[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Archive Top]
Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Fusion Info: Bush team eyes star power for energy needs
- To: Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>, <cdn-nucl-l@informer2.cis.mcmaster.ca>, ans-cfri@nuke-ans.org, gmarsh@anl.gov, trandall@nationalcenter.org, henry.bradford@ns.sympatico.ca, rsircom@chebucto.ns.ca, samstanford@attbi.com, BaddestDad@aol.com, jbkennedy@mac.com
- Subject: Re: [cdn-nucl-l] Re: Fusion Info: Bush team eyes star power for energy needs
- From: George Stanford <gstanford@aya.yale.edu>
- Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 11:46:17 -0600
- In-reply-to: <BA114F5A.173D7%muckerheide@attbi.com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/private/cdn-nucl-l/>
- List-help: <mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=help>
- List-id: Canadian Nuclear Discussion List <cdn-nucl-l.mailman.McMaster.CA>
- List-post: <mailto:cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l>,<mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l>,<mailto:cdn-nucl-l-request@mailman.McMaster.CA?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <140.3d48ba8.2b1a40e4@aol.com>
Jim:
No need to
think about seawater for the next several hundred years. With fast
reactors, we won't even have to mine any more uranium for a long
time. See the attached PDF figure ("US Energy Reserves"),
courtesy of Chuck Boardman. The uranium the U.S. has already
mined can provide over 2,000 TW-years of energy. That would
supply the U.S. (total energy) for 750 years at the 1994 rate of
consumption.
Cheers,
George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 05:56 PM 12/2/2002 -0500, Jim Muckerheide wrote:
Well Rod,
There you go again confusing engineering with gov't r&d!
:-)
A good gov't "engineer" is "ever more $$ for ever more
trivial solutions"
including (especially?) fusion energy
With nominal private effort and minor progress toward honest
standards,
fission energy is less than half current relative costs for at least
several
hundred years (with U from seawater?)
Regards, Jim
on 11/30/02 11:27 AM, AtomicRod@aol.com at AtomicRod@aol.com
wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/30/02 12:43:47 AM, adam.mclean@utoronto.ca
writes:
>
> << I completely agree and understand that commercial fission
reactors came
> about much faster than what will eventually happen for fusion
reactors.
> On a scale of difficulty to attain, I'm sure that you'll agree that
a
> controlled fusion reaction is much more difficult than a
controlled
> fission reaction. >>
>
> Adam:
>
> Exactly my point. Fission is easy; fusion is extremely
difficult.
>
> Easy = cheap.
> Difficult = expensive.
> I do not want a challenge; I want power.
>
> "A good engineer is a lazy cheapskate."
> Rod Adams 2002
>
> Rod Adams
>
www.atomicinsights.com
> _______________________________________________
> cdn-nucl-l mailing list
> cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
>
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l@mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
Attachment:
US Energy Reserves.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document