In reply to your very first comment in this thread, it's called "Retro stabilisation" where all fuels, natural substances were used for sustainability of every day life at that particular time, technology gave way to more intricate machine design, enabling man to dig deeper, collect more crap than ever before and put grunge to good use! Hence recycling of almost everything we use. When the recycling becomes too boring, some billionaire will cotton on to lassoing the nearest passing comet and bleed that dry too, the boundaries are endless.

Hi Bugsy

This post will be short and sweet. The main difference between us is that you look for reasons why something will fail and I look for reasons why something will succeed.

Yes, nuclear power IS inexhaustible. I have never spoken to a nuclear engineer (as opposed to a "nuclear scientist" who has never even been inside of a power plant) who didn't agree that nuclear power is inexhaustible and the only power source that is (except for the Sun of course, which is also a nuclear power plant -- THE nuclear power plant.

What is not inexhaustible, as far as I know, is uranium. We will probably never run out of uranium, however, because the "waste" (a misnomer) or spent rods are recyclable. If and when we do run out of uranium we will simply use a different fuel, of which there are many.

I hope you will read my book or visit my website (or both). In particular read the information about "nuclear hydrogen" and why I call it that.

I'm not sure that you'd be much fun at a party, but I enjoy your comments, negative though may be. I know...my cup is half full and yours is half empty.

Cheers
Ralph

Yeah, whatever Ralph. The hypocrisy is astounding. You don't seem to be too positive about any other power sources other than nuclear.

It also seems you are alluding to nuclear fusion, which is what drives the sun. Fusion technology would certainly seem to be a way out of this, and is quite different to fission technology. At the moment though, we can't build fusion reactors, since they don't really exist yet, at least not in a properly usable form.

A negative argument is necessary in assessing risks, otherwise you are just whistling dixie. And nuclear fission carries big long-term risks.

I really don't want to see a scenario where we all build a bunch of nuclear reactors, which still may fail to address global warming considering the time it would take and how much of our power would be needed (for making hydrogen we would need a LOT more power than now). Then we would have a lot of reactors to decommission when they run down in 40 years or so and still have warming problems.

do you mind if i just call you 'trouble', for short? you convict yourself of ignorance when you say uranium will never run out. it's a finite resource. f-i-n-i-t-e. there's just so much on the planet. it can be recycled, but not indefinitely. i have seen estimates of 'peak uranium' as low as 2020, made by people vastly more knowledgeable than you. the processing of uranium238 into u235 is not free, it consumes a lot of electricity. mining it is just as difficult as coal, and even more noxious. then there's the residue, so inconvenient- just being near it kills people in wholesale lots.

you may be referring to the possibility of inexhaustible fusion power. this is different technology, so different that confusing the two removes any credibility from your post. fusion power is a long way off in the view of scientists working in the field. for the next 50 years, the choice is simply economic collapse or renewable energy.

but i don't accuse you of being in the pay of mining interests. they generally get more value for their money, in the way of facts, logic, and command of the language. they have john howard on their payroll, they aren't about to waste a shilling on you.

i urge you to take the other side of the argument. much more room for disorganized blather among the amateur bloggers, and if you need money you can distribute your book in direct downloads with help from paypal. if anyone asks why you've switched sides: just call me 'god', and this post 'on the road to damascus'.

The issue of the world running out of uranium to fuel nuclear reactors can be avoided by building fast breeder reactors (FBRs) instead of thermal reactors.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

That article indicates that at present FBRs are uneconomic compared with thermal reactors because of the low price of uranium. However, that position would change when the price of uranium went up as a result of increased demand and diminishing supply.

Even if it were true that there was only a 40 year life for uranium based nuclear power, that would not be a reason not to go down that route. It would give us a 40 year period during which to find another economic solution, such as perhaps finally getting fusion power to work.

For all the talk of adopting renewables, it has yet to be demonstrated, even on paper, that they are capable of providing a significant proportion of the world's power, let alone doing so at an economically viable cost. The problems associated with intermittency of wind and solar power cannot just be wished away. The links I provided earlier show how Denmark has not solved those problems, but merely sidestepped them by passing them to its power trading neighbours.

Sylvia.

To Demos

You don't read very well. I never said that uranium is inexhaustible. I simply said that, including the reprocessing, we have many years worth of uranium. It is nuclear power itself that is inexhaustible....especially when we finally get to fusion.

I don't appreciate your remark about my depth of knowledge. I have been studying this subject for almost 20 years...not on the scientific side, but on the logic and common sense side. I have based every assursion, every belief and every fact in my book on those two principles. I have had several prominent nuclear engineers endorse my book, and I have received a commendation from Scotland's North Highland College and their "Decommissioning and Environmental Remediation Centre" in Thurso. I'll be happy to send you a copy if you'll simply give me your mailing address or your email address.

Your assessment of my knowledge in this area convinces me that you shoot before you examine your ammunition. I'll be happy to debate anyone, including you, on this rather broad subject.