http://www.calgaryherald.com/Cars/Ford+unveils+electric+future/1166062/story.html

Actually, this is what Wackypedia actually says;

Current economic uranium resources will last for over 100 years at current consumption rates.

China and India plus Indonesia have plans to nearly triple the rate of consumption. Oh dear.

while it is expected there is twice that amount awaiting discovery.

Completely unproven so far, despite 30 years of trying, and a worsening future for uranium use, although some think investment in exploration should be made now because of the Chinese, India and Indonesia.

With reprocessing and recycling, the reserves are good for thousands of years.

Breeders! Absolutely filthy. This just adds to an already very dirty and uneconomic fuel process.

It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium ore reserves are economically viable, while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction).

So 5.5million tonnes gets you 100 years at current rates of consumption. See above regarding the Chinese, India and Indonesia.

There is a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade.” In other words, there is very little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore.

Aw, damn. There’s uranium everywhere, but it’s just not economically possible to make use of it.

I’ve seen the seawater stuff over the years; it will cost more in (fossil fuel) energy to retrieve it. Which is what the USSR and the Japanese discovered.

Nuclear is a component that has it’s own set of problems and is also a non-renewable.

Do you have any idea how long it will take to run out of known uranium reserves, even if we use them to generate 100% of our power? And not even talking about using breeder reactors?

And if you’re going to pretend that future technology exists today, then we can talk about how long it would take to deplete the deuterium in the ocean.

“…you’ll see one bloody big hole right in the centre of the runway. not bad for a plane that flew 4 times its maximum range and which used a bicycle chain in the analogue targeting computer.”

Bicycle chain must have been loose to get the attack line twenty degrees off the runway center line.

Ascension.

…..if you think wheatgrass and wind are going to supply enough power with out nuclear you are sorely mistaken.

Who said they were going to supply enough … yet? Nuclear is a component that has it’s own set of problems and is also a non-renewable.

These problems aren’t solved with one solution OVER another, they’re complimentary, for a time. If you have a finite resource (uranium), logic tells you that you have to move to a renewable at some stage.

Walt Patterson who is a world respected energy consultant wrote;

“As ….. fuel security dominate the energy agenda, the battle between traditional and
innovative electricity intensifies around the world, notably in fast-growing economies such as China. After half a century, nuclear power is the ultimate in tradition ….. why pick the slowest, most expensive, most limited, most inflexible and riskiest option? In 1957, despite the Windscale fire, nuclear power was worth trying. We (UK) tried it: its weakness proved to be economics, not safety. Now nuclear generation is just an impediment to sustainable electricity.”

Some people just don’t care, but most are actually anti-stupidity and backdoor government control. Furthermore, if you think wheatgrass and wind are going to supply enough power with out nuclear you are sorely mistaken.

Of course the Vulcan flew four times its range. The operational radius of any heavy bomber is never assumed to be its unrefueled range, which would be ridiculous. B-2s routinely fly what probably is something like eight times their “maximum range.” Aerial refueling makes maximum range if not infinite only because crews can’t live forever.

The rest of my mistakes are poor memory of a quarter-century ago. Had I known my e-mail to Farago would be a post, I’d have done a two-minute Internet check…

No Stephan it was 3 Vulcans. 1 on the mission , one mission spare and a third at accension as backup for the two flying. The Vulcan carried 21 1000lb bombs on the first mission or if we use another clarksonism the a total bomb weight of 21 average americans. 11 Victor tankers were used on the mission so that is at least one thing correct. oh and if you look you’ll see one bloody big hole right in the centre of the runway. not bad for a plane that flew 4 times its maximum range and which used a bicycle chain in the analogue targeting computer.

If true, these sorts of things tend to give ammunition to the rabid anti-environmentalists, helping create complete distractions.

Again, it just makes it that much harder to have a sensible discussion about what needs to be DONE, especially with the drill-baby-drill, nuclear P-o-w-a, waste waste waste, global-warming-is-a-scam nutters.