Uranium clean/dirty energy source....

[iGas]

What is your take on uranium mining and processing if the project is near your town?

 

[HappyPuppy]

You are..13, aren't you?

 

[Fenixgoon]

Hell to the yeah - mine uranium for nuclear reactors and reprocess the thorium for use in breeder reactors. of course, that requires construction of new reactors, which would create jobs and provide a massive boost to our power grid, without being dependent on any type of fossil fuels. jesus christ, who would want that :roll:

 

[Jeff7]

I like the solution one of my professors had: Put a nuclear power plant in every town. Then no one can complain, "Not in my back yard," because everyone would have one in their back yard.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Hell to the yeah - mine uranium for nuclear reactors and reprocess the thorium for use in breeder reactors. of course, that requires construction of new reactors, which would create jobs and provide a massive boost to our power grid, without being dependent on any type of fossil fuels. jesus christ, who would want that :roll:

:thumbsup:


Anyway, fission for now, but for the future, goooooo fusion!

 

[Hacp]

Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive?

i believe U-238 (standard isotope) is simply less radioactive than U-235 (which is used in bombs)

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
You are..13, aren't you?

I want to see ATOT position on the subject as away to gauge the market before I invest in US uranium mining companies.

Thank you for playing.

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

 

[Ruptga]

I'd be in favor of it, may as well use all the resources available to us. Also, nuclear power is waaaaay more clean and safe than joe blow is willing to give it credit for.

 

[octopus41092]

The only country that is energy independent is France. Guess why. Nuclear power.

 

[IGBT]

eco-KOOKS want all human activity to cease so expect all kinds of alarmist reasons why you shouldn't want clean reliable energy.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

 

[techs]

As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

All this nasty resource extraction has to happen somewhere, and I'd rather it be on our soil so we have full control and distribution of it. Nuclear energy is more efficient, cleaner, and not that hard to store if you do it right. I say we do what the French do - nuclear power with re-using fuel so that it becomes inert faster, supplemented by wind/hydro/geothermic/solar power.

 

[iGas]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go for the University of British Columbia. UBC is where I worked with "uranium earth" during my study there.

Uranium earth is unprocessed mining earth or lightly processed. Raw uranium earth can have 1-10 lbs of uranium per metric ton of earth.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: iGas

Originally posted by: Hacp
Isn't most uranium non radioactive? So mining won't really affect anybody.

Uranium earth isn't radioactive but the majority of the treehuggers doesn't know that.

Dumbass


Edit: To expand: WTF is uranium earth? All uranium is radioactive. Natural uranium, enriched uranium, depleted uranium, it's all radioactive.

Maybe I'm a dumbass and same go for the University of British Columbia. UBC is where I worked with "uranium earth" during my study there.

Uranium earth is unprocessed mining earth or lightly processed. Raw uranium earth can have 1-10 lbs of uranium per metric ton of earth.

You worked with uranium ore and you are under the impression that it isn't radioactive? Your nuts are going to fall off.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

this thread gets :roll:

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: techs
...
And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

Tens of millions? :roll:
We aren't building Chernobyls here, you know.:laugh:

They screwed up a LOT of things to get that to go as wrong as it did.
You know what happens when there's a serious malfunction here? Three Mile Island. It freaked out people because everyone turns into a blathering, paranoid moron when they hear the word "radiation," but let's see, how many millions are dead now because of TMI? Hmm, not even one million. A thousand? Nope. A hundred? Hm, it looks like the only casualty was nuclear energy's reputation among people who hold irrational fear of it. The containment systems worked just as they were designed to do. And new reactor designs are even safer; this new pebble bed technology is said to be meltdown-proof.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: techs
As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

And as for the idiotic (yes, IDIOTIC) statement that France is energy independent, they are 100 percent NOT. They only use nuclear for electricity. And they have to import uranium to run their nuke plants. Plus import oil and gas for their cars and heating (no, they don't heat with electricity). So as opposed to Germany which mines it own coal for its electricity and imports oil and gas for cars and heating, France is in exactly the same position. OR rather Germany is in a better position. They use their own coal while France imports uranium.

And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

a Chernobyl in new reactors is very nearly impossible. new reactors have containment buildings, water systems that are gravity fed and do not conduct military experiments in them like Chernobyl. we also train the people who run them, unlike russia.

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

 

[iGas]

As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

I agree with Coal, NG, hydroelectric as the primary sources for energy. Sorry to use OPEC/oil to draw attention to the poll.

However, NG is at its peak capacity, and clean coal is inconclusive.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: herm0016
you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Nuclear power will also steal your children, and call your mother lewd names.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: iGas

As any 12 year old should know, almost no oil is used to create electricity anywhere in the world. Coal, natural gas, hydroelectric are the primary sources for electrical generation.
So building nukes wouldn't affect OPEC nor the price of gas.

I agree with Coal, NG, hydroelectric as the primary sources for energy. Sorry to use OPEC/oil to draw attention to the poll.

However, NG is at its peak capacity, and clean coal is inconclusive.

ng is not at its peak. not even close. our business is down a lot because ng is so cheap right now. ( i log ng wells in wyoming)

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: herm0016
you are calling people idiots and claiming that nuclear will kill " tens of millions within weeks"?

pot.. meet kettle...

btw: i am licensed by the NRC to handle radioactive sources ie.. i have lots of training.

Nuclear power will also steal your children, and call your mother lewd names.

LOL

That came out of nowhere.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I always had the impression nuclear was very dirty but I keep hearing it's very clean, at least while it's being produced. The issue is the waste. If they can figure out a way to properly get rid of the waste or turn it into a non dangerous waste, then I'm all for it.

Nuclear disasters can be really nasty and wipe out a few cities, but when you think about it, so can gas disasters, all it takes is for an explosion to chain react with the main pipe line or something. Although rare, disasters can happen with almost anything.

I say they just hire people that peddle a generator bike for half an hour, then they take turns, and have thousands of these bikes and lot of workers on different shifts.

No, really, that would be cool.

Bottom line is, it would rock to totally break loose of oil/opec regulated products. Same with cars. Screw opec.

Problem is though, I can see it happen where opec will just end up regulating whatever new source of energy we end up using, so we may win the pollution war, but we wont win the money war.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: techs
...
And would I rather put up with the health effects of burning coal and natural gas which can cause some illnesses as I get older, than risk contaminating a very large portion of America and killing possibly tens of millions within weeks, I will have to go with continued burning of coal and natural gas. Though I would like to spend just a little more money to clean up coal emissions as much as is cost effective.

Tens of millions? :roll:
We aren't building Chernobyls here, you know.:laugh:

They screwed up a LOT of things to get that to go as wrong as it did.
You know what happens when there's a serious malfunction here? Three Mile Island. It freaked out people because everyone turns into a blathering, paranoid moron when they hear the word "radiation," but let's see, how many millions are dead now because of TMI? Hmm, not even one million. A thousand? Nope. A hundred? Hm, it looks like the only casualty was nuclear energy's reputation among people who hold irrational fear of it. The containment systems worked just as they were designed to do. And new reactor designs are even safer; this new pebble bed technology is said to be meltdown-proof.

TMI is what triggered the freeze on construction, but the larger problem remained: what to do with all of the waste. for over half a century, its been sitting (leaking) on the grounds of the power plants that used it.

is yucca mountain online yet? when will it take commercial waste, in addition to weapons waste? what is the capacity of the site, in terms of years of current (25%) energy production plus all existing waste? what about a higher (66%) percentage of energy generation.