Monday, May 22, 2006

The End of Uranium.................




I have previously alluded to the End of Oil.
The Australian Government is now pushing a debate on Nuclear power.
It is reported if Australia decides to go nuclear, it will take a decade.

But the real motivation would seem to be more about a vision of grandeur as an economic power riding on uranium mining as oil supplies rapidly dwindle to exhaustion.
It would be a short ride at the top, and fraught with the dangers of invasion for a valuable but also dwindling resource. Which I guess is why we suck up to our imperialist masters for protection. They would just draw up a new "Trade Agreement" where we allow them to rip us off, because we couldn't say no. China or others would possibly have to attack us or fight against the U.S. for control and possession of our uranium.And despite the government slathering at the jowls at the prospect of a generation of riches from uranium mining, a generation is all it is likely to be.

I said it would be a short ride....

From London's "The Guardian" of 18th May 2006, which in turn is quoting Charles Kernot, mining analyst at Seymour Pierce in London, "There is a great expectation that there is not going to be enough uranium to feed the new nuclear power stations being built all over the world".

Given that globally there is roughly 20 years of easily extractable uranium at current usage, to push such a dangerous technology is extremely short-sighted.
In any event, given construction costs and looming rising extraction costs, the power delivered will be very expensive.In other words, by the time an expensive nuclear power plant is factored into an increasingly scarce and expensive fuel supply, only the rich will be able to afford heating and cooling.

I previously believed whoever started the Generational nomenclature at Generation X to be extremely short sighted, as there was little left of the alphabet to expand on. I now realise he was extremely astute, as Generation Z is likely to be the very last of the fossil generations. The following Generation A will probably be the first to grow up in a civilisation spiralling rapidly backwards to 1950, then 1920, and if not sufficiently astute, beyond!

2 Comments:

Blogger Eric McErlain said...

A colleague of mine, Clifton Farrell, disputed your conclusions on the global uranium supply in a post about a year ago.

2:18 am  
Blogger Chelsea Stan said...

Eric,
Thanks for your interest in my article in my blog.

The U recovery from decommissioned weapons is a great project, except the number of U weapons world wide is growing.
If we could only get the U.S. to decommission their atomic weapons we would possibly have enough uranium for eternity!

I do not agree that Clinton's conclusions negate mine for three reasons:

1. Until further supplies of any resource are discovered, assurances about those discoveries are pie in the sky

2. Uranium is a very common substance in nature, it is true, including seawater, but I wrote of easily extractable U.
Otherwise extraction costs drive up costs, hence my assertion that (energy) power will belong to the rich.

3. With everyone from Iran to Australia wanting to jump on the nuclear bandwagon as oil depletes without significant further discoveries,
the estimation for future power stations is probably on the low side, hence competition for resources.

Cheers

Stan

9:50 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home