I heard they had WMD. Sanctions first or straight in?
looks at your location
Does that also mean that there are cheap New York-Ireland flights through Kuwait Air? That would be awesome!
Not sure. I am going to New York March 17th next year for a stag do. Flights are on Expedia at the minute, Heathrow to New York RTN, for just £250. Add £30/40 flight from Belfast to heathrow and I am still saving.
From my scientific musings inside my head, I guessed that the reason the flight is so cheap is that no Americans want anything to do with Kuwait air. So I would guess the reverse flights would be just as cheap.
Translation: bachelor party
That’s assuming the reactors only use one specific type of uranium and that the byproducts aren’t recycled for reuse.
There’s more than one way to fuel a reactor. Although you’re right about the NIMBY anti-nuke loons (protip: much more radioactivity is released by using coal plants than from reactors).
I’m sure they’ll use some of it to fight international climate change initiatives. That’s more useful to THEM, until temperatures get so high that their camels start dropping dead of heat exhaustion.
Every day four (sometimes five times a day), 100 open hopper cars of Virginia coal cruises by my backyard. That’s about 28,000,000 lbs of coal a day or 10 billion lbs a year. Figuring 1 ppm of Uranium in that coal, that wprks out to about 10,000 lbs of U a year. Presuming a 0.71% concentration of slow fissionable U-235==> 72 lbs (32.7 kg). That would be better than 1/2 the the amount needed for a “Little Boy” weapon (which used only 80% HEU for both the hollow cylinder projectile and the smaller fixed cylinder at the end). Of course, for a more advanced weapon design, it would be more than adequate.
North Carolina, a potential nuclear power. Watch out Iran!
Multiply the above by ~2.5 for the amount of Thorium.
The world is relatively unexplored for uranium. Also nuclear waste can be reprocessed, very little of the energy is currently used.
Saying that we face peak uranium would be like people saying the world will run out of oil pre WWII. (They did say that).
You can also make more nuclear fuel with breeder reactors.
Has Bill Kristol written about being greeted as liberators and the spontaneous parades in Mecca yet?
I read that an acre of solar panels (in Wisconsin!) would power an ev of ordinary efficiency 900,000 miles per year. Wanna fuck the Saudis? Ev’s. Think of the gas nozzle as dispensing tiny Saudi flags into your tank, each of which you pay for with your personal labor.
What aid does the US provide Japan?
There are political problems involved in reprocessing. Lots of them. The two big ones:
Wherever the plant is proposed it will find intense opposition.
Reprocessing necessarily requires the breeding of plutonium, which is seen as a step toward weaponization.
I don’t see any way around those issues. There’s not even agreement on Yucca Mountain, and that’s in BFE, far away from everybody.
No, it’s stating the truth based upon current consumption rates, political reality, and future feasibility. That can change in the future, but until then it’s important to recognize the realities of the situation.
No direct aid, but the Treasury bought up lots and lots of Yen during the 90s to help stabilize the Japanese economy.
I really wish I could get the song “Shock the Monkey” out of my head.
These arguments are based on the ignorance of the anti-nuclear crowd. I thought ignorance was something to be fought?
Airman Doors, USAF isn’t saying those arguments are valid, he’s just saying that those are the oppositions to building more nuclear plants. There is a lot of ignorance in the US when it comes to nuclear power, and it’s going to be an uphill battle to get any new plants built.
Interesting thread. I would have figured this bunch to be a little more tolerant, perhaps even to a fault.
For the sake of argument, suppose that the climate pact goes into effect, and it cripples the economies of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. Are you prepared to have an armload of failed nation-states around the Middle East?
I realize that Doors has gone on record as objecting to my premise. Is that the general consensus here?
I agree, but I’m probably in the minority again.
But comparing that to literally running out of oil doesn’t work well; they are different classes of problems.
Given that oil isn’t an unlimited resource, that is an inevitability if they can’t survive without massive oil exports, regardless of any climate pacts. Which I don’t think will have nearly the effect you think it will, and will likely make them last longer if it slows the consumption of oil. Nor will their economies be improved by ending up underwater, thrown into famine, or the markets for their oil collapsing into chaos; like many people you are conveniently ignoring the economic cost of doing nothing about climate change and only focusing on the cost of trying to stop it.
And it isn’t the collective duty of humanity to screw civilization over just to preserve the economy of a few self destructive dictatorships.