more

Post by Chris Buckley
than 1000 years.

Assuming it can be economnically mined. and subsequently enriched.

You snipped my statements of economics of seawater extraction, presumably
because you didn't want to disagree with them. Good, we agree. A 6500
year supply of uranium in seawater seems to be the current scientific
estimate for amounts.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

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

As I said in the sentences after this that you snipped, it will take
decades before the *first* new power plants are running. It will take
many decades before the thousands of power plants of this scenario are
running. The current 90 year known reserves may only last 30 years
under aggressive building, but the precise need for new uranium will
be known decades in advance. It is then (in plenty of time) that
folks will be willing to commit to spending large sums of money on
exploration and efficiency improvements.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.

As I noted previously.

When? see point 3 below where you deny addressing this.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?

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

As stated previously (but snipped) current seawater extraction is about
10 times more expensive than mining.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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).

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.

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

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

I await your response to the analysis above.

I will note that you completely ignored yet another point of mine that
you snipped. The citation that *you* gave and are arguing from takes
the position that the supply of uranium is not a worry at all. It directly
contradicts your thesis and goes into a couple of pages of arguments
against it. You didn't bother to mention that or give any defense against
those arguments (related to my objections, but in greater depth with
much more historical info). Why are these arguments wrong?

Chris

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Chris Buckley

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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?

Post by Scott Lurndal
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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)

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal
"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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
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

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. 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

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Lynn McGuire
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

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Chris Buckley
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.

Yes, that's what I said.

Post by Chris Buckley
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

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Post by Chris Buckley
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.

Just interjecting that you clearly don't. 2.8% doubles
in less than 26 years.

There's a shortcut for this, call the 'Rule of 72'. If you have an
an account bearing compound interest, you can divide 72 by the rate
to get the number of compoundings required to double it.

pt

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
picked by me from here
"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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by D
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Post by Scott Lurndal
It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their
limitations. From a physics standpoint.

Best regards,
Daniel

[Chris Buckley]

Post by D

Post by Scott Lurndal
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

Chris

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Scott Lurndal
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...

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Mike Van Pelt
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.

Post by Mike Van Pelt
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

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Compare with mercury from burning coal, which remains dangerous
until the protons decay.

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.
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.

Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

Silly idea to waste it that way. In any case, it's not as
easy as you might think to 'throw it into the sun.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/20/this-is-why-we-dont-shoot-earths-garbage-into-the-sun/?sh=6a0a1a05d63e

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

PK Dick's /Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?/ has something like
that.

One of the advantages of moving to "the colonies" is that the
led-lined undies can be ditched.

The film /Blade Runner/ was not set in quite the same universe.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I dunno - my brother's brother in law was a Canadian nuclear engineer
who in his prime (70s/80s) was regularly installing CANDUs in all
sorts of foreign climes.

Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister

Obviously I mean without Uncle Sam or other nuclear power gifting it
to them.

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister

Yes and no. We didn't have an indigenous nuclear weapon capacity
but from 1963 to 1984, we had nuclear weapons on loan from the US.

Hilariously, while the US very reasonably requested security measures
at least as stringent as American bomb security, this was waived
early on so that the Quebec facility could open at the same time as
the Ontario one. While the Quebec facility was an easy commute from
Montreal, it was felt the risk of a political backlash due to a delay
was unacceptable.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.

I dunno - my brother's brother in law was a Canadian nuclear engineer
who in his prime (70s/80s) was regularly installing CANDUs in all
sorts of foreign climes.
Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister
Obviously I mean without Uncle Sam or other nuclear power gifting it
to them.

Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.

Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler
Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.

Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers

It has been some years since I checked and when I did the information I
remember finding was that the NORAD CO rotates between an American and a
Canadian every year. BUT checking again just now that was apparently
wrong. The CO is always an American and the Deputy CO is always a
Canadian. My apologies for the error.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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 am very, very much in favor of nuclear power. But I am against nuclear
power systems which produce plutonium as a byproduct, because refining
plutonium for use in bombs is chemical process that is relatively simple
compared with separating uranium isotopes. And I am not in favor of nuclear
bombs.

It's a thing that can be done, but people need to actually spend the money
to do it instead of yelling about how nuclear power is terrible or how nuclear
power is wonderful.
--scott

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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 am very, very much in favor of nuclear power. But I am against nuclear
power systems which produce plutonium as a byproduct, because refining
plutonium for use in bombs is chemical process that is relatively simple
compared with separating uranium isotopes. And I am not in favor of nuclear
bombs.
It's a thing that can be done, but people need to actually spend the money
to do it instead of yelling about how nuclear power is terrible or how nuclear
power is wonderful.

A good discussion here. TL;DNR - viable as an adjunct to other forms of
energy production, but not capable of replacing fossil fuels on its own.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m#***@tocid.16

[The Horny Goat]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.

I regret to inform you Byte ceased publication a quarter century ago.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by Lynn McGuire
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.

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've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)

Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.

I regret to inform you Byte ceased publication a quarter century ago.

Just proves how determined and dedicated Pournelle was.