Talk:Peak uranium

message: 72.79.224.115, I copy edited your contribution that came without any references.  I took liberty to delete your third paragraph because it made too many assumptions on how the big energy crisis could unfold.  Let's work on shoring up the first two paragraphs.  We need to find quite a few references.  As far as I understand the current situation on reprocessing is that Japan, France and England all have found it to be uneconomical, but France and England have chosen to go ahead with it at the cost of the rate payers.  Here in the US, it's well known that it is not economical until the price of Uranium is much higher than it currently is.  Furthermore, the nuclear industry is not willing to shoulder the cost of such a plant in the US.  There are several risks that are too high for private industry to invest in such a project.  Considering of the history of nuclear power and the risks, stringent regulations are probably necessary.  It's difficult to say the anti-nuclear movement has any real effect when 60% of the population currently wants more nuclear power.  So let's set out and find references to back these two paragraphs. kgrr talk 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reprocessing is not done because it is profitable but because it reduces the volume of waste that must end up in ultimate storage. Furthermore politicians tend to listen not to the majority but whoever is shouting the loudest so the anti-nuke movement can have considerable influence. --Tweenk (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reprocessing emergency?

message: Reading about this subject in Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air the cost of seawater extraction is given as $100/kg by Seko et al. (2003) and this link on p174.  Unfortunately my uni does not have a subscription to Nuclear Technology and the web link for the other site appears to be down, so I can't confirm that this interpretation is correct.  If another editor has access to the original, or if they know what document the 2nd link was supposed to reference, can they update the page?  If correct then it would add more depth to the cost issue.
As a side note, in that chapter the cost references switch between $ and yen.  I don't know what the policy is usally, but would it help to have some continuity to make comparison easier?  Or is it assumed that the exchange rate whenever the article is read gives a more realistic comparison? WindyHaven (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seawater 

message: Since when is a technology considered mature?  Is this just an archaic form of the word or is there something else that's trying to be said?  It's rather awkward.  Maybe "established" would convey the idea of it being around, just not in use.  I'm guessing that is the connotation you're going for.  Lime in the Coconut 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not archaic.  It's a perfectly normal, modern use of the word.  Not awkward, either.  "Established" doesn't mean the same thing.  For something to be "mature" means that it has reached an advanced stage.  The word is frequently is applied to life forms, technologies, and structures or systems of various kinds. Xezlec (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  phosphate section and use of the word "mature" 

message: this youtube video by Albert A. Bartlett has an equation at 4:36 which differs from others here. its called the "Expiration Time or "T sub E", of a non-renewable resource whose rate of consumption is growing steadily". I think its highly relevant to all of the articles on peak resource use and limits to growth. If anyone else thinks his equation is relevant, can they transcribe it? the math is beyond me, and i cant reconstruct it from the image on screen.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Another equation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509164303/http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/testimony050616.html to http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/testimony050616.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080419103319/http://www.pnl.gov:80/news/release.asp?id=204 to http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080102182515/http://www.americanscientist.org:80/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25710/page/1 to http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/25710/page/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080716044207/http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm to http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040924001654/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-03.pdf to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Peak uranium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109125803/http://www.eia.doe.gov:80/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/table18.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613104251/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2050703 to http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2050703
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205103749/http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html to http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
*Added  tag to http://whb.news365.com.cn/yw/201101/t20110126_2944856.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Solar and wind are now available cheaper than any other sources.  
http://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf
The IAEA says that we will have uranium shortages starting in 2025, then getting worse fast. 
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1104_scr.pdf  
Nuclear is only 2% of our world energy generation.  renewable are 16% and solar and wind are doubling every couple of years.  
German and Denmark are doing fine with solar and wind predictability.  There are two of the most reliable grid on the planet.  Their whole sale cost are average or low.  Their retail rates a high because of taxes and fees.  
Reprocessing has never been economical, and it multiplies the volume of deadly medium level wastes for a slight decrease in spent fuel rods.  
Every grid in the world has massive reserve generators or hydro because baseload has always needed them.  even France uses the rest of Europe as their reserve generators.  Those same generators work just fine with predictable intermittent solar and wind.  Solar actual reduced peaking requirement.  Gird operators can count on solar when it's need for summer peak air conditioning load.  
I'm just scientist who has written operating systems and design optical computers, I cant figure the wiki system.   You folks have made it your own private party, I wish you with change that.  
Please turn down the difficulty level on Captcha, it's ridiculous.  
-----  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.79.115 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous edit with no sources 

message: The content of this paragraph should be emphasized more, earlier:
If one is willing to pay $300/kg for uranium, there is a vast quantity available in the ocean.[63] It is worth noting that since fuel cost only amounts to a small fraction of nuclear energy total cost per kWh, and raw uranium price also constitutes a small fraction of total fuel costs, such an increase on uranium prices wouldn't involve a very significant increase in the total cost per kWh produced.
It is stated early in the article that 1 kg of U-235 can give as much energy as 2700 tonnes of coal and that 0.7% of mined uranium is U-235. Light Water Reactors allegedly utilize around 0.5% of their fuel, which is enriched to about 3% U-235 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-water_reactor#Fuel). Thus, the equivalent amount of coal for 1 kg mined uranium is approximately 2 700 000 kg * 0.7%  * 0.5% / 3% ≈ 113 400. When not considering processing or administration costs of either product (nor efficiency losses in their respective plants), this translates $300/kg for uranium into less than 0.003$/kg for coal. That is cheap coal.
When is cost/kg relevant for energy sources? We should by default be considering cost/kWh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overemphasis on cost/kg