9 ms·
you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and contai
by tehabe 6y ago
you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade."
We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
- deeeeeplearning 6y ago>We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource. I believe at current consumption rates there is still several hundred years worth of uranium. Presumably Fusion will have been figured out by then or we've killed ourselves with a climate disaster or something worse.
- welfare 6y agoNope, at the current rate of consumption it will last 70-80 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20World%20Nuclear%20Association%2C%20yet%20another%20industry%20group,for%20some%2070%E2%80%9380%20years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#:~:text=According....
- deeeeeplearning 6y agoFirst section your Article: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply. The identified reserves as of 2017 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.99 million tons (compared to 7.64 million tons in 2015).[9]" Doesn't seem clearcut
- petre 6y agoI wouldn't worry too much about running out of nuclear fuel. There's also Pu used in MOX fuel, breeder reactors, nuclear fuel reprocessing.
- tlb 6y agoAlmost all predictions of running out of ores have been wrong. They’re based on “proven reserves,” but mining companies don’t bother proving much beyond 50 years worth.
- sudosysgen 6y agoNo, these are the reserve that are available at a given price. It is very sensitive to technology. Moreover, price of uranium is a small part of the cost of a powerplant, so there is not as much price sensitivity. We're still good for around ~200 years. Also, fuel can be reprocessed, and we can use other things than Uranium
- DuskStar 6y agoThere's ~4 billion tons of uranium dissolved in seawater, too. Which is enough for a millenia or three - if we used it for all of our power needs.
- jabl 6y agoAdd in breeder reactors and reprocessing providing a factor of 200 improvement in fuel usage, and we have enough uranium for millions of years.
- SamBam 6y agoHow much energy would it take to extract one ton of uranium from the ocean?
- Symmetry 6y agoWell, according to "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" >Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium, in comparison with a current cost of about $20/kg for uranium from ore. Because uranium contains so much more energy per ton than traditional fuels, this 5-fold or 15-fold increase in the cost of uranium would have little effect on the cost of nuclear power: nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy by only about 0.3 p per kWh. The expense of uranium extraction could be reduced by combining it with another use of seawater – for example, power-station cooling. https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_165.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_174.shtml
- s1artibartfast 6y agoDo you know if withouthotair is actively maintained? I used it in school more than a decade ago and I would love to reread a new version. I know the author died in 2016.
- Invictus0 6y ago