On local radio the other day a representative of the ceramics industry said they were within 24 hours of closing down in Feb this year because of gas shortage. The dimwit lib-dem minister says he's not concerned about lack storage capacity.
In message , Java Jive writes
More selective quotations. The trade body estimates ready supply up to
2080
Where is your evidence for this assertion?
Seems perfectly sensible, given such a source.
I certainly find it more believable than most of the usual baseless claims of bias bandied about.
I take it you didn't bother to read any of the link then? In fact, I can be certain that you didn't, because there were some more right-wing examples given by a Telegraph reporter who was invited to the seminar, which you surely would have picked up upon.
That was a wasted opportunity for you.
Nobody believes the BBC is perfectly unbiased, but, because it tries to be so, it does at least succeed in being a damn sight less biased than any of our mainstream newspapers, anything on Sky that I've ever seen, and quite possibly the other four main TV channels as well.
No it doesn't. How many times must I tell you and others like you that the trade body suggests that supplies could run out as early as
2025?Supplies run out not just when every last bit of ec>
So do you think mining companies invest in opening new supplies when the current spot price is only 75% of what it was nine months ago?
Currently pr>
Look at the graph entitled "Reference Case Supply" at the bottom of this page, and tell us at what date to the nearest year where the solid red line labelled Reference Demand crosses above the stack of all supplies.
2)"[...] the WNA expects demand for uranium to increase considerably up to 2030, resulting in a substantial need for additional supplies of nuclear fuel. [...] about 97,000 tU in the reference scenario. Provided that all uranium mines currently under development enter service as planned, the report finds that the uranium market should be adequately supplied to 2025; beyond this time, new mines will be required."
3)(p8 pdf) "Using a uranium reserves figure of 6.3MteU (which the report determines as the amount of ?reasonably assured and inferred uranium resources?), it shows that used in LWRs, these uranium reserves would be consumed by the end of 2023." ... and ... (p24 pdf) "the reserves of uranium is not a problem, but extracting it at a reasonable cost and with acceptable environmental impacts would be a challenge. In particular, the use of poorer grade ores using energy provided by fossil fuels would increase the emission of carbon dioxide and decrease the effectiveness of nuclear as a low carbon technology."
4)"Nuclear power is expected to be an important part of the worldwide energy mix at least for the next 50 years, and by most projections well beyond. That is, of course, provided an adequate supply of uranium is available to sustain the nominal growth rate for nuclear power of 1 to 3% per year that is projected by some analysts."
... and it divides the future into three scenarios from 2000 to 2050, the lowest of which features over that time a total of 3,390,000t world demand, the intermediate 5,394,100t, the highest 7,577,000t. There are insufficient likely reserves to meet the two highest figures.
I have also been linking to the following page - where a similar projection, although only up to 2030, is shown graphically - for over a year now, and despite being updated in the meantime, its forecasts haven't become any more optimistic, and broadly agree with the conclusions of the document above:
Now write out 100 times "Reserves are not the same as supply".
You need to review what Vir Camperstris said, and what you said in reply. Something significant is missing from the latter.
I have to say this isn't the first time in this thread you have answered selectively, although I note that when you are confronted with it, you resort to abuse.
And YOU still haven't realised what your false assumption is.
HTH
That does not surprise me, it's a perfect example of the hands off 'let the free market decide' approach.
The slightest hiccup in docking or unloading an ship of LPG inbound from from Qatar can cause big spikes in the wholesale cost of gas, severe shortages and the loss of supply to those on interuptible gas contracts like a number of industrial processes ...and gas fired power stations.
So it's not just the gas and heat you lose but the lights too, a direct result of Thatcher's privatisation of the energy market, the subsequent dash for gas and the export of gas to Europe because the fuckwits in Berlin love solar and wind but hate nukes.
No. I'm asking for a demsonstration that somewhere, anywhere, in the temperature record that models have been shown to be right. If they had been, that might have added credibilty to their predictions of the future - but only up to the point where they fell out of the lower 3-sigma? band.
Additionally, I refer you to my earlier comment on the science of climate change, to rebut your false assumption.
However, it may be miniscule when other factors are taken into account, and may suffer in itself from other atmospehric effects. You are failing to look at the system as a whole, which I tried to encourage you to do when I referred to the Met Office graphic of 2005, which in essence said "we know bugger-all about many of the effects".
Some of them might account for the tree-ring problem.
Oh, that is breathtakingly bad science.
A former effect that tracks well, now doesn't. That should ring alarm bells. Giving it names like 'the divergence problem' doesn't get rid of it. One *cannot* discard data, it has to be explained.
Missing the line off the graph is totally unacceptable.
Well, then let's turn this on its head and ask the question "What has climate science forecast about rising temperatures - on which policies of governments are based - that has since proved to be correct"?
Is that too particular or too general for you?
You need to go back to fundamentals here, which aren't clear from what you've said. Why do you assume that security of supplies is important? What are your ereasons for saying this?
No. The basis of your assertion needs clarification, since AFAICS you haven't stated any, and I'm not making assumptions as to why you see the issue in the manner you do.
As you have been told already, that situation forces up the price and this in turn makes previously-uneconomic sources viable. Perhaps even to using seawater as a source, the cost of which is falling as the technology, let alone the industrialisation of the process, advances.
Is it not the pro-nuclear types who are constantly complaining about the variability of wind-power, saying that at all costs we must keep electrical supplies running, and "just wait until the lights go out!", sort of thing?! Either electricity supply is paramount, and absolutely must be kept running, or it isn't. I assume that most people here want to keep it running. Thus, security of fuel supply to keep it running it is paramount, thus nuclear fission can not be relied upon, because we cannot rely on the constant availability of fuel.
It's really very simple logic. WHAT is the difficulty?!
See above. There is no difficult logic there to grasp.
They have forecast that over time that temperatures will rise. BEST's results show that they have.
That's nice and particular.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.