Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Jun 17, 2018 4:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2009 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1949
Location: Montreal
Cyril R wrote:
then there's above ground factors such as politics and geographic location etc.

Its a lot like geothermal power: Environmentalists like it, but you're only allowed to develop it where there isn't any :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2009 5:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 437
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
Cyril R wrote:
Your suggestion that ore grade is the determining variable considering uranium resources is too simplistic. There are many other important geochemical and geophysical variables such as solubility, hardness of the rock, depth, geographic location etc


I believe you have misunderstood. I believe I wrote:

DV82XL wrote:
...low grade deposits become economically viable or there is an impetus to develop more efficient techniques for extraction, like the work being done with seawater production, or re-enrichment of depleted uranium stocks and leaching of mine tailings. All of these have been considered seriously enough to have warranted proof-of-concept projects, at one time or another.


This was not by any means an exhaustive list. However I stand by my assertion that the decision will be made on economics and little else, that is different than saying that it will be determined by the grade of ore - that will only be one of the factors. Nevertheless it would be foolish to suggest that this would become an issue while high-grade ore bodies can still be exploited.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 25, 2009 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 20, 2006 7:50 pm
Posts: 282
jaro wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
then there's above ground factors such as politics and geographic location etc.

Its a lot like geothermal power: Environmentalists like it, but you're only allowed to develop it where there isn't any :lol:

Hense, Rossing. Its about the worst type of ore you can get, hard rock at 300ppm low solubility and largely impermeable. And the fact its still open convinced me long ago that Uranium resource avaliability its a political issue at best. We simply aren't ever going to run out of the stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Nov 26, 2009 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
dezakin wrote:
jaro wrote:
Cyril R wrote:
then there's above ground factors such as politics and geographic location etc.

Its a lot like geothermal power: Environmentalists like it, but you're only allowed to develop it where there isn't any :lol:

Hense, Rossing. Its about the worst type of ore you can get, hard rock at 300ppm low solubility and largely impermeable. And the fact its still open convinced me long ago that Uranium resource avaliability its a political issue at best. We simply aren't ever going to run out of the stuff.


Where did you find such info on Rossing?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 14, 2009 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3622
Location: Alabama
SL Tribune: Stop uranium train

Quote:
Depleted uranium is a bomb with a very long fuse.


The hyperbole and fear-mongering in order to sell newspapers continues...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 16, 2009 12:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 01, 2009 1:13 am
Posts: 242
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
SL Tribune: Stop uranium train

Quote:
Depleted uranium is a bomb with a very long fuse.


The hyperbole and fear-mongering in order to sell newspapers continues...


Speaking of hyperbole, this reminds me of today's New York Times article about how the Chinese plan to build 11 reactors per year is "stirring concerns."

Um...um...um...

Whose concern exactly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 16, 2009 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 31, 2009 11:15 am
Posts: 51
Location: Columbus, OH
NNadir wrote:
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
SL Tribune: Stop uranium train

Quote:
Depleted uranium is a bomb with a very long fuse.


The hyperbole and fear-mongering in order to sell newspapers continues...


Speaking of hyperbole, this reminds me of today's New York Times article about how the Chinese plan to build 11 reactors per year is "stirring concerns."

Um...um...um...

Whose concern exactly?


It is concerning the hell out of me since I work in manufacturing and 90% of my region's power comes from coal, which I believe is about to get a lot more expensive with the upcoming environmental policy changes in the pipeline.

I am in central Ohio, so any attempts at re-powering this area with solar/wind/hydro/geothermal merely amount to rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic...

The last thing US manufacturing needs is for China to develop abundant, cheap power to drive their industry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 16, 2009 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
Can't we just use depleted uranium to make flywheels or gravity storage devices? The stuff is very heavy. Too bad it incinerates upon impact (the military actually likes that though, DU makes for some nasty AP ammo). Building the things underground should solve that. Or use depleted UO2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 18, 2009 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3622
Location: Alabama
SL Tribune: Is Utah disposal site safe for depleted uranium?

Quote:
State regulators begin taking comments next month on how to contain DU effectively for 10,000 years or more.


Uh, will they be taking comments on how to "contain" the billions of tonnes of natural uranium in the state of Utah that will be more radioactive than DU for the next 5 billion years? I didn't think so...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2009 4:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
There are also dry cask storage methods being developed that use depleted uranium as radiation shielding material. The idea is to use it as major additive to the concrete casks. It seems like much of the depleted uranium could be effectively (and usefully) 'disposed' this way, while actually making the dry casks leak less radiation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2009 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 23
Location: Syracuse, New York
Seems obvious that they should simply stack it, and wait for common sense to catch up with the physical potential.

_________________
First choice for Energy, last choice for weapons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 03, 2010 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3622
Location: Alabama
SL Tribune: Radioactive waste soon to find home in Utah

Quote:
Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, called the plans disappointing. She questioned the reason for what she considers a rush. "It's horribly short-sighted and backwards to do this hastily," she said. One factor contributing to the decision-making is that the Savannah River cleanup received $1.6 billion in stimulus funds. The Energy Department must spend the $22 million for loading, shipping and storing the three-part Savannah River campaign, which includes work by several contractors, by the end of next year. "At the end of the day," said Pierce, "it's disappointing because this is not a trivial amount of waste they will be accepting. The health and safety of Utahns deserves more consideration than this."


The comments section show how quickly anything becomes an anti-Mormon screed in Utah.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2010 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 495
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
When you are losing the argument and you know anything about the subject it is easy to just name call. Or In the case of Utah just start trashing the LDS church.


Last edited by Ida-Russkie on Jan 05, 2010 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2010 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3066
Is this stuff being stored as UF6, UF4, U3O8, UO2, or in some other form?
I could see Utah insisting that any proposed long term storage of depleted uranium should be as an oxide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jan 04, 2010 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 01, 2009 1:13 am
Posts: 242
Lars wrote:
Is this stuff being stored as UF6, UF4, U3O8, UO2, or in some other form?
I could see Utah insisting that any proposed long term storage of depleted uranium should be as an oxide.


Generally, it's stored as UF6, which is regrettable, I think. That is, from what I understand, what the material at Fernald is, at least.

I agree that it should be converted to the oxide. The chemotoxicity of UF6 easily outstrips and putative radiotoxicity.

I have a cute paper somewhere in my files suggesting the use of this material as a fluorinating agent, to make HFC's and certain other organofluorine compounds, which actually UF6 is quite good at doing. Controlled fluorination of organics is generally non-trivial.

I'll see if I can dig the paper up.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 109 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group