You mean the ones who live here?
Posted on 08/22/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
That's because US government scientists have just announced research in which they've massively increased the efficiency of techniques for extracting uranium from the ocean - and that means that supplies of uranium are secure for the future even if the entire human race moves to fission power for all its energy needs.
"We have shown that our adsorbents can extract five to seven times more uranium at uptake rates seven times faster than the world's best adsorbents," says Chris Janke of the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of America's top nuke labs.
At the moment people don't use nuclear power much (the UK's small and aged nuclear fleet can barely generate four times as much power as its wind farms, showing just how little energy we're talking about here: just 8 per cent of our national energy needs are derived from nuclear right now). As a result there's no scarcity of uranium, and indeed nobody has bothered exploring for more of it for decades.
But one day people really will have to stop using fossil fuel for nearly everything - either to prevent a global warming apocalypse, or (perhaps more realistically) because supplies will eventually run out. There's no chance of renewables generating the sort of energy the future human race will require to live above the poverty line, so something else will be required.
Anti-nuclear people have always argued that the something had better not be nuclear because more nuclear powerplants equals more weapons-grade material (not by any means necessarily true, though it seemed as though it might be the case back in the early days of nuclear technology). And even if you think nuclear bombs are OK, the fearmongers have always added that there just isn't enough uranium about to keep the lights on for long.
That may very well be correct, provided all the uranium must be dug out of the ground and run through a powerplant just once before being classified as waste and dumped. But in fact almost all of the spent fuel can be recycled and used again (nobody bothers much right now, as new uranium is cheaper - and in the States recycling the waste has actually been banned at the behest of the anti-nuclear tendency).
And best of all, there's an awful lot more uranium in the sea than there is in the ground. But until now, the costs of getting it out have been so steep as to make it unfeasible even given nuclear-power economics. (Normally, fuel price isn't a big deal for nuclear power as it is a tiny proportion of the cost of having a station - so double-price uranium only sends up the cost of the electricity by a few per cent at most. But seawater uranium to date has cost many times double.)
But now Janke and his colleagues at Oak Ridge and the Pacific Northwest federal atom labs have massively increased the efficiency of seawater extraction.
"Our HiCap adsorbents are made by subjecting high-surface area polyethylene fibers to ionizing radiation, then reacting these pre-irradiated fibers with chemical compounds that have a high affinity for selected metals," says Janke. The allied US government experts behind the tech presented details at a major boffinry conference in Philadelphia yesterday.
Nobody's saying that the new HiCap tech can compete with ordinary mining on cost yet - but that's almost irrelevant. What HiCap offers is, first, assurances to nuclear powerplant operators that they will still be able to obtain uranium for the foreseeable future with no more than a massive price increase - say no worse than three or four times over - no matter whether landbased reserves play out or become oversubscribed. That means their plants' total operating costs won't climb by any more than a marginal amount. Thus, a major source of risk for investors is removed.
Secondly, the prospect of being able to extract billions of tons of uranium from the sea means that humanity has access to enough fuel to meet all its energy needs - all of them, not just present day electricity demand but also the other 90 per cent currently supplied in thermal form - for thousands of years.
One US government statement issued this week says that oceanic uranium could last 6,500 years: but a more conservative estimate assuming use of recycling (as offered by Professor J C Mackay of Cambridge) is say three millennia with all humans using as much energy as a present-day European does. So we've gone with that for our headline.
There's more from the US government labs here and here. ®
5,000 A.D.? It will take that long just to get the permits to build a new reactor.
Actually when things go wrong in Fusion power, it just stops. The toughest part getting the old ‘50s H-bombs working is keeping the reaction going.
The radiation produced cools the reaction below ignition point (near 20M deg with Deuterium-Tridium reaction, 40M with H3 reaction) If I remember correctly, just trying to keep it simple.
Quite an ignorant point of view you got there. One of your examples is a reactor where the safety interlocks were disabled, and the other is the result of the Japanese war machine being locked into a struggle to the death with the West.
Nuclear power IS our future. Uranium is almost as abundant on earth as tin is, and there's more thorium than that. If we'd stop THROWING AWAY the products of nuclear power, and process our waste like France does, we'd have power that actually renews itself.
Really? That's probably the most newsworthy/noteworthy bit in this whole thread. All the skeptics quoted in here would definitely like to know if:
(a) your buddy is still alive and healthy after a month or two; and (b) if his electric bill is now zero (or less) thanks to the output of the thing.
You mean the ones who live here?
He’s had it about 3 weeks. He’s gotten power from it and he’s run little tests with it, but it is mostly waiting for other hardware on order to make it useful. It needs a transfer switch and disconnect and some other stuff to be able to use it for his house. I figure he’ll have it done and running full time some time by the end of September.
Let me get this straight. You are trying to tell me that for the second time in my life I am wrong? Is that correct?
Well, **** you!
;-)
Yeah, my understanding is one of the problems of Fusion power is getting it going, but I thought once a “chain reaction” got going, the results are hinted at in the phrase “chain reaction” and it continues until starved of food.
Now, are you going to suggest that I could be wrong twice in the same day?!
There are no commercially viable “fusion based” nuclear power plants. There probably will not be for another 50 years or so if ever. All nuclear power plants are currently “fission based” the newer designs are extremely safe. According to the article there will be enough fuel to power fission based reactors for thousands of years.
So called “cold fusion” or “low-energy nuclear reactions” (LENR) is still more in the realm of perpetual motion machines. Unfortunately, after several decades there still are no useful heat generators based on this process that have held up to full the scrutiny of the scientific community.
Original Reference from Oak Ridge National Labs
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20120821-00
Actually I believe he bought a Defkalion unit (Rossi Competitor), because it make electricity directly.
Thorium would power us for another 5 million years EASY!
I must have slept through a news cycle. What reactor was it that failed and caused harm to the people of Hiroshima?
A buddy took delivery of a Rossi-Focardi Nickel-Hydrogen fusion reactor a few weeks ago. He paid $4K for it and so far is satisfied. Why isn’t fusion being considered as a cheap energy source by this article?
And when it is all spent out he can sell the core for copper!
“cold fusion” is more of a electrochemical reaction than a nuclear one.
It is not totally understood yet and it is interesting but the lack of neutron emissions indicates it is not fusion.
Fusion is the direction of the future. Just not an easy one to sustain for more than miliseconds.
Thorium Salt Fission is a far better idea which can be implemnteded a LOT sooner than Hot Fusion ever will be
[ Nuclear power is safe....Tell that to the Russians...and the folks in Hiroshima.
I must have slept through a news cycle. What reactor was it that failed and caused harm to the people of Hiroshima? ]
Boiling water High Pressure reactors are just plain stuipid when we can have atmospheric pressure reactors that have chemically inert ionically bonded reactants with PASSIVE safety systems.
So true. A 10 gray source is fatal if you get a dose all at once, but just stand a few meters away and you will get a much lower dose.
For those interested, on YouTube you can watch the excellent made for TV movie “the day after” from 1983 in its entirety. Its a very nice depiction of a serious radiation situation and generally accurate.
There are three likely possibilities. 1. Your “friend” has been ripped off. 2. Your “friend” is trying to rip you off. 3. You and your “friend” are trying to rip other people off.
None of Rossi’s “E-Cat reactors” have been released and validated by third parties. It is always just a month or two away and then some new claim is made which they say they need to work on first. This has been going on for quite some time. I would love for you to prove me wrong.
Actually I believe he bought a Defkalion unit (Rossi Competitor), because it make electricity directly.
- - - - -
I wasn’t aware that Defkalion was selling products yet.
It doesn’t appear they are aware of it either:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/products
The technology is currently in its final stages of becoming an industrialized and commercially viable prototype.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.