"At the current level of uranium consumption (67,000 tonnes per year) known uranium resources (2.8 million tonnes of uranium) would last 42 years – a fact highlighted by the European Commission in their Energy Green Paper [EC 2001]. The known and estimated resources plus secondary resources (such as the military inventory), a total of around 4.8 million tonnes, would last 72 years. Of course this assumes that nuclear continues to provide just a fraction of the world's energy supply. If capacity were increased six-fold then 72 years would reduce to 12 years."
a study in uranium supplies now i believe the US has large indegenous uranium supplies and would be somewhat immune form supply problems in the short term. in the long term it will run out the same as the oil, especialy sooner if it fulfiling more of our energy needs.
it is a finite resource. i dont understand how this fits any bill. its at best a stopgap measure. at worst an expensive (with potential danger and massive clean up and storage problems and costs) diversion from where we should be focussing our efforts.
a waste of money on building new power stations what will be worse than useless after their lives has ended
Uranium is a finite resource, better to harness the huge energies that are already on the earth in in the form of currents, both wind and water.
There will of course be objections from some - but there are objections for every energy source. none more so that nulcear.
World's first commercial tidal energy generator to be built in Northern Irelanda 1.2 mw generator. not too bad for the first.
*ps im desperately trying to ignore your dismissal of potential dangers on my doorstep as a vague fear (but as you see i cant!!)
*edited to fix link
