# Nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417 "2005-08-03T13:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/161 "2005-08-08T21:54:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the implied statement is, “the casks are unsafe because they are not sufficiently resistant to anti-tank missiles” is kind of silly unless it is likely that a lot of people are going to shoot anti-tank missiles at them. As I pointed out, at one time it seemed highly unlikely that anyone would hijack a jetplane and fly it into the World Trade Center. But it happened anyway. > [@](#): > > Well, if the risks overall of keeping it in my backyard out weigh the risks of keeping it in yours, then, as has been pointed out, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. We need a place to keep it. It is safer to keep it in a mountain a hundred miles from anywhere, in a nuclear testing range, than in 141 different places much closer both to population centers and to the local water tables. Why do you find it preferable (in the abstract) to magnify the danger by storing the waste in 141 different places, instead of in a freaking desert that has been studied intensely since 1978? Well, because what you are saying is simply **untrue**. It is the Yucca proponents who want to magnify the dangers and risks, by increasing the number of storage facilities and by introducing the risks associated with transportation. If Yucca is used for storage, it **will not** eliminate the on-site storage of nuclear waste. All it will do is add one more place that nuclear waste is stored. And most of it will be in an area that is geologically unsuitable for such a task. Earthquakes happen, and happen at Yucca, as I cited previously. Yucca is also a dormant, but not dead volcano. > [@](#): > > [This is the kind of thing I was talking about.](http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cask.htm) Nice picture. No facts. How fast was it going? What type of cask is that? Was it empty? What did it impact? What year was this picture taken? Were there independent observers? When come back, bring facts. > [@](#): > > The part you skipped is the part where you explain how enough of the nuclear waste escapes from the stainless steel cask it’s stored in, and how the water penetrates the six-inch thick walls and dissolves the vitrified nuclear waste within, then filters down thru a thousand feet of rock over a hundred years or so and contaminates the aquifer in high enough quantities to cause health issues - without anyone noticing. > > I can’t imagine that you believe we are just going to throw the waste into a hole in the mountain, quickly slam the door and then forget all about it. The site is going to be monitored. And I suspect that any changes in heavy metal levels anywhere near the site would be detected pretty damn quick. > > You would have to show that leaving the waste where it is is less risky than storing it out in the middle of nowhere, and that transporting it there is too dangerous to risk. Define your term, please. What would be too dangerous? And why does storing it where it is have to be _less_ risky? If it’s the same risk, as your arguments seem to indicate, then why not leave it where it is and eliminate the dangers of transportation? And, you’re wrong too about the site location. It is not “in the middle of nowhere”, nor is it “a hundred miles from anything”. You obviously are ignorant in regards to Nevada, or you would know that the town of Armagosa (population 1600+) is less than 10 miles from Yucca Mountain, Beatty (population 1200+) is less than 20 miles from Yucca Mountain, Tonopah (population 2600+) is less than 70 miles from Yucca Mountain and that there are dozens of other towns and countless ranches, all less than 100 miles from Yucca. As a charter member of this site, you should know better than to mislead people like that. As I showed previously, even the DOE concedes that there will be accidents during transport; they are inevitable. But if there is no transport, there cannot be an accident during transport. I’ll take my elimination of accident risk over your crossed fingers any day, in this situation. You are wrong about the suitability of the casks to store nuclear waste for many tens of thousands of years, too. There are no such casks. They don’t exist. The casks you are talking about are for the transport of nuclear waste, not for storage. But, if the containers are as safe as you think they are, why does it need to be transported and stored at Yucca at all? If they are so safe, why can’t they stay where they are now? If any container failure will be monitored and detected, why not do that where they are and eliminate the risk of accident from transport? I’ll tell you why: because people don’t want this stuff in their own backyard. They (rightly) fear it and want to put it out of sight, out of mind. Lying to oneself to justify unreasonable responses to fear is easy; just look at Iraq. The nuclear waste scenario is not very different. On-site nuclear waste storage will not end if Yucca is licensed. We will simply have one _more_ waste storage site. And we will incur risks that otherwise could be avoided, by just not moving the damn stuff. I ask again: If the containers are as safe as you think they are, why does it need to be transported and stored at Yucca at all? If they are so safe, why can’t they stay where they are now? If any container failure will be monitored and detected, why not do that where they are and eliminate the risk of accident from transport? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/162 "2005-08-08T21:59:33Z")
This link will take you to a .pdf which includes more than 23 pages of DOE-Yucca Project emails. [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2005/pdf/ymchron01.pdf](http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2005/pdf/ymchron01.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Procyon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac91a4/32.png) [@Procyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procyon)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/163 "2005-08-09T00:11:37Z")
A question I have about nuclear power doesn’t concern waste, but fuel. Specifically, if the USA were to adopt nuclear power generation on a large scale, would there be problems obtaining fuel in the long term? Any information about the US’s current supply of fuel, how hard it is to obtain more, or long term viability of nuclear power would be helpful, as I’m fairly clueless in this area of the subject. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/164 "2005-08-09T00:16:18Z")
> [@Procyon](#): > > A question I have about nuclear power doesn’t concern waste, but fuel. Specifically, if the USA were to adopt nuclear power generation on a large scale, would there be problems obtaining fuel in the long term? Any information about the US’s current supply of fuel, how hard it is to obtain more, or long term viability of nuclear power would be helpful, as I’m fairly clueless in this area of the subject. I know its a very long thread but read though the first 50 posts. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/165 "2005-08-09T01:01:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo > If you had been reading, you would have seen that it was provided to refute the notion, presented by Sam Stone that it was “impossible to rupture” a transportation cask. Of course, you can provide the quote where I said that, right? Without leaving out the ‘IN AN ACCIDENT’ part? Last time I checked, a TOW missile does not consitute an ‘accident’. I think you are engaged in dishonest debating in this thread. An honest debate starts with issues that you are seriously worried about, in which we discuss whether those issues can be solved. A dishonest debate is one in which you start with the conclusion, and throw out ever-more outlandish scenarios to back up your pre-determined judgement, attack straw men, misquote people, and refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/166 "2005-08-09T01:03:33Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > In 1000 years, either one of the following things will happen: > > a) We’ll all be dead in which case it doesn’t matter > b) We’ll maintain a continued technological civilisation around Yucca in which case we can monitor and move the materiel in case of any danger > c) We’ll revert back to a stone-age existance in which case it doesn’t really matter either because we’re pretty much doomed anyway You forgot an important one: In 1000 years, the only radioactivity left will be the stuff with a very long half-life. How dangerous will that be? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/167 "2005-08-09T01:07:00Z")
Of course, if you protect the containers so that they can withstand a TOW missile (and those are a dime a dozen these days…hell, I saw 10 for sale just the other day on a street corner) then you’ll have to start worrying about other threats anyway so whats the point? I mean, if you hit one of these containers with a nuke I’m guessing it would spill its radioactive gunk all over the place. 😛 Make them nuke-proof and then there are the alien death rays to worry about… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/168 "2005-08-09T01:30:38Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Of course, you can provide the quote where I said that, right? Without leaving out the ‘IN AN ACCIDENT’ part? Last time I checked, a TOW missile does not consitute an ‘accident’. > > I think you are engaged in dishonest debating in this thread. An honest debate starts with issues that you are seriously worried about, in which we discuss whether those issues can be solved. A dishonest debate is one in which you start with the conclusion, and throw out ever-more outlandish scenarios to back up your pre-determined judgement, attack straw men, misquote people, and refuse to listen to anyone else’s points. I’ve been listening to other’s people’s points. Some of them are worth hearing. I haven’t misquoted anyone. I haven’t put words or assumptions into other people’s posts, either. I’ve cited fact after fact after fact, only to see those of you with no cites dismiss them as “silly”, “oulandish”, and now “dishonest”. I’ve seen Yucca mountain untruthfully characterized as “in the middle of nowhere” and “a hundred miles from anything”. I’ve seen arguments made in favor of storage casks that do not exist. I am not the one engaging in dishonest debate. I have facts and provide cites for my information. Can you do the same? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/169 "2005-08-09T01:31:43Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You forgot an important one: In 1000 years, the only radioactivity left will be the stuff with a very long half-life. How dangerous will that be? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/170 "2005-08-09T01:34:39Z")
I know that TV is a silly source, but I remember watching a Discovery Channel special a couple years ago (when it was still good) that showed the testing of the cases and the locomotives. The train hit the truck going at a very good clip and they showed the case being extracted from the flaming wreckage and it was nice and intact. If it’s on TV it has to be true! ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/171 "2005-08-09T01:35:20Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Not only that, but when snow sticks around for a while, it tends to collect dust and dirt. Then when it melts off it leaves the dust and dirt behind as mud. This stuff has to be cleaned off a solar collector, and it will adhere even at steep angles. > > Plus, solar panels become defective and need maintenance and replacement. Homeowners will attempt to do a lot of this themselves since it’s very expensive to hire pros. Many of those homeowners will not use adequate safety precautions, and a number of them will die. > > If you are using human deaths and injuries as an excuse to stay away from nuclear power, you simply cannot ignore the fact that filling a nation with solar panels in high places will lead to a lot of accidents. A LOT. As I said, on average about 15,000 people in the U.S. die EVERY YEAR from falls. > > To put that in perspective, [The Chernobyl Disaster](http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm) killed 31 people immediately, and there have been 10 deaths from thyroid cancer definitely attributable to the accident. In addition, some 1800 cases of cancer have been thought to be at least partially attributable to the disaster, and no doubt as the population ages there will be more. This is a tragedy, no doubt. But is it any greater than maybe 50,000 people a year dying from falling off of roofs, and maybe hundreds of thousands suffering broken bones and other injuries? That’s a pretty big reach on the number, considering that the people that are dying of falls are not dying from falls off of roofs – rather, the elderly who die from complications due to falls. [http://seniorliving.about.com/od/healthnutrition/a/fallstudy.htm](http://seniorliving.about.com/od/healthnutrition/a/fallstudy.htm) And if you’re going to take that line of thought, you also need to consider the cost of smog. Granted a lot of this is due to autos, but it is believed that 5,800 Ontarians died from the effects of smog in 2004. [http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/PrintStory?filename=ot-omasmog20050614®ion=Ottawa](http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/PrintStory?filename=ot-omasmog20050614®ion=Ottawa) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/172 "2005-08-09T01:42:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Of course, if you protect the containers so that they can withstand a TOW missile (and those are a dime a dozen these days…hell, I saw 10 for sale just the other day on a street corner) then you’ll have to start worrying about other threats anyway so whats the point? I mean, if you hit one of these containers with a nuke I’m guessing it would spill its radioactive gunk all over the place. 😛 > > Make them nuke-proof and then there are the alien death rays to worry about… > > -XT The test you refer to was conducted by the US Army and the IFC (the company who manufactures the cask that was tested). The IFC was trying to show that the cask could survive a missile attack. It could not. At no time has anyone on this board, other than yourself, said anything about “alien death rays”. Are you here to debate facts, or simply to try and ridicule those who do not agree with your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/173 "2005-08-09T01:44:54Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > That’s a pretty big reach on the number, considering that the people that are dying of falls are not dying from falls off of roofs – rather, the elderly who die from complications due to falls. > [http://seniorliving.about.com/od/healthnutrition/a/fallstudy.htm](http://seniorliving.about.com/od/healthnutrition/a/fallstudy.htm) > > And if you’re going to take that line of thought, you also need to consider the cost of smog. Granted a lot of this is due to autos, but it is believed that 5,800 Ontarians died from the effects of smog in 2004. > [http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/PrintStory?filename=ot-omasmog20050614®ion=Ottawa](http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/PrintStory?filename=ot-omasmog20050614®ion=Ottawa) Sam doesn’t appear to have time to be bothered providing little things like cites for his “facts”, **Raygun99**. ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/174 "2005-08-09T01:58:13Z")
I believe nuclear power should be a segment of our power production but it is unrealistic to consider it a energy replacement source. If you want to talk about “peal oil”, let’s talk about “peak uranium”. It is estimated that an energy peak of U-235 would be reached in 30 to 40 years if an aggressive program of nuclear fission reactors was implimented. [cite](http://www.carfree.com/papers/energy_future.html) Of course there are potential technologies for breeder reactors and thorium reactors – but that’s what they are, potential. The solar problem is solvable, IMO, just as the nuclear problem is, but solar offers so much more potential. It is my firm belief that solar, combined with fuel cell technology for storage, will be our primary energy solution in 20-30 years. We’ll be left with few other choices. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/175 "2005-08-09T01:58:40Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > I haven’t misquoted anyone. You claimed that I said it was impossible to rupture a nuclear fuel container, and offered the TOW missile as a refutation of what I supposedly said. What I actually said was that you can’t rupture one IN AN ACCIDENT. That’s called a misquote. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/176 "2005-08-09T02:39:54Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Originally Posted by Sam Stone > You forgot an important one: In 1000 years, the only radioactivity left will be the stuff with a very long half-life. How dangerous will that be? > > Cite? You want a cite for the concept of radioactive half-life? Try your high school physics text. If you want some specifics, I can do the math for you: Take Strontium-90, one of the common radioactive byproducts of fission. It has a half-life of 29 years, meaning that after 29 years about half of it will have decayed. In 290 years, there will only be about (.5)^10 of the original amount of Strontium-90 left in the waste, or 1/1000 of the original amount. After 2900 years, the amount drops to (.5)^100 of the original amount. That’s a very small number. Generally, the most dangerous radioactive materials are the ones with the shortest half-lives. That’s why nuclear waste is put in ‘cooling ponds’ at the reactor site after being removed from the reactor before being shipped. In a matter of days the waste is much, much safer than it was when it first came out. The really energetic stuff in the waste decays away very rapidly. Now, some waste products have much longer half-lives. PU-239 has a half-life of about 24,000 years, so after 10,000 years most of it will still be intact. However, the long half-life means it’s not that dangerous to be near, and in fact you can hold Plutonium in your hand with little effect. It emits little radiation for the simple reason that not many particles are decaying in the short period of time you handle it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/177 "2005-08-09T03:52:08Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > The test you refer to was conducted by the US Army and the IFC (the company who manufactures the cask that was tested). The IFC was trying to show that the cask could survive a missile attack. It could not. Yes, I got that. What we are talking about here is risk assessment and risk analysis. What are the odds of a containment vessel being attacked by missiles…and missiles generally used to kill tanks? Is it really necessary to protect the vessels from this kind of attack? What are the likely (more probable) accidents that could happen to such a containment vessel…and how good is the vessel at protecting from those more likely threats? If the vessel IS attacked by a threat that could potentially penetrate it what are the realistic consequences…and knowing that is it worth it to upgrade the armor protection (or whatever) to compensate for that threat? You see, its not just a matter of throwing threats at the problem until you find one that gets through and then saying ‘Ah HA! Well, since it can’t take a TOW missile it must not be safe’. I’m not saying YOU are saying that btw…just pointing out how this works. If you just keep throwing threats without actually knowing what the risks are, the cost/benifits, etc, then eventually you will get to the point I was making fun of…i.e. ‘well, if you hit the containment vessel with a nuke/alien death ray/chuck shot then the vessel will fail! So its just not safe and we should ditch the whole idea!’. Again, I’m not saying YOU are going there necessarily…I was just trying to make a point (and be funny). > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > At no time has anyone on this board, other than yourself, said anything about “alien death rays”. Are you here to debate facts, or simply to try and ridicule those who do not agree with your opinion? Nope, no one said anything about ‘alien death rays’, and I appologize if anyone here thought I was strawmaning you or anyone else with that position. :eek: I was trying to be funny and make a point at the same time. I guess I should have used a smiley or something to make sure you knew that. The point though was that there is an ever escalating level of ‘what ifs’ going on in this debate. TOW missiles really aren’t a dime a dozen and its pretty unlikely that one will ever be used against a containment vessel carrying nuclear waste. What would be the point? Do you think that blowing a small hole in such a vessel would cause an explosion? That it would cause a nuclear wasteland or something? It would just be a nasty clean up job…thats IF you could actually get your TOW into action to puncture the vessel. I’m not sure if you know this but DOE has its own para-military guards that are actually quite good. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/178 "2005-08-09T04:21:03Z")
Well, I’m more than 20 years out of high school, **Sam** , and they didn’t let me keep the textbook. So I’m gonna have you to ask you to provide some of these facts. Hopefully you’ll also provide cites for them. I notice that you did not even mention 240Pu, 242Pu, 244Pu, which **Stranger** listed in post #45 in addition to 239Pu. That seems like you might be ignoring something there, but perhaps it’s merely an oversight. Now that I’ve pointed it out, could you provide numbers for those? Thanks. I am mystified as to why you keep using a term of 10,000 years, when the NAS, backed by the courts, recommends 100,000-300,000 years. The law, and the scientists, say at least 100,000 years. That’s the target they have to hit, not 10,000. In any event, in your example, 239Pu contained for 10,000 years would still not have reached the halfway point in it’s halflife. It would still, according to your figures, need 14,000 years of storage. So why talk about 10,000 years at all? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/179 "2005-08-09T04:30:15Z")
Apparently, you completely missed my point. I pointed out that PU239 has a 24,000 year half-life. The point to 10,000 years is that by then, the danger from radioactivity in the waste will be but a very tiny fraction of what it will be in 10 years. As for cites, are you kidding? Radioactive half-life is a basic concept. I even did the math in my message to give you an idea of how it works. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2005, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/180 "2005-08-09T04:33:39Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > I believe nuclear power should be a segment of our power production but it is unrealistic to consider it a energy replacement source. If you want to talk about “peal oil”, let’s talk about “peak uranium”. It is estimated that an energy peak of U-235 would be reached in 30 to 40 years if an aggressive program of nuclear fission reactors was implimented. No. That isn’t estimated at all. All that you have there is a seond hand reference to an unnamed, authorless paper supposedly ‘presented’ at a conference. And even that doesn’t agree with your claim. It says that "production might peak in just 30-40 years. That’s it. A commercial website, selling a book that will almost exclusiveley sell to people who want to hear how bad cars are, mentions an unnamed paper, with no author, presented at a conference catering to people who believe in immenent energy shortage, that claims that there might be a Uranium peak, but presents absolutely nothing to back this up. As references presented in GD go this is one of the worst I;ve ever seen. It is on par with quoting the Church of Scientology as eveidence that psychiatry is a fraud. And even that assumes that the Scientologists themselves never made any such claim. Meanwhile if you want to know the real figures you cna check out this recent thread in GQ. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327833](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=327833) The facts say that there is aboslutely no danger of a peak within the next 100 years no matter what we do, while sensible use ensures no shortage for the next 10, 00 years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=10)