Reply #94: Nope

[RafterMan]

The 40-60 year estimate that is frequently quoted is based on using U-235 from mines. U-238 makes up over 99% of uranium in the world and can be converted to usable fuel while producing electricity in breeder reactors.

Further, it does not take into account uranium in seawater, which can be extracted at much higher costs than in the case of mining. Because of the economics of nuclear power, higher fuel costs do not add much to the cost of production.

Further still, it does not take into account thorium, which is 4x more plentiful than uranium of all types and can also be used as breeder fuel.

Additionally, the calcualtions on the page I pointed to are based on supplying 25x current world electricity production, not 20%.

The idea that "no permanent solution can ever be derived from consumable resources" is only true on paper -- if a resource can last until we have to flee the expanding sun, that's permanent enough for me.

Being for nuclear, however, does not mean being against renewables and distributed generation. Renewable oils would be great for localized heat production, where the heat -> electrical -> heat cycle is less efficient. Distributed electrical production such as from photovoltaics offers safety, redundancy and freedom. But for a cost-effective, long-term backbone that can provide sustained and concentrated power, I haven't seen anything to compete with nuclear.