To close this particular can of worms before it grows into a messy debate, lets just say that this issue reflects a fundamental divide in the community of economists studying environmental matters; namely whether unlimited growth is possible coupled with a dematerialization of the economy, or if we need to aim for a more "steady state" solution. This question largely divides Ecological Economists from Environmental Economists (see http://www.env-econ.net/2006/03/welcome_ecoecon.html#more , for example), and also greatly depends on one's technological optimism.
In terms of the availability of Uranium, the Brazilian Government provides data that suggests reserves would last approx. 126 years at current use rates (http://www.inb.gov.br/english/ reservasMundiais.asp , unfortunately the source of the data is not given, though I assume its probably the IAEA). However, nuclear fuel is also available from dismantled nuclear weapons in the form of uranium or MOX (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX ). Furthermore, actual resources are considered to be considerably larger than current known reserves. For a good background, see http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/reports/2006/uranium2005-english.pdf . Also, nuclear energy is far from the only low carbon option. Wind, solar, tidal, biomass, run of the river hydro, and other renewables can provide a significant portion, and coupled with technologies like hydrogen fuel cells that can effectively reduce the intermittency of renewable generation could at least theoretically provide the vast majority of our generation (though there remain issues of power density that need to be dealt with, perhaps through next-generation superconducting power grids). Finally, there is always carbon capture and storage, though that has its own set of problems for the time being. All in all, I guess it really depends on your technological optimism, as well as how fast the political will develops to fix the vast market failures that currently result in the greenhouse gas externality by pricing carbon. On Jul 1, 1:41 am, "Alastair McDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > There aren't enough nuclear fuels to provide for the US's prodigal runaway > expansion of the use of the world's limited resources. How > is that going to stop the world being destroyed? > > Zeke, You are an economist. Do you hear what I am saying? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
