But despite the large US demand for uranium imports, the world uranium mining industry lacks adequate capacity to meet demand. A large amount of the nuclear fuel imported into the US comes from decommissioned nuclear warheads from Russia. The warheads trace their origins back to the Soviet Union.

If you thought the US had a problem with imported oil, now you know that there’s an issue with uranium fuel as well. Of course, I’m not the only one who knows this. It’s a national security issue, and I can tell you that things are about to change in a very big way.

So let’s discuss the fuel, uranium, which is priced and traded as an oxide, U3O8. (It’s a yellow powder, often referred to as yellowcake.) The price of uranium oxide peaked in June 2007, at about $135 per pound. The price declined from there, and plummeted in late 2008 with the global crash and stock market meltdown (no pun intended).

Byron King Daily Reckoning Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Oh, and while we are at it----churn out tons of raw materials to produce nuclear weapons, or can have disastrous consequences if released into the environment.

----------" Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer, from 11.5 cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 14.8 per 100,000 children in 2004."------------

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/childhood

-------------" Thyroid cancer and the children Most people around the world have forgotten the events of 1986[Chernobyl]. People in the area, however, are reminded of the nuclear accident whenever they look at their children and youth. The children are often behind in their growth, have poor dental health, immune disorders, and have a 10 times higher than normal rate of thyroid cancer.

Dr. Virginia LiVolsa of the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, who has studied the thyroid cancer patients from the affected countries, found that more than 40 percent of the patients were children 4 years old or younger at the time of the accident. "The group at maximum risk is those exposed to high radiation levels when they were younger than 5 years," Dr. LiVolsa stated in a Reuters interview. "This is the age when the thyroid gland is most sensitive to ionizing radiation."---------

http://rarediseases.about.com/od/rarediseasest/a/chernobyl.htm

Even discounting accidents, there is always the danger of intentional release of ionizing radiation, bombs, or sabotage. The more radioactive materials and nuclear plants there are, the greater the risk. And the statistical probability of a disastrous event occurring increases exponentially.

You woiuld probably be more effective at unnecessarily scaring people if you revert to your pre-Chernobyl tactics, though agreed, its pretty difficult to get even unscientific people excited about radiation leaks into the North Sea which amount to 1/1000th of average background radiation, as Greenpease tried, and the pavement stones of St. Peters square are more radioactive than any area off the property of the Chernobyl plant.

Just because you want to get cancer does not mean that everyone else does. --------" People in the area, however, are reminded of the nuclear accident whenever they look at their children and youth. The children are often behind in their growth, have poor dental health, immune disorders, and have a 10 times higher than normal rate of thyroid cancer."---------------

10 times the normal cancer rate is not " nowhere near as dangerous as most anti-nuclear advocates would have everyone believe."

So, you think I'm an alarmist because I think 10X the normal rate of cancer for children is too high? Even my dogs are smarter than you are. When something is dangerous, they back off and leave it alone.

Well known, well established fact----ionizing radiation mutants and kills living cells.

Ken----Hanford nuclear site was used to enrich spent uranium fuel rods from civilian reactors to produce nuclear weapons. There was an article in the Oregonian not long ago, that even after spending something like $30 Billion to date and budgeted $60 Billion for clean up----EPA estimates the site will remain dangerously radioactive for 30,000 years.

As far as the contamination at the Hanford site it is a very expensive process because of the manner in which is is being handled. I was chair of a peer review committee for a study done in the late 1980s and the proposed approach was not followed. Hazel O'Leery the Secretary of Energy under Clinton negoatiated a agreement between DOE, EPA, and the State of Washington where the groups agreed that all the tank waste would be processed into a glass form and removed to the Yucca Mountain Repository. This may not be possible since the Yucca Mountain project is being terminated by political fiat in Washington, DC.

Despite billions spent on cleanup, Hanford won't be clean for thousands of years By Scott Learn, The Oregonian February 09, 2010, 8:57PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/despite_billions_spent_on_clea.html

Obama budget increases spending for cleanup at Hanford nuclear site in Washington By Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian February 02, 2010, 11:18AM

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2010/02/obama_budget_increases_spendin.html

Hanford Department of Energy site

http://photos.oregonlive.com/oregonian/2010/02/hanford_department_of_energy_s.html

Feds warn Hanford nuclear cleanup would threaten Columbia River with radioactive contaminants

By APFebruary 10th, 2010 Science News

http://blog.taragana.com/science/2010/02/10/feds-warn-hanford-nuclear-cleanup-would-threaten-columbia-river-with-radioactive-contaminants-592

Analysis warns Hanford cleanup would take decades (AP) – Feb 10, 2010 Associated Press

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h_k4-r41AY_-RNQHDl8NsRH1YQFgD9DPHIIG0

--------" As far as the contamination at the Hanford site it is a very expensive process because of the manner in which is is being handled."---------

And it is STILL astronomically expensive. Somehow, everyone seems to keeps forgetting to include these expenses when they tell us that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap. The correct answer is that it is none of the above.

--------" Hazel O'Leery the Secretary of Energy under Clinton negoatiated a agreement between DOE, EPA, and the State of Washington where the groups agreed that all the tank waste would be processed into a glass form and removed to the Yucca Mountain Repository. This may not be possible since the Yucca Mountain project is being terminated by political fiat in Washington, DC."--------

Because the people of Nevada are no more anxious to have high level radioactive wastes trucked in from all over the place and dumped on them than anyone else.

It seems to me that trying to clean up radioactive nuclear waste presents about the same problem as trying to clean up a car full of marshmallow creme that has been sitting in a parking lot in Phoenix on a hot summer day with a box of kleenex.

Be careful where you stand when you open the door---it is REALLY hard to get out when you get hot marshmallow creme in your shoes.

Stand back everyone! He has duct tape and he knows how to use it!

Plant manager, Homer Simpson. Design and engineering supervisor, Red Green.

Living in Richland, WA., we raised two boys as close to Hanford as you could get. We taught our children not to play in the street and understand that there was very cold water in the river that often claimed the lives of children and adults. As parents we were often anxious but teenage drivers are part of being a parent.

I also know the radiation exposure to my children from Hanford and Colombia Generating Station was zero. This information is available at the Richland public library.

I also worked on Yucca Mountain. Putting spent fuel in storage casks and putting the casks in a tunnel a thousand feet below the surface and a thousand feet above ground water is not the same as ‘dumped on them’.

We should not be using coal either. This is the 21st Century, not the 18th Century. We have better options than nuclear OR coal.

Leland-------" I also know the radiation exposure to my children from Hanford and Colombia Generating Station was zero."---------------

---------" I also worked on Yucca Mountain. Putting spent fuel in storage casks and putting the casks in a tunnel a thousand feet below the surface and a thousand feet above ground water is not the same as ‘dumped on them’. "-------------

During the last Ice Age, Yucca Mountain was at the bottom of a large lake. About 10-12,000 years ago. Not exactly the 250,000 years that is bantered around as how long Yucca Mountain is supposed to stay geologically and climatically stable. And we know now that climate change happens much faster than was previously thought---even 15 to 20 years ago.

Did your kids wear radiation badges day and night while they were growing up? Maybe we'll find out when grandkids or great grandkids get here. Recessive mutations won't appear until two carriers have children. Dominant mutations are only 1/2 of the story.

Kenneth--------" Fred: One more thing you should be aware of is that the wastes in the tanks at the Hanford site are from the nuclear weapons program and not from any commercial activities "----------------------

Something that you should be aware of is that the only reason to have commercial nuclear power in the first place is as a convenient excuse to generate fissionable materials for nuclear weapons. Anyone can figure that out if you start trying to trace back costs and return.

Ferdinand--------" The sad thing is that in this country, with its highly educated population, you hear things about nuclear that you would hardly expect in a flophouse seminar after a fresh bottle of Thunderbird was uncorked,"-------------

Maybe you need to listen to the highly educated population instead of getting your information in flophouses while drinking Thunderbird.

Leland--------" It appears that Fred is anxious."----------

Yes, I know how governments and corporations treat information that might make them look bad.

Leland--------" As best as I can determine, that is the only ‘dangerous’ health effect that associated with nuclear power in the US."---------

Then perhaps you are not qualified to determine dangerous health effects.

Leland---------" It also it appears that Fred anxious by his own choosing by reading fear mongering propaganda."----------

Propaganda information provided by the USAF Medical Corps in training what to do in the event of a nuclear disaster. And treating hospitalized patients with radiation burns or sickness.

How do you treat radiation sickness and burns? In a nutshell, you don't. There is nothing that CAN be done. Kiss your a$$ good bye. The entire treatment process consists of removal and isolation. The only reliable treatment for radiation, is don't get irradiated in the first place.

The fewer the sources of ionizing radiation there are, the fewer chances of exposure are.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-moore5-2010mar05,0,4779706.story

Moore is the one of the original anti-nukes and a co-founder of Greenpeace, who, through years of careful scientific consideration, now sees clearly that the fearsome issues of the past are resolved. Nuclear can move ahead safely.

Your theory there clearly breaks down when one considers Canada, which has never had nuclear weapons and does not allow them in its territory, yet has a solid nuclear power program using reactors of its own design which provide 50% of electric energy used in its most industrialized area. Japan and Korea also come to mind. Argentina, Brazil.

I think you also forgot to mention Iran.

After reading his bio, it appears to me that Patrick Moore is still chasing green, greenbacks that is.

At least he is consistent.

I'm not impressed with his credentials or his opinions. After reading the bio, I had the feeling that I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see him on a street corner with a handprinted cardboard sign that reads, "Will manipulate PR for cash".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore

In the old days Fred would have dispatched his message from the top of a soap-box, and to an audience that was sympathetic to his screwey interpretation of science and history. Now he reads the scribbling of some hack journalist, and turns on his computer. Tell me, what happened to the noble art of censorship?

It is alive and well. It is a cornerstone of political structure in North Korea. As well as the pursuit of nuclear power. Perhaps you would do well to move to a place that reflects your preferences better. North Korea sounds much better suited your inclinations.

--------" If people accept the nonsense that Fred Linn seems to believe, then they deserve what they will get,........"--------------

Yes, and there are a lot of things they won't get. Like cancer and genetic defects. Or dead. In which case, --------" Fred might be a small sample of the kind of person who will have to be convinced of the error of his ways if we are going to get the energy THAT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN'T DO WITHOUT."--------, they won't need much energy.

In your case, I'd say the brainwashing has worked exceptionally well.

Are you mad because you haven't figured out a way to make bombs from wind turbines and solar panels? Or just mad that you can't make them big enough?

Mutual Assured Destruction.

In a world full of political and religious zealots and just plain suicidal maniacs, and getting worse all the time, the very idea of basing survival on the premise of a survival instinct that clearly does not exist for a significant part of the population is madness. There is not a week that goes by when this can't be determined by a cursory glance at the news headlines.

I don't think we need a Queen of Hearts with nuclear weapons.

Leland--------" It appears that Fred is anxious."----------

Yes, I know how governments and corporations treat information that might make them look bad.

They keep it secret.

Len--------" Statistically we live in the safest times ever, though your news outlets won't tell you that because it doesn't sell subscriptions / eyeballs / etc."--------

Statistically what could be safer than a returning troop center in the middle of the largest active military base in the world, processing troops returning from wars against terrorism in two countries? Statistically, what is the probability of an Islamic terrorist gaining access with weapons and killing 13 people? What is the statistical probability of that terrorist being a high ranking officer (major) in the very army fighting the war on terrorism? And how strong was the "self preservation instinct" in this individual that the entire strategy of averting nuclear annihilation rests on?

What is the statistical probability of 19 terrorists simultaneously high jacking 4 separate airliners(supposedly protected by preboarding searches and sky marshals)---then crash them into The World Trade Centers and the Pentagon?

Considering the statistical odds against the above, what would you estimate the statistical probability of Islamic terrorists gaining access to nuclear weapons? Pakistan is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan and has been for the last 7-8 years. What is the statistical probability of Islamic extremists getting nuclear weapons when Iran gets nuclear weapons(if they don't already have them)?

What is the statistical probability Islamic terrorists buying nuclear weapons from North Korea---one of the most financially devastated countries in the world? That is persuing nuclear weapon development with all possible speed, even in the face of a famine at home. A country that is a sworn enemy of the US(just like the Islamic terrorists) and is still technically at war with the US. The armistice of 1954 was simply a cease fire, it did not end the war.

Len------" I know you won't like that because it makes you fell a lot more important to be the "most aware of impending disaster" of your group, but you're being suckered by the media conglomerates."---------

Yes, someone is being suckered, but I don't think I am the one.

So, if we live in such "statistically safe" times, why are we fighting a war on terrorism?

He's hooked on North Korea though and their sins. The problem there is South Korea, and their election of somebody who refused to be friendly to that country, or at least pretend to be friendly, and of course the dumber than stupid Condoleeza Rice who gave President Bush some bad advice.

Try looking at a film of the visit of the New York Symphony to Pjongyang, and then tell me that you cant do business with the kind of people in the audience that clapped for their brilliant performance.

How long would it take and how many people would be exposed before it is discovered that they placed pellets of highly lethal plutonium in the turnstiles?

All of a sudden the water coming out of your tap is radioactive. How long would it take to even discover it? Radioactivity is completely colorless, odorless, and tasteless. Even after you discover it, how would you get find out where it is coming from and how it got there? And what are you going to do about it? Dismantle the entire plumbing and water supply system to a major city and replace it overnight?

What if a radioactive dust or aerosol were put into the ventilation system of a major building or subway?

What if shipping containers with nuclear weapons aboard showed up in our ports and were discovered by the ultra sophisticated Xray scanners being installed because we can't even begin to check all the containers arriving daily now. Great! We are paying over $1 million each for machines to detect bombs when it is too late. It is already delivered to the target by the time it is detected. That is like building radar to detect a missile after it has struck.

---------" "why are we fighting a war on terrorism?" -- Untrue. You're not, its simply an oil war, complete colonialism."--------------

That part is true.

---------" A suggestion meanwhile: Get the heck busy and switch off your nation's abject dependence on imported oil. The best way to do that is to get all that long-distance truck transport off highways and onto electrified railways. The second best way to do that and maintain an economy is to start building PHEV electric vehicles. Then build enough nuclear reactors and solar-thermal peaking generation facilities to handle the increased capacity requirements."---------

How long would that take?

You are awfully shrill about telling me what to do with MY country. What is YOUR country Len?

I'd like to see us stop using oil also.

We have the technology to do that right now. No batteries required.

Without the need for oil, there is no need for either the US or Canada to be in Iraq or Afghanistan. They can't shoot at us if we aren't there.

Again, you're being sold a "product" by enviro-fanatics with an agenda and a picture of a few hundred ducks which sneaked past the "environmentally allowed" means of keeping them off the ponds, dying an unfortunate death but not much worse than hundreds of thousands of others in hunting season.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/1

Like any strip mine, you will be dead and buried for a thousand years or more before there is a forest or much of anything else growing there.

You can't grow anything without topsoil. And it can take thousands of years to form just a few inches. Strip mining destroys the topsoil---and there is no way to "remediate" it.

You must be a media PR person's dream come true.

This quote is from the website of "environmental activists" EnergyProbe. "From the first shovel in the ground to begin the mining process, to the last tree that's replanted, can take as little as 15 years, of which 10 years might be spent in remediation. The cost of the remediation per hectare per year now averages about: $2000, or $20,000 should the remediation take 10 years. Because that same hectare will have produced 10,000 barrels of oil, remediation costs as little as $2 per barrel. .... Oil sands are by no stretch benign. But neither are they the overarching evil that they're portrayed to be."

Oil sands cleanup - EnergyProbe That from EnergyProbe, one of the wierdest environmental organizations I've every heard of. Among their accomplishments they include a long list of legal battles against nuclear power in Canada, the publication of a leading book denying global warming, and a lawsuit against a retail N Gas distributer for charging too much for meter reading.

"1997 -- In good part due to Energy Probe's ongoing efforts, Ontario Hydro agreed to close seven more reactors (one was already closed in 1995). "

Q: "Has there been any reclamation of oil sands projects?" A: "Yes. In March of 2008, Alberta designated a rolling forested area with hiking trails and lookout points as the first piece of oil sands land to be reclaimed. The Alberta government issued a reclamation certificate to Syncrude Canada Ltd. for the 104-hectare parcel of land known as Gateway Hill approximately 35 kilometres north of Fort McMurray.

The site was used for placement of overburden material removed during oil sands mining. By the early 1980s, the area was no longer needed and Syncrude began to replace topsoil and plant trees and shrubs.

Typically, oil sands mining requires the use of land for several decades. The reclamation process occurs throughout the life of the project, and the final reclamation certification occurs when the land is no longer in use and has been fully reclaimed.

Due to the long-term timeframes and massive scale of oil sands projects, reclamation of the land disturbed does not happen quickly but it does happen. There are currently 42,000 hectares of disturbed land in the area and over 6,500 hectares are undergoing reclamation."

-------------------

It appears that the Alberta Govt's policy of refusing to issue reclaimation certificates until the reclaimed land has been stable for 10 or 20 years, with developed new forests growing, is allowing critics to claim "No land has been reclaimed yet" which is patently false.

You are the one who has been sold the "product".

Ask any farmer about "replacing" top soil. Not strip miners.

OF COARSE the government wants you to believe they are "enforcing reclaimation"; they are receiving huge sums of money and political power from the destruction of the environment.

--------------" A suggestion meanwhile: Get the heck busy and switch off your nation's abject dependence on imported oil."--------

Make up your mind. If Canadians want to destroy their country to sell oil that is dug up and sold to make oil companies and politicians rich for the few pennies that trickle down to them, I guess that is their business.

In the meantime, those self same forests could be providing biofuels that would do exactly the same thing as petroleum--------and they could do it over and over and over as long as we need them to--------without destroying the environment, and providing all the energy needed, and keeping the habitat and beauty of Canada intact.

You are not only blind, you are an idiot as well.

By the way---Enerkem is a Canadian company that is a leader in biofuel research and implementation. They are producing ethanol right now from waste wood using Fischer-Tropsch process.

---------" It appears that the Alberta Govt's policy of refusing to issue reclaimation certificates until the reclaimed land has been stable for 10 or 20 years, with developed new forests growing, is allowing critics to claim "No land has been reclaimed yet" which is patently false."----------

Promises are cheap. "If you'll buy me a hamburger today, I will gladly pay you on Tuesday." .

And sorry, when I referenced "imports" I presumed Canada and US as a single market, which they are.

Biofuels in that latitude are simply a pipedream. Even the best perennial plant for solar energy conversion at a copiously watered tropical location with a year-round growing season and optimum fertility can't get much above 1 or 2% efficiency. You'll need to figure out a way to rapidly reduce earth's population by something like a factor of 10 or 100 to support them on biofuels.

Any technology can be harnessed for good or evil Fred, It is not the technology - it is people that are elected to make the decisions to use it for weapons who you should be concerned with. Those who wish to put the technology to work to raise the standard of living of people around the world should receive your support Fred - not your condemnation. Should we not pursue lasers and satellite technology because it is used to guide almost all weapons systems these days. It is not a very credible argument. It is an unfortunate fact of life that much of the technology we now use every day was developed first for military applications. The infra red cameras used by fire fighters to find people in smoke filled rooms was first developed to see soldiers in the dark so they could be seen (and shot at) in the darkness of night. You need to separate these things in your mind Fred Linn.

You railed on about nuclear energy causing cancer in humans. While none of us wants to be diagnosed with cancer it is more likely that other factors in our environment have a much greater impact on the probability of that occurring than nuclear power plant operation....even when things go terribly wrong as occurred at Chernobyl. as Len Gould pointed out earlier. You would be better off not eating bacon or other smoked meats which contain known carcinogens.

The puzzling message you send to me Fred is that you are incredibly concerned about the miniscule impact of nuclear power plants on the environment but disasters like Bhopal which killed over 4000 people in India and left thousands maimed for life largely pass you by without a ripple in your conscience. Very odd.

But back to Geoff Gilmore's excellent article above. There is no doubt that extending the life of existing nuclear power plants by significant amounts is now unavoidable. We have not built plants in sufficient numbers or in the correct phased sequence in order to avoid refurbishing many of these old plants at the same time.

That brings with it 2 major problems. Do we have the technically capable workforce to do this on a large scale and how do we take multiple units off line for long periods of time without leaving the grid short of power. Nuclear power plants make up a disproportionate number of GW Hours compared to their installed capacity because they operate at very high capacity factors (well in excess of 90%) If any one thinks that gap will be filled by solar or wind then think again - they cannot.

In addition these reactors are now radioactive so much of the work will involve radiation exposure to workers. We can manage that of course as we do operationally to the rigorous standards of the NRC (CNSC in Canada) and the IAEA however the development of remotely operated machine tools is going to be of critical importance and this I think is the key. Instead of workers trying to do highly skilled work in cumbersome protective equipment machines that are insensitive to radiation dose can work for much longer in such environments.

In Canada major refurbishments have already occurred at Pickering and are occurring as we speak at Point Lepreau (one unit) in New Brunswick and Bruce Power in Ontario (2 units). Many of the techniques developed for this work are equally applicable to PWR and BWR designs.

There is no doubt that unless someone comes up with a large scale source of electricity that is not tied to fossil fuels nuclear power plant refurbishment is the only viable alternative and we better start thinking about how we can manage this massive amount of work with the limited resources we have available.

Malcolm

Never judge the future based on what you see today Fred. It is a major mistake. But some very eminent people have made the same error so at least you are in good company on that score.

Malcolm

So what is the situation. Uranium is quite common in the earth's crust so finding it is not the problem. Finding it in concentrations that are viable to mine economically is the challenge. It is present in sea water at very low concentrations. The Japanese have developed a method of extracting it from sea water but it is not yet commercially viable. Of course what makes any extraction process commercially viable is the price. Fortunately nuclear generated electricity is not susceptible to the price of Uranium since so little of it is used. Labour costs and capital costs are the major items of cost - fuel costs are (almost) insignificant.

That means Bill that the price of Uranium can be much higher than it is now without affecting nuclear plant viability.

Fortunately the major ore bodies are in Canada, Australia and Kazakstan. Canada has some of the richest ore bodies in the world with mineralizations up to 25%. Cameco has recently re-entered a mine in Northern Saskatchewan that had flooded and is prepared to remediate the mine because the ore body is so rich that the cost of production is very low.(They and Areva the other owner, are sitting on a gold mine and they know it)

New mines are coming into production in Kazakstan and exploration in other areas has been stepped up.

I doubt that there will be any shortage of Uranium although I do expect the price to rise substantially from its current levels. With the major supply coming from stable countries like Canada and Australia as well as the potential for re-using spent fuel the US has a much greater level of assurance of its fuel supply than it does for oil where it is heavily dependent on somewhat less stable nations.

On the subject of spent fuel. Fuel is removed from reactors not because there are no fissile isotopes left but because of metallurgical considerations and because of the build up of materials in the fuel that absorb neutrons. Most of the U235 (one of the two fissile isotope of Uranium) remains in the spent fuel unused. In fact calculations and measurements show that a typical spent fuel bundle has used a mere 2% of the U235 available. therefore 98% remains. In other words all of the electricity produced has used only 2% of the available U235. Reprocessing the fuel to re-use and recycle the Uranium will extend the existing fuel by many years - even if we never made another fuel bundle from new Uranium.

If we have operated the current reactors for (say) 30 years on 2% of the available U235 then it is reasonable to assume that if 1% is the equivalent of 15 years power generation then the remaining 98% left in the fuel will provide another 98 x 15 years of power generation. This is of course a very simplistic calculation since the recovery process is not 100% efficient and fuel burn-up varies with location in the core.but it does underscore the potential for using spent fuel.

Yet another factor to be considered is that there are other fuel cycles that are perfectly viable that do not use Uranium. Thorium also has fissile isotopes and is significantly more abundant in the earth's crust than Uranium. CANDU plants can operate on Thorium cycles without too much modification. Reactors (Fast Breeders) can operate with plutonium only and have been shown to make more fuel than they consume.

So all in all he physics of longer term nuclear fuel availability is well known and the technologies already exist to do it. However we will likely use the plentiful supplies of Uranium for the foreseeable future.

A very good question Bill but I am quite sure Canada will be able to supply the US for hundreds of years to come with all of its nuclear fuel supplies.

Malcolm

"1997 -- In good part due to Energy Probe's ongoing efforts, Ontario Hydro agreed to close seven more reactors (one was already closed in 1995). "

The reactor that was "closed" in 1995 by Ontario Hydro is currently undergoing refurbishment by privately owned Bruce Power.

There are 20 power reactors in Ontario.

Darlington has 4 and none of its reactors were ever closed. Pickering B has 4 and none of its reactors were ever closed. Bruce B has 4 and none of its reactors were ever closed. Pickering A has four. Two were refurbished and are now in operation. Two are currently mothballed Bruce A has four. Two are back in operation while the other two are being refurbished and will be in operation in 2011.

So the "accomplishment" of Energy Probe is not so good. Out of the 20 reactors only two will not be in operation by 2011 and of course all the time they have been off line we have been burning coal to compensate. Some accomplishment eh!

Malcolm.

It reminds me of a lecture or briefing I and some others received from an English academic in which sex was mentioned, although I don't recall in what context. and he said "if they want to destroy their bodies, let them go ahead".

That was early in my teaching career, and in those days I knew how to keep my mouth shut, so I just nodded.

It fairly much confirms my suspicions about where a lot of the "background" anti-nuclear-power support comes from, eg. annon. donations, free "research", sponsorships etc.

----------" It is not the technology - it is people that are elected to make the decisions to use it for weapons who you should be concerned with."---------

That is the point. People who want to use it for weapons are not elected.

-------" That brings with it 2 major problems. Do we have the technically capable workforce to do this on a large scale ........."-----------

Increasing the danger of a major disaster due to operator and worker error.

-----" and how do we take multiple units off line for long periods of time without leaving the grid short of power."--------

So, how do you propose to do that?

-------" There is no doubt that extending the life of existing nuclear power plants by significant amounts is now unavoidable. We have not built plants in sufficient numbers or in the correct phased sequence in order to avoid refurbishing many of these old plants at the same time."--------

It is avoidable if we simply shut them down and do not use nuclear power.

-------" Nuclear power plants make up a disproportionate number of GW Hours compared to their installed capacity because they operate at very high capacity factors (well in excess of 90%) "---------

Which makes them even more unsafe.

---------" In addition these reactors are now radioactive so much of the work will involve radiation exposure to workers."---------

Also unsafe.

-----------" On the subject of the oil sands Fred Linn will be pleased to know that much of the oil in the tar sands is not available to the strip mining methods used at present. It is too deep."-------------

And, exactly how does that make strip mining OK?

---------" You will also be pleased to hear that new technologies have been developed and are in process trials as we speak to extract oil from deeper underground without the need for mines and with far less use of natural gas."-------

We can use natural gas to power our vehicles, generate electricity and anything else we need to do. We do not need the oil. What is the point of using natural gas in extravagantly wasteful quantities to produce low grade crude oil, when we can use the natural gas directly in any application we need?

Well, it seems to me that only ten more tries and all the nuclear reactors will be closed.

It is cheap and easy to convert a coal burning plant to natural gas. The only thing that coal does is to boil water. Natural gas can boil water just fine, with a lot less smoke and soot. And no cinders or ash left over afterward. Natural gas also does not come from strip mines.

And for everyone’s information, there IS a current connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons, but it is not the evil bugaboo that is so often portrayed. In fact it is quite the opposite, a great good. Old nuclear weapons are being dismantled and recycled safely into mixed oxides (MOX) of uranium and plutonium for reactor fuel. Thereby, old stockpiles of weapons plutonium are being put to the best possible use, that is, being destroyed by fission in a nuclear reactor while using the heat released for making clean electricity – something which cannot be achieved by any other method, e.g., burial.

The practice is well established in Europe and Russia and a pilot program is under development in America. The additional beauty of it is that we can do the same thing with the existing stockpiles of spent fuel building up at the currently operating reactor sites. Reprocessing spent fuel and conversion of old weapons material as reactor fuel would make it all the more worthwhile to extend the lifetimes of the existing fleet of reactors for many more years.

Firstly while you may huff and puff about energy probe shutting down a couple of nuclear plants the decision was based on pure economics and had nothing to do with energy probe or its ridiculous posturings. I should add that both plants had already put in an incredible service record producing power well beyond their design life. Like your car doing a million miles (or do you ride a bike everywhere since you surely cannot be polluting the atmosphere with nasty exhaust fumes with opinions like yours)

So it is "cheap and easy" to convert coal to gas is it!! Well sir you clearly demonstrate that you are indeed a complete idiot if you believe either of those statements. It is neither cheap nor easy to convert any power plant to burn another fuel. Quite obviously you have never been involved in such a project - you must have read it in a handout somewhere.

It is quite apparent that your knowledge of thermodynamics is approaching zero so let me enlighten you. Coal is used to boil water (well you got that bit right). However It is very inefficient to use natural gas to boil water and the conversion is not cheap.It is much more efficient to burn natural gas in a gas turbine directly without the intervening boiler. This is in fact exactly what has occurred in Ontario. Should you care to go to the IESO website and click on generator reports your will see that Ontario has built large amounts of GAS TURBINE capacity to replace coal. It has NOT converted coal plants to gas. The reason is it is CHEAPER to build gas turbines than it is to convert coal plants to gas. So your logic like most of the rest of the posts is complete rhetoric with no basis in fact. But since when have facts been a strong point of Energy Probe and its supporters.

You also seem to be under the delusion that gas plants are clean. Also wrong. The volumes of gas that are required to be burned put MORE particulates in the air than do most modern coal plants with flue scrubber technology. There are no scrubbers on gas plants so what is burnt goes straight to atmosphere and gas does contain particlates

So all in all I think you need to go back to school and learn power plants 101 because you missed most of it.

Malcolm

I know such data is hard for some to digest but there really is enough nuclear fuel on planet earth to last for centuries....even if we are unable to develop controlled fusion.

But nevertheless Kent - a very good point. If you would like further information on this topic please go to the World Nuclear Association link

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html

and read the paper entitled Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel. I am sure you will find it quite interesting how the old warheads are being utilised to make electricity in both Russia, USA and France. Of course Mr. Linn will not have heard of such positive outcomes.

Malcolm

Malcolm

I am not playing a "what if" game. I have treated many patients with radiation sickness and burns. I assure you it is something I don't want to get. And if you had even three synapses that fired in sequence you wouldn't want to get either.

---------" Thereby, old stockpiles of weapons plutonium are being put to the best possible use, that is, being destroyed by fission in a nuclear reactor while using the heat released for making clean electricity – something which cannot be achieved by any other method, e.g., burial."----------

Completely FALSE. It is creating EVEN MORE radioactive contamination. There is a wide range of radioactive isotopes, some are weak and short lived and pose no problem, others are not. Plutonium has a half life of 250,000 years, and a lethal dose is calculated in micro grams, as small as a single bacteria.

Even a child can figure out that if we keep making more and more and more radioactive isotopes with half lives ranging from hundreds to thousands of years, and spreading them over more and more locations----and releasing them in a "minor" accident here, and a "little" spill there, eventually the earth is going to become one vast radioactive wasteland.

I find it very interesting that once again we find an anti-nuclear "activist" promoting Natural Gas-fired electrical generation. First EnergyProbe, now Mr. Linn.

Of course the problem is that there is a group of Linns in the US who want the opposite of what OUR Mr Linn wants. They want a reactor on every street corner. What ever happened to 'The Golden Mean'?

Natural gas is currently bumping up against delivery constraints, it still produces CO2 as a byproduct and even though it now appears to be plentiful, there is a finite supply. In my opinion, there is no alternative to using nuclear. We should have started 10 years ago and catching up has currently put us “behind the eight ball.”

I like Fred, continue to hope for a better alternative – perhaps someone will find a way to harvest dark energy.

It currently costs about 1/2 the price to drive a vehicle the same distance with natural gas that it does to drive with petroleum. Natural gas burns so clean and efficiently, it is not necessary to change oil nearly as frequently. Oil changes can be stretched out to about 30,000 miles instead of 3,000 under most conditions, Natural gas has a comparative octane rating of 120----ideally suited to to be used with biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel which also have higher octane ratings than petroleum. This allows the use of high compression engines that are more powerful and inherrently more efficient than current engines, Flex Fuel or diesel bi-fuel engines can easily match or exceed efficiency ratings for hybrid vehicles---with one difference, hybrids get most of their efficiency in stop and go driving, high compression engines deliver efficiency across the board under all driving conditions. There are vehicles in production and on the market right now that can be driven indefinitely using either very little petroleum, or no petroleum at all. Any existing internal combustion engine can be converted to use natural gas.

The largest bulk of natural gas usage by far is heating buildings and making hot water. Solar thermal energy is ideally suited as an auxiliary system to existing heating systems. The technologic requirements of building, installing, using and maintaining solar thermal systems is very minimal, and they are very efficient. In most cases, we could build, install and give away solar thermal systems for less than the cost of PV subsidies. The current systems would function systems would function exactly as they always have, coming on and shutting off in response to thermostat demand---the difference is that they would come on less often and run for much shorter duration when they do. Furnaces and water heaters would last a lot longer, and when they are replaced, could be replaced with smaller and less expensive systems that are not required to carry as heavy loads. If drivers use the displaced natural gas(or $$$ saved) to put natural gas in their vehicles----they are, in effect, driving their vehicles on free solar energy. No batteries required.

Natural gas is methane (CH4). Methane is the primary constituent of fossil natural gas. But, methane is also a biofuel. Methane is produced naturally by the organic decomposition of organic matter by bacteria. Chemically, they are identical. Fossil methane and biomethane can be mixed in any proportion for any application with no loss of performance.

CO2 is a greenhouse effect gas. It captures infrared heat in the atmosphere. But CO2 is not the only GHG, methane is also a GHG. Methane captures 17X the infrared energy that CO2 does, and stays in the atmosphere between 3X to 7X longer than CO2. If we mix just 6% biomethane that would have ordinarily have escaped into the atmosphere anyway----we produce emissions that have a greenhouse neutral effect on atmospheric heating. We are exchanging high GHG effect methane to much lower GHG effect CO2. Any mixture above 6% and the resulting emissions have a lower atmospheric heating effect than if we had done nothing at all. This is the only way there is to actually lower GHG effect in the atmosphere. We need to be treating sewage and tapping landfills anyway-----major sources of methane in the atmosphere.

When methane is burned (CH4)---it produces energy with a result of one CO2 molecule, and two H2O molecules. Compared to coal,(empirically, 100% carbon)---it produces the same energy with about 1/3 the CO2 output. And since methane is gas, it is easy to remove contaminants, unlike coal or oil. Natural gas produces almost no air pollution at all.

If you are going to do major renovations on nuclear power plants, you are going to have to shut them down for prolonged periods. If you natural gas to provide energy while you shut down a nuclear plant, you produce no air pollution, no ash, soot or cinders, and you provide power that is reasonably priced and readily available on demand, a perfect match for the intermitent nature of wind or solar energy. There is no need for the expense and inherrent dangers of the nuclear plants. Just keep using the natural gas and mothball the nuclear plants.

Maybe Fred is a doctor.

“I have treated many patients with radiation sickness and burns.”

But a doctor would know that plutonium is about as toxic as nicotine not:

“lethal dose is calculated in micro grams”

I am not sure where Fred treats radiation sickness but the only patients with radiation sickness are those intentionally exposed for cancer therapy. This is another beneficial use of nuclear technology.

So you must excuse for not reading all of Fred’s ramble on NG but this caught my eyw,

“If you are going to do major renovations on nuclear power plants, you are going to have to shut them down for prolonged periods.”

Not really since steam generators have been replaced in less than 2 months during spring or fall outages.

And before you go into your computer, let me say that I know that their new reactor is 3 billion dollars over the original estimated price. I say so what to that!!

“Dow Jones] The world continues to turn to coal, with it ranking as top choice for new, electricity generation over next decade, says GE Power and Water CEO Steve Bolze at CERAweek conference in Houston. About one-third of new global power generation in next 10 years to be coal-fired followed by oil and gas generation, wind power. Growth comes even as coal-fired plants face opposition…” (ASPO USA) And another piece about Columbia’s deal to ship Coal through the Panama Canal to China, that’s about a 10,000 mile trip, with the expectation to make a similar deal with India.

Notice that “new” sources of electricity according to the article will be from coal, oil, gas, and wind. The first three, all fossil fuels, with the worst CO2 emitter getting the biggest play. Even wind, a non=base load source, is projected ahead of new nuclear. Yet it would seem to the most casual observer we energy-pulsers are in denial. Are we beating a dead horse?

http://www.onlinenevada.org/ice_age_nevada_and_lake_lahontan

----------" This is another beneficial use of nuclear technology."---------

Cancers are characterized by rapid uncontrolled growth of various cell types. The metabolic rate of the rapidly multiplying cancer cells is much higher than the normal cells. This means that they are more susceptible to to toxins than normal cells. The goal of chemotherapy and radiation therapy is to introduce toxins in doses and durations that will kill the susceptible cancer cells, while having as little effect as possible on normal cells. It is a balancing act. This does not mean the treatment of choice is any less toxic---the treatment is in the toxin choice(preferential uptake)---and maintaining a dosage and duration that will provide the desired result(killing the cancer cells and leaving healthy cells as unaffected as possible). Chemotherapy agents are also highly toxic and require extra ordinary precautions as well. Chemotherapy and radiation are used to treat cancer BECAUSE they are highly toxic.

--------" Not really since steam generators have been replaced in less than 2 months during spring or fall outages."-------

Wasn't I just told above that if we shut down nuclear reactors we have to burn coal and that would produce all sorts of pollution problems? Well, I just answered, no, we don't need to burn coal, we can do the same thing with natural gas, without the pollution or strip mines. And if we can use natural gas instead of nuclear power---what is the point of spending billions of dollars, chewing gum and duct tape to try to get a few more years out of nuclear reactors? Just dismantle them.

-------" So you must excuse for not reading all of Fred’s ramble on NG...."--------

Well, I can see your mind is made up. It IS really annoying when someone comes along and gets you confused with facts when your mind is already made up. Sorry about that. (LOL----"That was a JOKE son!"---in the words of Foghorn Leghorn)

" Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so."--------------Mark Twain

Fact: The half life of Pu-239 is 24,110 years, not 250,000 years.

Fact: No person has ever received a lethal dose of radiation from one microgram of plutonium.

"What if a radioactive dust or aerosol were put into the ventilation system of a major building or subway?" .... and

"What if shipping containers with nuclear weapons aboard..."

On 3.11.10, F. Linn said, "I am not playing a "what if" game."

"What if a radioactive dust or aerosol were put into the ventilation system of a major building or subway?" .... and

"What if shipping containers with nuclear weapons aboard..."

On 3.11.10, F. Linn said, "I am not playing a "what if" game."

Incidentally, the reason for the Swedish EU choice was because many of the voters thought that it would improve their sexual prospects, and the reason that many people condemn nuclear is because they think that it will improve their social lives. Of course, if you improve your social life you might....

I think that you know what I mean.

------" Some people listen, and some people won't. The people who won't listen do not surprise me too much......."-------------

------" I think that you know what I mean."---------

Yes----I think I do know what you mean. In spite of what your mouth says, you seem to have nothing but contempt and disdain for the people of your host country.

I've lived in Riga. I've been to Sweden for shows and hunts and I count many Swedes as friends. I have many Swedes on my forum. What is surprising to me is that the Swedes don't throw you into the Baltic. The Swedes I know wouldn't stand for your arrogant disdain 5 minutes.

Ken-------- you take two statements------and then a seemingly contradictory snippet out of context ten days later attempting to discredit everything I've said?

Don H.------" Notice that “new” sources of electricity according to the article will be from coal, oil, gas, and wind. The first three, all fossil fuels, with the worst CO2 emitter getting the biggest play. Even wind, a non=base load source, is projected ahead of new nuclear. Yet it would seem to the most casual observer we energy-pulsers are in denial. Are we beating a dead horse?"---------

I will accept your take with one slight modification. Natural gas is a fossil fuel AND a biofuel-----it fits both categories. It can also fill the "non base load source" you mention because it is stored energy ready to be used on demand.

Sorry, I can't make any sense out of this comment.

Fossil methane and biomethane are both CH4, exactly the same stuff.

Methane is both a fossil fuel and a biofuel.

Incidentally, quite often when I tell Swedes that Swedish students are the best that I have ever taught, they become furious. You see, they want me to say that American students are the best, or Canadian, or Chinese, or Ugandan, or anyone from any country except Sweden.

And listen, I've always gotten along with Swedes, because they know even better than I do that their politicians are the most pathetic in the world, and would sell this country out if given half an opportunity.

This can not be done any other way. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal-------anything else may avoid producing CO2, but none of them can produce a negative warming effect on the atmosphere. The greater the amount of biomethane we capture and use, the greater the cooling effect on the atmosphere.

-------------" Fred, what crude sophistry you employ."----------

The basic principle of engineering--------KISS.

Not only the all that----methane is already in widespread use with a mature infrastructure, and well known, well supported range of applications, it is also the least expensive form of energy we have per BTU.

... if we can use natural gas instead of nuclear power---what is the point of spending billions of dollars, chewing gum and duct tape to try to get a few more years out of nuclear reactors?

A couple of major points are the reactors' relative freedom from serious accidents and from emissions of radioactivity. Very low levels of tritium contamination, borderline safe to drink if nothing else bad is there, have been found in some groundwater on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant site.

The natural radioisotope in natural gas is radon, which has about a thousand times the energy per disintegration that tritium has. The extra energy per particle pretty well makes up for there being fewer particles, and as a result, natural gas is as radioactive as those test wells' water. But no-one is sucking billion of litres per day from the test wells and spraying it around for people to breathe. A gas-fired replacement for VY would do exactly this, except with gas rather than water.

Natural gas is about 30 times more expensive than uranium, and this includes more than one times uranium's price just for government, in the form of natural gas royalties. So people like Fred Linn often aren't candid about their desire for government and the natural gas industry to receive this money: often they don't mention natural gas at all, preferring code words such as "biomass, renewables, wind, solar". Fred's candour is unusual.

(How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?)

Which is why Pripyat Ukraine is still a ghost town over 25 years later?

--------" Very low levels of tritium contamination, borderline safe to drink if nothing else bad is there, have been found in some groundwater on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant site."-----------

You are welcome to drink the contaminated water if you want. The people of Vermont don't want to. The Vermont Senate has voted not to renew the operating license for Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant when it expires in March of 2012. The vote was 24-6, not exactly a squeaker.

http://www.sfbayview.com/2010/leaking-vermont-yankee-nuclear-power-plant-shutdown-ordered-as-obama-pledges-50-billion-for-nuclear-power/

-------" A gas-fired replacement for VY would do exactly this, except with gas rather than water."---------

Using natural gas does not create new radioactive isotopes beyond background levels. Operating nuclear reactors does create new radioactive isotopes. A LOT of new radiation. Radiation that is leaking out.

-----" Natural gas is about 30 times more expensive than uranium......."

As a consumer, buy all the yellow cake you want. You'll have trouble using it to drive your vehicle, or run your refrigerator. The expensive part of the equation is getting the energy out. Methane can be used right out of the ground, and often is. It is called "field gas". Caterpillar makes several diesel engine models that generate electricity directly using field gas.

Sounds like you have a serious investment in Natural Gas though. So with N. America having perhaps (speculatively) 100 years of probable resource of Natural Gas at present usage rates, what do you propose should be done after an accelerated useage rate for electrical generation exhausts it in 50 years? And what's your proposal for France? China? India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas

There you go.