Newsgroup: it.discussioni.energie-alternative
Titolo: l'inutilità di ricorrere al nucleare

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9069-1735134,00.html
Alcune mie considerazioni:
- le riserve di uranio dureranno 42 anni "ai livelli di consumo attuale".
Raddoppiamo (a livello mondiale) il numero di centrali, e l'uranio durerà 21
anni. Quadruplichiamolo (e, comunque, saremo sempre ben lontani dal
sopperire completamente alla penuria di petrolio) e dureranno poco più di
dieci anni.
- che senso ha parlare di centrali destinate a durare 20, 30 o 40 anni, se
tra 10-15 anni non avranno più combustibile?
- negli ultimi due anni il prezzo dell'uranio è triplicato; e non potrà che
aumentare in futuro, soprattutto se tanti paesi si rivolgeranno al
"nucleare" come "fonte alternativa"... siamo sicuri che, poniamo, tra dieci
anni il nucleare sarà economicamente affordabile?
Saluti                                               Nuovomedioevo
********************************************
August 15, 2005
Uranium shortage poses threat
By Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent
A GLOBAL shortage of uranium could jeopardise plans to build a new
generation of nuclear power stations in Britain.
The dearth of uranium will be discussed at the World Nuclear
Association's symposium in London next month and could prove to
be a major stumbling block in the nuclear industry's attempt to have
old nuclear power stations replaced with modern reactors.
While Britain has no plans to begin building a new generation of
nuclear reactors, pressure has been growing to take a decision to
restart a nuclear programme as a way of cutting carbon dioxide
emissions that lead to climate change and reducing Britain's
reliance on imported gas.
However, a recent report by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada
said that there was likely to be a 45,000-tonne shortage of uranium
in the next decade, largely because of growing Chinese demand for
the metal. Prices for uranium have almost tripled, to about $26/lb
between March 2003 and May 2005, after being stable for years.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and
Development's Nuclear Agency's "red book" - its statistical study of
world uranium resources and demand - the world consumed 67,000
tonnes of uranium in 2002. Only 36,000 tonnes of this was produced
from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary
sources, in particular ex- military sources as nuclear weapons are
decommissioned.
In 2001 the European Commission said that at the current level of
uranium consumption, known uranium resources would last 42 years.
With military and secondary sources, this life span could be
stretched to 72 years. Yet this rate of usage assumes that nuclear
power continues to provide only a fraction of the world's energy
supply. If capacity were increased six-fold, then the 72-year supply
would last just 12 years.
Paul Mobbs, an environmental campaigner, said: "It would be
unwise to advocate adopting the nuclear option when we have no
realistic idea of how long the uranium resources will last. We would
very quickly shift from shortages of oil and coal to shortages of
uranium."
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association,
said: "Increased demand for uranium is going to be a factor, but
the industry believes that nuclear power has served the UK very well
and that we should look at the issue of replacing those generators
that are due to be closed, whether the uranium supply is plentiful
or not."
China has said that it intends to build 40 new nuclear power
stations by 2020. Last month, Canadian officials confirmed that
China wants to buy Canadian uranium and to participate in joint
mining ventures. Canada is the world's largest uranium producer.
Uranium mining production peaked in 2001. Experts believe that it
will take more than ten years to open new mines.
Despite a resurgence in interest in nuclear power around the world,
the Government has insisted that British Nuclear Fuels puts its
Westinghouse division, which builds new power stations, up for sale.
The company said that the decision to sell Westinghouse was prompted
by 15 serious expressions of interest in the past 18 months.

 dieci anni.
Scientists have long considered using thorium as a reactor fuel -- and for
good reason: The naturally occurring element is more abundant, more
efficient and safer to use than uranium. Plus, thorium reactors leave
behind very little plutonium1, meaning that governments have access to less
material for making nuclear weapons.
Libera traduzione: si e' considerato da tempo di usare il Torio come
combustibile nucleare: l'elemento e' piu' abbondante, piu' efficiente e
piu' sicuro dell'Uranio. Inoltre i reattori al Torio lasciano dietro poco
Plutonio, il che vuol dire che i governi avranno accesso a meno materiale
per fare armi nucleare.
E questo e' il problema:
But design challenges and a Cold War-era interest in using nuclear waste
byproducts in atomic bombs pushed the industry to use uranium as its
primary fuel. 
Cioe', problemi progettuale e (specialmente, aggiungo io) gli interessi
della Guerra Fredda nell'uso dei sottoprodotti dei rifiuti nucleari per le
bombe atomiche ha spinto l'industria ad usare Uranio come combustibile
primario.
Ora se gli ambientalisti smettessero di aiutare le lobby di turno e
premeressero per l'uso del Torio, sarebbe un passo intelligente.
Pekilan


Dubbio: il torio č diffuso, ma quanto č facile estrarlo? E, soprattutto,
come stiamo a bilancio energetico?
Tutto sommato, l'idrogeno č MOLTO piů diffuso di torio ed uranio... e tutto
il problema sta proprio nel procurarlo con un bilancio energetico positivo.
Saluti                            Nuovomedioevo

 positivo.
L'idrogeno non e' una fonte di energia, e' un semplice contenitore, come un
accumulatore al piombo.
Pekilan