4 ms·
> Also, at the current rate, the Uranium reserves last for approximately 140 years; if all fossil sources were switched for nuclear, it would last for 10 years.
by glogla 6y ago
> Also, at the current rate, the Uranium reserves last for approximately 140 years; if all fossil sources were switched for nuclear, it would last for 10 years.
This is a so well known misconception that it is hard to not consider it propaganda by this point.
Known reservers of Uranium are of that size, yes. That's because with nobody bothers to look for more, because not only is there enough known for now, but finding more would actually increase competition and lower the prices - losing those who own the reserves the money.
There is way more Uranium just in the ocean water.
Meanwhile, all the technologies you're listing are either already maxed out (hydro), intermittent with unsolved storage (solar and wind), or vapourware (power to gas, etc).
- p_l 6y agoThe 140 years number is also for the very inefficient reactors that are mostly used now, where majority of the "spent" fuel could be reused in different design - but reprocessing is dead for political reasons.
- m4rtink 6y agoAlso don't forget breeder reactors - those should make any existing fuel supply lust much longer if you can get them working at scale.
- IngoBlechschmid 6y ago> This is a so well known misconception that it is hard to not consider it propaganda by this point. Wikipedia paints a different picture but I consider that a fair point and I will look into it, thank you. > intermittent with unsolved storage (solar and wind) Can you be more specific about that? I know the figures only for Germany. Here, solar and wind match up almost perfectly (solar excees in the summer, wind excess in the winter) -- we would only need to store energy reserves for about two weeks. Gas tanks capable of storing these amounts already exist, they have been built several decades ago. > or vapourware (power to gas, etc) This is the first time that I hear power to gas described as vapourware. I'm very interested in that topic, could you give some more details or pointers?
- dmurray 6y ago> This is the first time that I hear power to gas described as vapourware. I'm very interested in that topic, could you give some more details or pointers? Surely the onus is on whoever is claiming the technology does exist to provide some details of it. I checked Wikipedia though [0] and the world's total installed P2G capacity looks like...less than 100 MW? It's at best one step above vapourware. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas