5 ms·

> (spoiler: nuclear energy is absolutely sustainable; there are literally billions of years of nuclear fuel accessible to us). I am a big fan of nuclear but,

> (spoiler: nuclear energy is absolutely sustainable; there are literally billions of years of nuclear fuel accessible to us). I am a big fan of nuclear but, I'm wondering, is this true? Do we have enough fuel for current nuclear reactors to run for....how long? Someone, also on HN, said we have enough fuel for maybe 150 years if we relie solely on it. So what is the truth?

choeger 6y ago
As with any fuel, both statements are not wrong. We have comparatively little easily exploitable resources but if we had a huge demand, we could exploit much more.
mjevans 6y ago
Even 150 years is _enough_ time for us to bootstrap to the next technology level. Which would be something like having robots mine the asteroid belt for manufacturing resources, and getting a massive solar farm up somewhere in orbit over earth and sending the power down. Many different science fiction works have covered variations on this plan.
titzer 6y ago
Yes, it is really true. There are 4 billion tons of Uranium dissolved in Earth's seawater. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#519bdfcd159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s... (Above link says 1000 1000 MW reactors for 100,000 years, but doesn't mention how much that is with reprocessing--that is hundreds of times the rate of global nuclear power production today). The question is, how much does it cost to extract it? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#4fc99436159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
- jnxx 6y ago
  > There are 4 billion tons of Uranium dissolved in Earth's seawater. There are also many tonnes of gold dispersed in rivers and seawater. It is however not economical to extract it. Also, uranium mining is often causing a lot of health problems. Like in the German SAG/SDAG Wismut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(mining_company)#Impact_on_employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(mining_company)#Impact...
  - wjkramer 6y ago
    I think an example from the former East Germany is not generally applicable. Political enemies were forced to work there. Unless Antifa wins and can implement the cited policies: "People were ordered to start working in the uranium mines otherwise there would be strict sanctions for them."
    - adamsea 6y ago
      It’s just silly to introduce “Antifa” (which isn’t a singular thing) into a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
    - jnxx 6y ago
      So, would the Eastern German governments political friends have been less susceptible to these health effects? And, in order to not wander too far off topic of energy economics, how is the extraction of uranium from seawater going to be economical?
numpad0 6y ago
Couple decades-centuries worth of Uranium deposit exist that are readily usable, then the depleted Uranium(10-100x mass) can be converted into Plutonium as drop in replacement. It is possible that we exhaust both and still have no fusion or asteroid mining after couple centuries from now, but we’d have to be extremely lazy to be in that position.
- jnxx 6y ago
  > the depleted Uranium(10-100x mass) can be converted into Plutonium as drop in replacement. This needs breeder technology which is a different kettle of fish. The only existing plant was the Japanese Monju plant which was closed due to numerous problems and accidents, including a dangerous liquid sodium fire. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - titzer 6y ago
    OP is correct. You don't need breeder technology to produce plutonium. In fact, the US produced enough in 1945 to build and detonate two plutonium-based atomic bombs. There are hundreds of tons of plutonium that have been produced and stockpiled worldwide, not including the thousands of nuclear warheads in existence and the thousands that can/could be decomissioned.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      However, you DO need breeder technology to treat all the 238U as a fuel. With burner reactors, the 239Pu produced is less than the fissionable material consumed, and most of the 238U ends up not being usable. I'll add that with current technology, you can't reprocess MOX fuel another time (too many higher isotopes of Pu and transuranics beyond Pu are produced), so any Pu in it after it's consumed must be disposed of.
    - jnxx 6y ago
      > You don't need breeder technology to produce plutonium. In fact, the US produced enough in 1945 to build and detonate two plutonium-based atomic bombs. You can extract plutonium from spent fuel, I agree to that. This is what makes spent fuel processing expensive and this is what was used in 1945 and also turns any fuel waste into a proliferation issue. But converting depleted uranium (U-238) from spent fuel into fissile plutonium or whatever isotope, like GP suggested, is a different thing which would necessarily need some nuclear reaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
jnxx 6y ago
There are in fact concerns about the amount of nuclear fuel available. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421 https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421 and in more length: http://theoildrum.com/files/O_118_Michael_Dittmar.pdf http://theoildrum.com/files/O_118_Michael_Dittmar.pdf The author also notes that, as of today, nuclear energy contributes only a very small part of the delivered energy mix.

choeger 6y ago

As with any fuel, both statements are not wrong. We have comparatively little easily exploitable resources but if we had a huge demand, we could exploit much more.

mjevans 6y ago

Even 150 years is _enough_ time for us to bootstrap to the next technology level. Which would be something like having robots mine the asteroid belt for manufacturing resources, and getting a massive solar farm up somewhere in orbit over earth and sending the power down. Many different science fiction works have covered variations on this plan.

titzer 6y ago

Yes, it is really true. There are 4 billion tons of Uranium dissolved in Earth's seawater. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#519bdfcd159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s... (Above link says 1000 1000 MW reactors for 100,000 years, but doesn't mention how much that is with reprocessing--that is hundreds of times the rate of global nuclear power production today). The question is, how much does it cost to extract it? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/#4fc99436159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

jnxx 6y ago
> There are 4 billion tons of Uranium dissolved in Earth's seawater. There are also many tonnes of gold dispersed in rivers and seawater. It is however not economical to extract it. Also, uranium mining is often causing a lot of health problems. Like in the German SAG/SDAG Wismut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(mining_company)#Impact_on_employees https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wismut_(mining_company)#Impact...
- wjkramer 6y ago
  I think an example from the former East Germany is not generally applicable. Political enemies were forced to work there. Unless Antifa wins and can implement the cited policies: "People were ordered to start working in the uranium mines otherwise there would be strict sanctions for them."
  - adamsea 6y ago
    It’s just silly to introduce “Antifa” (which isn’t a singular thing) into a discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear power.
  - jnxx 6y ago
    So, would the Eastern German governments political friends have been less susceptible to these health effects? And, in order to not wander too far off topic of energy economics, how is the extraction of uranium from seawater going to be economical?

numpad0 6y ago

Couple decades-centuries worth of Uranium deposit exist that are readily usable, then the depleted Uranium(10-100x mass) can be converted into Plutonium as drop in replacement. It is possible that we exhaust both and still have no fusion or asteroid mining after couple centuries from now, but we’d have to be extremely lazy to be in that position.

jnxx 6y ago
> the depleted Uranium(10-100x mass) can be converted into Plutonium as drop in replacement. This needs breeder technology which is a different kettle of fish. The only existing plant was the Japanese Monju plant which was closed due to numerous problems and accidents, including a dangerous liquid sodium fire. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- titzer 6y ago
  OP is correct. You don't need breeder technology to produce plutonium. In fact, the US produced enough in 1945 to build and detonate two plutonium-based atomic bombs. There are hundreds of tons of plutonium that have been produced and stockpiled worldwide, not including the thousands of nuclear warheads in existence and the thousands that can/could be decomissioned.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    However, you DO need breeder technology to treat all the 238U as a fuel. With burner reactors, the 239Pu produced is less than the fissionable material consumed, and most of the 238U ends up not being usable. I'll add that with current technology, you can't reprocess MOX fuel another time (too many higher isotopes of Pu and transuranics beyond Pu are produced), so any Pu in it after it's consumed must be disposed of.
  - jnxx 6y ago
    > You don't need breeder technology to produce plutonium. In fact, the US produced enough in 1945 to build and detonate two plutonium-based atomic bombs. You can extract plutonium from spent fuel, I agree to that. This is what makes spent fuel processing expensive and this is what was used in 1945 and also turns any fuel waste into a proliferation issue. But converting depleted uranium (U-238) from spent fuel into fissile plutonium or whatever isotope, like GP suggested, is a different thing which would necessarily need some nuclear reaction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

jnxx 6y ago

There are in fact concerns about the amount of nuclear fuel available. See for example: https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421 https://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421 and in more length: http://theoildrum.com/files/O_118_Michael_Dittmar.pdf http://theoildrum.com/files/O_118_Michael_Dittmar.pdf The author also notes that, as of today, nuclear energy contributes only a very small part of the delivered energy mix.