Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
You said "accurately", yesplease. Sorry for adding the redundant part, "100%".
How is 100% redundant? Accuracy means
Quote:
the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc.
Once again, yesplease, you said "accurately" - "free from error". I thought you were fixated on correct English but it seems not.
Accuracy has different definitions.
To help you research your error, yesplease, this is where you used the word "accurately", not "accuracy". It is the former word that you need to look up the meaning of. Have fun. (BTW, to ease the pain, I admit that, with the word "accuracy", "100%" was not redundant, though it was used in relation to your use of "accurately").
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Oh! Ya got me. Coulda sworn it was accuracy, but hey, certainly isn't the first time I've been wrong. So, for the record, I meant the definition I posted and wrote something that I didn't mean.
That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease wrote:
That being said, I'm still waiting for your explanation Miss Cleo, on how you have a high degree of confidence in predicting what will happen to the human race billions of years from now.
TonyPrep wrote:
Do you know how long the human species will last? Of course you don't, nor do I. So we shouldn't put any time limit on it, though we know that it can't outlast the solar system.
In case Miss Cleo doesn't answer, let me try my take.
Not many species have lasted billions of years. Chances are, the human species won't either. If is does, then it would have to have moved to the outer planets by the time the sun expands to consume the earth. As there are currently no other habitable planets in the solar system, humans would have to terraform some outer planet or build artificial habitats that can maintain a viable human population. Humans would also have to figure out how to survive a surfeit of solar energy as it expands to a red giant. Then they would have to manage on a lot less as it collapsed to a white dwarf. In the meantime, all sorts of solar related catastrophes have to be overcome, as well as keeping their fingers crossed that they manage to stay in orbit. Eventually the sun will become a stellar corpse so any humans left will have had to find other means of sustenance well before then. This involves travelling many light years to the closest star systems and hoping that at least one planet is habitable, that there are enough humans left (after generations of travel without any significant input of energy) to be able to build a new habitat and procreate.
Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.
Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English. Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.
So I have a high degree of confidence that the human species won't survive the demise of the solar system.
If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course, there is a chance that these things could happen, but when you start to multiply the probabilities (we haven't shown any ability to do any of this beyond a nearby small capsule with supplies shipped from earth, so, at this point, the probability of any one event is small) you end up with a very small probability indeed.
So what (roughly) are those probabilities over the next ~billion years?
TonyPrep wrote:
Now, remember, yesplease, this is not a scientific paper. This is conversational English.
How horrible it would be for you to use science, logic, or math instead of conversational English, which you are clearly quite good at as we can see from these statements in the same post, ironically enough.
TonyPrep wrote:
I am also perfectly able to use the English language properly
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease, you're post count is over a thousand.
TonyPrep wrote:
Of course we don't know the probabilities' exact magnitude, except that they are less than 1. It won't take many required successes to get the total probability trending to zero.
Roughly speaking, not exactly, since you don't seem to like such things, what are those probabilities?
TonyPrep wrote:
If you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say "I don't know" or "I don't have enough information to accurately predict that", what would you say?
"No se" pendejito! TonyPrep, if you were asked the question: "do you think the human species will outlast the solar system" and you couldn't say anything except for "purple", what would you say? C'mon d00d, no one put a gun to your head and forced you to say this batshitcrazy stuff, and constructing scenarios where others can't say they "don't know" to validate your PO psychic hotline only makes you seem nuttier. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1972 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:20 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.
However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 3:43 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease, dragging up one typo from all the posts we've shared is pathetic. However, I should be honoured that you kept that little gem from me. They are rare, after all, and should be worth a lot, some day.
Hey meng, I'm just bringing up an instance of your conversational English, which you were talking about. I don't see how it's off topic. Remember, don't shoot the messenger! In any event, I don't think those little gems will be worth the electrons they're sent on given how many other gaffs I've seen on your end, the latest example being how you "know" the future of the human species.
TonyPrep wrote:
However, it shows that you aren't serious about discussions here, so I will decline to answer your question; not that it was seriously asked, anyway.
Unlike you, who are serious about your claim to "know" what will happen to the human species in the future? C'mon... If I thought for a second you were interested in any serious discussion of anything I'd be up for it, but all you seem to do is "know" that others "imply" stuff they don't literally write, while "interpreting" the writings of those you seem fond of in a favorable way, regardless of what they literally wrote. _________________
The uranium shortage has affected existing atomic power plants, which are running below capacity. Due to insufficient uranium supply, power production at NPC’s plants fell to about 16,960 million units in 2007-08 from 18,000 MU a year earlier. Nuclear Power Corporation has highlighted this problem at various forums.....
**********************************************
There is plentiful uranium on earth: in seewater, granite, sandstone ....
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Tsk, tsk, M_B_S, as the article you cite makes clear, the lack of fuel is temporary while India seeks to ratify an agreement that will allow it to import nuclear fuel. This is something it has been unable to do since it tested a nuclear device in 1974, four years after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect. From an economic point of view it thus makes sense for them to wait while import restrictions are relaxed rather than spend money developing indigenous expensive low grade uranium resources.
Now....
***M_B_S Warning*** DO NOT READ BELOW THIS POINT. IT IS LIABLE TO MAKE YOU CRY.
Rejoice! Rejoice! It's that special time all right-thinking nuclear supporters wait for with baited breath......yes, the publication of the Red Book. For those not in the know, this is published biennially by the NEA and IAEA and compiles uranium statistics from over 40 countries. It is particularly beloved by those of us who like to fondle our fuel rods because it invariably shows increases in all categories of uranium reserves, despite production. So what does the Red Book 2007 say? Let's see:
Worldwide around 5.5 million tonnes of uranium that could be economically mined has been identified. The figure is up 17% compared to that from the last edition of the Red Book because of a surge in exploration for uranium prompted by a dramatic price increase.
and
Quote:
In addition to these identified resources, the category of uranium that could be expected to be found based on the geologic characteristics of known resources has grown by 500,000 tonnes to 10.5 million tonnes.
To those who have followed the long, tortuous but frequently rewarding path of this thread, none of this should come as much of a surprise. And, of course, the fact that the Red Book figures refer only to conventional resources (i.e. excluding phosphates, coal ash, etc) mineable for less that $130/kg and that the speculative resource estimates currently exclude some countries such as Australia, should almost need to go unsaid.
So, it would seem the foundations of the nuclear renaissance continue to get stronger.
If, M_B_S, you ignored my warning, please consider that the emotional distress you now incur may prove a useful experience in overcoming a far greater trauma when Germany abolishes its nuclear phase-out.
There are some differences in the numbers from Kasakhstan
Look here the official number is smaller ~10%
http://www.kazatomprom.kz/15000/?nc7&version=
According to the results of year 2007 the volume of uranium production in Kazakhstan was 6637 tons of uranium compared with 5281 tons of uranium in 2006; the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%.
So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!
Last edited by M_B_S on Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!
I'm sure when contacted, Wise-uranium would give you further details about this.
Since 2007, Kazatomprom is not the state monopolist on uranium mining anymore
South Inkai and Akdala Uranium Mine are two mines that have a JV with Toronto-baed Uranium One (UUU), with of a production share from Akdala mine alone of 700t for UUU in 2007 that are not accounted for Kazatomprom.
I beg you pardon for this inconvenience
If interested have a look at their both projects in KZ
So it seems the wise numbers are 10% to optimistical = stagnation!
I'm sure when contacted, Wise-uranium would give you further details about this.
Since 2007, Kazatomprom is not the state monopolist on uranium mining anymore
South Inkai and Akdala Uranium Mine are two mines that have a JV with Toronto-baed Uranium One (UUU), with of a production share from Akdala mine alone of 700t for UUU in 2007 that are not accounted for Kazatomprom.
I beg you pardon for this inconvenience
If interested have a look at their both projects in KZ
According to the results of year 2007 the volume of uranium production in Kazakhstan was 6637 tons of uranium compared with 5281 tons of uranium in 2006; the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%.
Joined: May 09, 2004 Posts: 65 Location: Bavaria, Germany - for the Americans here: this is in Europa ;o)
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Pardon but these are the words of Kazatrompro.
It seems that it doesn't have reached the IR department that Kazatrompro is not the only miner in Kazakhstan anymore and there are some JV-partners who hopefuly also get their part of their share
I`ve just written an email to Kazatompro for clairifying. Let`s just wait on their answer.
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Uranium Supply
Mark_i, there really is no need to go to the trouble of emailing Kazatrompro. The not-so-secret secret of debunking M_B_S is just to read in full the articles he references. As sure as night follows day, you'll find his very selective quotes are the very inverse of the truth.
His claim about disparities in the figures from WISE (an anti-nuclear organisation) is baseless as the data for 2007 are explicitly stated to be projections rather than measured production. When reading the article from Kazatrompro we find out why the projections were wrong:
Quote:
Due to postponing of launch of the Balkhash sulfuric acid plant by Kazakhmys Corporation with the capacity over 1 million tons, from May 2007 until the second quarter of 2008, Kazatomprom was forced to adjust towards reduction its plans for production in 2007 by 1000 tons.
But that wasn't the only thing M_B_S failed to include in his quote:
* the growth in comparison with the previous year was 25.7%
* In 2008 it is planned to produce around 9,600 tons of uranium.
* The program task of the Company is to bring production of natural uranium to the level of over 15,000 tons by 2010
Only M_B_S could read all that and declare:
Quote:
stagnation!
If you want to know the real reason for his seemingly increasing disconnect from reality then I think this may have something to do with it:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian bloc has come out firmly in favor of a return to nuclear power, seeing a vote-getter ahead of federal elections due in 15 months.
Quote:
The anti-nuclear decision, passed into law by the government of her Social Democrat predecessor Gerhard Schroeder, was "absolutely wrong," Merkel said as the meeting ended Monday.
Still, he's always worth reading for the comedic value alone.
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 vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
To help you research your error, yesplease, 
So, for the record, I meant the definition I posted and wrote something that I didn't mean.
