3 ms·
I read there was 200years of nuclear (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/
by rbg246 6y ago
I read there was 200years of nuclear (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...) but I can't find a source for your figures? Could you point me in the right direction?
- adrianN 6y agoFor a long-term nuclear strategy you need breeder reactors which extract nearly 100 times more energy from the same fuel (and at the same time help a lot with the nuclear waste problem), or a way of getting Uranium out of sea water.
- rbg246 6y agoThank you I learnt something
- p_l 6y agoThe 200 years number is for the most inefficient (and producing most radioactive waste) types of reactors, but those reactors are also the only ones USA wants you to have, so...
- rbg246 6y agoI see, which is might help explain breeder reactors are so few.
- p_l 6y agoMost fast/breeder reactors get a knee-jerk reaction from so-called "nuclear haves". I think only France (a nuclear state) and Japan got close to so-called "plutonium economy" when it comes to reprocessing spent fuel, and even they don't use fast reactors on mass scale. Most high fuel efficiency designs are fast reactors, or they employ extra radiation source to "burn down" the fissile material.