Sir Vivor,

Granite has an SG of 2.7 (I used 3 as an approximation) the figures I took from the Ranger mine.

Uranium is about $100 per kg. The example Protagoras gave was 4g per ton with 2g/t extracted. 2g is 20c worth, to mine 1 tonne of ore, crush, treat and remove the metal.

For gold at $1000/ounce 5g/ton is marginal.

For this grade of ore, in situ leeching is used.

Baygon has claimed "we can reduce our emissions to zero by 2020 using existing renewable technologies" and must be aware of technology that everyone else has missed. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

Shadow minister
Beyond Zero Emissions has published a strategic plan (executive summary is available here http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/preview-exec-sum14.pdf.
Similarly the Rocky Mountain Institute has produced a similar plan for the US.
The Germans have identifies a combination of wind, solar and methane as being capable of powering its economy.
On the other side of the ledger there is an online publication (just the numbers?) that looks at using existing technology to meet the UK's energy needs and finds it comes up short.
What seems to be emerging is that there are countries that can apply existing technologies to reduce their emissions to zero.
My concern is that it often people only look at replacing existing consumption without also looking at efficiencies for example the shaw system http://www.airconserve.com.au/products_smac.htm has had some spectacular results but the government is reluctant to adopt it. (yet another Australian invention that has gone overseas Johnson Electronics has bought the international rights)
In an earlier post I referred to Mark Diesendorf's presentation at the debate I organized on the fifth of February - he too identified the technologies that have been commericially proven. In addition to those that are commercially proven there are a host of technologies that are waiting in the wings (gen IV reactors are in this group) that show promise but still need to be thoroughly tested.
In short a combination of energy efficiencies and the application of existing renewable technologies can, within a decade, reduce our emissions to zero.
BUT as I have stated it is not really a technology issue but one of political will. Furthermore we know how it works - once there is evidence that these technologies will be supported in the market place we will find that the investment funds will become available for further technological development. (Diverting the subsidies from the fossil fuel industry would be a good first step.)

Shadow Minister, I don't get it. I asked about volumes and you responded with dollars. Please, let's get our apples and oranges and lawn kranskies sorted, and our fractions, (eg apples per orange, oranges per kransky, etc) sorted, too. you can't expect to answer the question by throwing in yet another factor to convert.

I'm happy with your choice of a value for the SpG of granite, at 2.7 - the range given by the CRC Handbook, 25th edition, 1941, is from 2.64 to 2.76, and 2.7 seems fair enough.

But back to the earlier questions, and if you don't want to answer them, just say so:

"Did your [earlier calculation include the specific gravity of granite? It seems to me a good basis for comparison.

"Were you calculating the tonnes of uranium metal, or U235 isotope, the object of enrichment? The latter is a small fraction of a small fraction of the granite volume.

What fractions did you use?"

If you don't want to say, just say so.

“I see maths is not your strong point.”

Shadow Minister – If you paid more attention to other posters’ information, you would understand that the maths are not mine. The information was extracted from my archives as I advised, therefore I am merely the messenger:

http://www.stormsmith.nl/

“Ranger produces more than 5000tons (sic) of uranium.” I think you mean 5,000 “tonnes” but who’s quibbling when one extracts info from the dubious writings of the international IAEA or WNA?

Nevertheless it’s an interesting figure SM because the tailings’ leak at Ranger, operating in the surrounds of Kakadu Park, is also 5,000 times above the normal level and contains all the daughter products from the uranium decay series which amounts to about 15 different radionuclides according to the Supervising Scientist, Alan Hughes.

The leaking radionuclides include radium which has a half life of some 1602 years from memory and is about one million times more active than uranium. Radon is the progeny of radium 226 which therefore makes radon (3.7 days half-life) emissions practically infinite. Can you do the maths on that one SM?

Do you know how long the leak has been occurring SM? Ten years? Fifteen years? Why do you persist with the nonsense that the nuclear industry is emissions free?

“For this grade of ore, in situ leeching is used.”

“Leeching?” “Leeches?” Love the Freudian slip SM - particularly from one who professes knowledge on mining technologies.

Protagoras,

No wonder your posts are full of rubbish. Ceedata is a one man protest band that specializes in repackaging the myths published on other websites without ever bothering to check the facts.

Particularly amusing is fact sheet No4 "At the end of 2005 the world known recoverable uranium resources amounted to about 3.6 million tonnes (t)" (With a bit of prospecting it is now closer to 15mt.)

These one man bands give themselves authoritative titles like "Oxford Research group" and spend their time churning out new "research" without even lifting their bums off their chairs.

Try and use you brain to filter out the rubbish otherwise you are just letting these crackpots do your thinking for you.

Sir Vivor,

The earlier example that P gave was about 4g of natural uranium per ton(ne) of rock extracted.

P's cal had a block of tailings 100m x 100m x 3000m = 30 000 000 m3 or roughly 90 million tons granite extracted for the production of 165t of natural uranium, which is clearly ridiculous.

“These one man bands give themselves authoritative titles like "Oxford Research group" and spend their time churning out new "research" without even lifting their bums off their chairs.”

Shadow Minister – Your ignorance is becoming tedious and my time is valuable. I have asked previously that you provide links to support your jabberwocky but alas, none have been provided. Instead, you continue peddling falsehoods and exaggerations.

Storm Van Leeuwen has been publishing papers (including peer reviewed) on energy since at least the mid eighties and he is not affiliated with the Oxford Research Group (ORG) as you would have us believe:

http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/EnergyPolicyJune85.pdf

Rather the ORG publishes Van Leeuwen's papers. Furthermore, among ORG’s staff, consultants, patrons and trustees is an impressive array of people trained in nuclear physics, economics, global and human security, international relations, atomic weapons, medicine, international law, armed conflict etc etc. The research group has also been established since the 80’s:

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/about_us

Furthermore, all ethical scientists and researchers refer to the publications of others from which they have drawn their conclusions as you may observe in this peer-reviewed paper (74 references) and yet another paper which you will conveniently refuse to acknowledge:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/4/1/17

The IAEA and the WNA do not provide any references so they can spin as much as they like and it is not so strange to witness their propensity to copy each others information and then provide the details to an unwitting public.

“Particularly amusing is fact sheet No4 "At the end of 2005 the world known recoverable uranium resources amounted to about 3.6 million tonnes (t)" (With a bit of prospecting it is now closer to 15mt.)”

“ A bit of prospecting?” What your duplicitous post actually means SM is that the WNA and the IAEA (2009) claimed there were 5.5 million tonnes of “discovered” resources by the end of 2006? or 2007? (who would know?) and the “undiscovered” resources are 10.5 million tonnes (“200 hundred years supply” at current consumption (WNA). So would that be high grade or low grade ore SM and is their crystal ball for hire?