News and Discussions > History & Trivia

Uranium abundence

<< < (2/4) > >>

RNN:

--- Quote ---I wonder how the anti-nukes would feel about this natural reactor.  We already have had previous natural reactors in the history of the earth in Africa
--- End quote ---

We had some of the Belgium Congo Ore in the Silos of Fernald and I can tell you it was quite toasty as raw ore goes

I think the Anti-Nuke crowd would crap them selfs more than they do now than when you argue with them that coal fired plants pump more thorium and uranium into the envrioment than a nuke fired plant. Hell most times when I try to argue this with them all I get is " LALALALALALALALALALALALA I can't hear you LALALALALA"

RNN

JessJen:
Uranium is 40 times more naturally abundant than silver.

Concentration - uranium ranks 48th among the most abundant elements found in natural crustal rock.

It is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver and is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum. It is found in hundreds of minerals including uraninite (the most common uranium ore), autunite, uranophane, torbernite, and coffinite. Significant concentrations of uranium occur in some substances such as phosphate rock deposits, and minerals such as lignite, and monazite sands in uranium-rich ores (it is recovered commercially from these sources with as little as 0.1% uranium).

Thank you wikipedia :)

thenuttyneutron:
Yeah go figure, the NRC should regulate the dirt burners due to the radioactive content of their ash.  Coal is dirty and many scientist are conviced that global warming is real.  That is not something I know enough about to debate, just paroting what the current science is saying.

There are two types of enviromental people.  The smart ones who can listen to reason and make good choices based in science.  The other follows a theology of idealism where magical amouts of energy will be created without ever increasing the entropy of the universe.  In their world people can eat grass, tree bark, make their electricy from panels of Silicon containing Gallium and Arcenic or wind turbines and some how not hurt mother nature and all her creations.  

I am a smart enviromentalist that earned a degree in nuclear engineering.  I know that humans can have a great quality of life with lots of technology and have little impact on the earth.  I dont want to live like stone age people inorder to "save" the earth.  I sometimes have to do work around the spent fuel pool at my plant and see almost all the nuke waste it has made in its entire history.  Except for what is in the pot or in dry storage, the waste at the bottom of that fuel is extremely minor when compared to other power generation methods.  

I love how nuclear power is so clean and renewable.  Start making thermal breeders with Th232 and reprocess the fuel, you can make more fuel than you consume.  It also has a very small foot print, 1 mile^2 will provide more than enough land for many units.  I wonder what you can get out of wind or solar on that same mile^2?

Enough already!  I rarely rant, but the real reason for this thread is the original question. What is the correct answer?  I am still rooting for Tin.

EDIT:  While typing this post someone beat me to the punch.  If JessJen is correct I will switch my choice to copper:)

RNN:
I'm rooting for gold  ;D

Brett LaVigne:
It is a little more common than gold but roughly the same as tungsten.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page