alt.energy.renewable

On Sep 29, 6:43 am, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
>
> That seems reasonable. I suspect nearly everyone has an opinion as to
> what alternative best suits their priorities. My own preferences
> (trying to think long-term) are for primary backup technologies like
> pumped hydro and solar, with the nukes as a lower-tier fallback, since
> humanity may need to make their fuel last for a very long time.

Nuclear fuel really can't run out on any timescale worth discussing.
Theres at least a trillion tons of fuel recoverable for light water
reactor regimes alone, and 120 trillion for breeder reactors. When the
LWR cycle consumes 200 tons a gigawatt/year and breeder reactors
consume 1 ton per gigawatt/year, worrying about fuel avaliability
seems a bit silly.