:)
a decade since the IAEA prepared its forecast of uranium supply to
2035." I've had trouble finding numbers, not graphs, for the forecasts - but they seem to talk about numbers not widely dissimilar to the the other two sources for current day. 69,400 for 2012 as the middle number, similar for the low (from the graph on p13) and perhaps 80,000 for the high. Incidentally it mentions U from seawater at $300/kg. That's only about 3x current market.They all seem much the same to me. About 70k tonnes. Or tons, the difference is trivial.
When we are talking about 20 years or 200 this is not the factor.
I see nothing major.
Looks like the WNA don't agree with themselves even.
Here's where I differ. Those figures look to me like the amount needed to _construct_ reactors in that year. If the figure is 5 times higher - perhaps they can run for 5 years on the fuel. 5 years in fact seems low to me, I suspect some of that is refuelling.
Remind me of the URL for Mackay.
... which means that whether we are counting tons of U3 O8, or tonnes of U metal is immaterial when the differences are a factor of 10.
:) see above
Not instability. Rises. And if it's true that there's 4Gt in seawater available at 300$/Kg that's the limit to the rises. It'll hurt, but it won't kill us.
It won't kill us the way global warming might.
It won't kill us the way going to a peasant economy would (90% death rate. At least.).
We might have to learn not to fly to Florida for holidays. I might have to telecommute to work, instead of driving.
I bet we burn it anyway.
Let's treat coal ash the way they do nuclear waste of the same radioactivity. The processing plant can then charge the coal fuelled station for waste disposal :) and the output can feed the nuclear building program.
The trouble is that all this requires thinking 20 and more years ahead, and the big hole in our political system is that no politician can think past the next election.
Andy