3 ms·

While being better than coal and petroleum, nuclear is still based on non-renewable uranium. How abundant is uranium compared with coal and petroleum? How dest

by brylie 7y ago

While being better than coal and petroleum, nuclear is still based on non-renewable uranium. How abundant is uranium compared with coal and petroleum? How destructive and energy intensive are the extraction and refinement processes compared with fossil fuels?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
simonh 7y ago
We have about a 230 year supply as it stands, including mining out known deposits. However there are plenty of ways to use recycling, breeder reactors and alternative sources that could in theory give us nuclear power for thousands of years. That’s not forever, but it’s a start. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...
- brylie 7y ago
  The breeder reactors don't yet, and may never, exist, from what I understand. Part of the appeal of renewables is they have lower environmental impact than mineral and fossil fuel extraction. It just seems to me that nuclear energy sits closer to extractives than renewables in the energy production landscape.
keanzu 7y ago
The world's present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. [1] There are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 150 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 50 and 52 years at current production levels. [2] [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... [2] https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found
- neuronic 7y ago
  As compared to billions of years of projected solar availability.
- brylie 7y ago
  Thanks for the details. Out of curiosity, are those industry-neutral organizations that made those estimates?
  - keanzu 7y ago
    > Are those industry-neutral organizations that made those estimates? Do neutral organizations still exist when even school children have strong opinions on coal power? I don't believe neutrality is thing for coal anymore and it hasn't been for nuclear for a long time. Thus, by definition, these cannot be neutral sources. Even if these were the best estimates possible, how would anyone else authenticate it? With an audit? Like how Arthur Andersen audited Enron? I feel we are post-truth and thus nothing can be claimed to be unbiased.
YawningAngel 7y ago
We have -20 years of sustainable fossil fuel available to us (i.e. our usage is unsustainable and has been for 20 years). Even if there were only 100 years of Uranium on the whole planet, switching would still be a sane time-buying measure.
- brylie 7y ago
  I'm not convinced that any energy source relying on mineral extraction for fuel could be defined as "sustainable".
k__ 7y ago
Isn't this also a question of dependency? Maybe the uranium will hold on for 20 - 200 years, who knows, but look how we sustained the monarchies in the middle east by depending on their non-renewable resources. The way to go should be getting rid of dependencies as much as possible.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > we sustained the monarchies in the middle east Fortunately the fracking revolution broke OPEC's hold on oil prices. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/22/how-the-fracking-revolution-broke-opecs-hold-on-oil-prices/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/22/how-the-frac...

by brylie 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

simonh 7y ago

We have about a 230 year supply as it stands, including mining out known deposits. However there are plenty of ways to use recycling, breeder reactors and alternative sources that could in theory give us nuclear power for thousands of years. That’s not forever, but it’s a start. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...

brylie 7y ago
The breeder reactors don't yet, and may never, exist, from what I understand. Part of the appeal of renewables is they have lower environmental impact than mineral and fossil fuel extraction. It just seems to me that nuclear energy sits closer to extractives than renewables in the energy production landscape.

keanzu 7y ago

The world's present measured resources of uranium (5.7 Mt) in the cost category less than three times present spot prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for about 90 years. [1] There are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of proven coal reserves worldwide. This means that there is enough coal to last us around 150 years at current rates of production. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 50 and 52 years at current production levels. [2] [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... [2] https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-coal-found

neuronic 7y ago
As compared to billions of years of projected solar availability.
brylie 7y ago
Thanks for the details. Out of curiosity, are those industry-neutral organizations that made those estimates?
- keanzu 7y ago
  > Are those industry-neutral organizations that made those estimates? Do neutral organizations still exist when even school children have strong opinions on coal power? I don't believe neutrality is thing for coal anymore and it hasn't been for nuclear for a long time. Thus, by definition, these cannot be neutral sources. Even if these were the best estimates possible, how would anyone else authenticate it? With an audit? Like how Arthur Andersen audited Enron? I feel we are post-truth and thus nothing can be claimed to be unbiased.

YawningAngel 7y ago

We have -20 years of sustainable fossil fuel available to us (i.e. our usage is unsustainable and has been for 20 years). Even if there were only 100 years of Uranium on the whole planet, switching would still be a sane time-buying measure.

brylie 7y ago
I'm not convinced that any energy source relying on mineral extraction for fuel could be defined as "sustainable".

k__ 7y ago

Isn't this also a question of dependency? Maybe the uranium will hold on for 20 - 200 years, who knows, but look how we sustained the monarchies in the middle east by depending on their non-renewable resources. The way to go should be getting rid of dependencies as much as possible.

keanzu 7y ago
> we sustained the monarchies in the middle east Fortunately the fracking revolution broke OPEC's hold on oil prices. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/22/how-the-fracking-revolution-broke-opecs-hold-on-oil-prices/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/22/how-the-frac...