3 ms·
You've misunderstood my comment. We have 200 years of uranium left at current rates of consumption. But if we replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear, we'd con
by nostromo 11y ago
You've misunderstood my comment.
We have 200 years of uranium left at current rates of consumption. But if we replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear, we'd consume 10 times more per year and we'd only have about 20 years of energy available before needing to move on to a new energy source.
- ps4fanboy 11y agoUranium exploration is pretty much non existent these days, I would'nt be comfortable saying how much there actually is. Peak oil has been coming for decades but they keep finding it.
- flubert 11y agoOkay, it is wikipedia, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor "Adherents claim that with seawater uranium extraction, there would be enough fuel for breeder reactors to satisfy our energy needs for 5 billion years at 1983's total energy consumption rate, thus making nuclear energy effectively a renewable energy."
- civilian 11y agoYeah, breeder reactors are even mentioned in the sciam article that nostromo posted. He's cherry-picking his info.
- DasIch 11y agoThere are only four breeder reactors in operation, we'd need a lot more rather quickly for them to be useful. Also as with all things nuclear there are an awful lot of claims and not a lot of known things here. Nuclear somehow always looks much better in theory than it does in practice.