Re: [asa] vast new gas supplies

From: John Walley <>
Date: Wed Dec 09 2009 - 22:47:27 EST

" So I am very skeptical of  everything.  I am suspsicious  of the real agenda behind the AGW movement. " Interestingly enough, it appears the tone on this list has shifted somewhat since the initial cocksure AGW cheerleading. I was open and willing to be convinced but the more I hear it seems my skepticism is increasingly warranted. Randy I want to thank you for your challenge to "engage with the data". I think that is honest science and that approach has really helped us pinpoint and focus in on the core issues of the debate on this list. BTW, we are still waiting for a response from you or Rich after you have engaged with the data that Glenn and Don have referenced. I am sure one will be forthcoming, right? Thanks John ________________________________ From: David Clounch <> To: Iain Strachan <> Cc: Don Winterstein <>; asa <> Sent: Thu, December 10, 2009 1:38:35 PM Subject: Re: [asa] vast new gas supplies On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Iain Strachan <> wrote: > > >On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Clounch <> wrote: > >I think of it in terms  of  what is available.  When will it be depleted and when will that sub-industry collapse, leaving humanity without energy?  Of course there will be economic collapse long before actual depletion.    Unless there are vast new sources of uranium we don't yet know about I don't see a long term answer to energy supply. >> >> > > >On the contrary, nuclear is an extremely long term answer to energy supply.  Existing fission reactors use only U-235, which is 0.7% of natural uranium.  As such it is a limited resource.  But fast breeder reactors can be used to convert the U-238 (99.3%) of natural uranium to the fissionable product Pu-239.   Are there any governments proposing the usage of breeder reactors?  My assumption is these styles of reactor are frowned upon because plutonium presents a huge waste storage problem.  The other thing I don't know  about is whether breeder technology is as safe in its operation as more conventional models.  I think the anti-nuclear lobby will have a cow over breeders. Given these are the same folks that embrace AGW  I expect  a huge political warfare to take place before any widespread deployment of plutonium generators.  Because of this I just ignore the presence/possibility  of breeders as a solution. Seems to me a peak energy crisis is the real crisis, not a warming crisis.  Look, we have been really good at putting particle pollutants in the air to increase the albedo of the planet to get a cooling effect. And we could do that deliberately. If the people who are so concerned over  GW are serious they would be fighting the anti-pollution measures that are lowering the albedo.  They would also be proposing nuclear if they were serious.  Do they in fact do either? I suspect not.   So I am very skeptical of  everything.  I am suspsicious  of the real agenda behind the AGW movement.   According to Wikipedia there is enough U-238 around to be an energy supply for five billion years, but I think this must be a mistake - I would have put it at several thousand years. > > >In addition it is possible to use U-233 that is bred from Thorium - an element that is 3.5 times as common as uranium, as an intermediate term solution. > > >For the long term solution, one must look to Nuclear Fusion.  Current reactors are based on a D-T reaction which requires the breeding of Tritium from Lithium - an abundant element, which according to Wikipedia would last 3000 years if all the worlds energy came from this source.  If it became feasible in the future to have sustainable power from a D-D fusion reaction then (again according to Wikipedia) there would be sufficient for 150 billion years. > > >I wouldn't trust any of these figures, to be honest.  For a better estimate, consult David MacKay's book "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air", which is available on the web.  However, Fusion is an extremely long term solution, and it appears that, given Thorium and Fast breeder reactors, that nuclear fission is almost certainly a sufficiently long medium-term solution to allow the fusion solution to be developed. > > >Iain > >-- >----------- >Non timeo sed caveo > >

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 9 22:48:11 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 09 2009 - 22:48:11 EST