4 ms·

This is an interesting point. Is there some data to use as a reference for it? Would other forms of nuclear fuel replace uranium in larger quantities? I feel l

This is an interesting point. Is there some data to use as a reference for it? Would other forms of nuclear fuel replace uranium in larger quantities? I feel like this has been absent in many pro-nuclear arguments (I always assumed we had much more)

hguant 5y ago
There's "uranium in the planet" - lots! - and "uranium accessible to humans" - not so much. The other fuel used would be plutonium and thorium, I believe. My understanding (not a nuclear scientist) is that there's a cycle of enrichment and decay that produces more fissile materials than it consumes. Interestingly, from my perusal of wikipedia, it seems like you effectively can recycle the uranium isotopes indefinitely in such a reactor, as well as generating fissile plutonium and thorium. Again, the problem is that generating fissile plutonium is how you make a bomb
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  I think China is testing a thorium reactor now. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w China is leading the way, both in terms of adding coal capacity right now to address the power outages while also building out nuclear capacity for the future. The ability to act rationally like this when popular movements turn irrational is one advantage of an authoritarian system. No doubt many in the west are looking somewhat enviously at China.
  - bradknowles 5y ago
    Except coal has gotten super duper expensive, and most Chinese coal plants are designed to burn high grade coal such as produced in Australia. Many can’t run at all on the much more common lower grade coal that they can find inside of China, or they can’t run effectively on it. So, the Chinese are spending way more money than they should on building super duper expensive coal plants that can’t effectively run on the kind of coal that they can get. And they have a coal embargo against Australia, so they can’t import the stuff that they could actually burn effectively. Meanwhile, solar panels have continued to get progressively less expensive, so that even in China, it is now cheaper to run solar panels than it is to burn coal.
korantu 5y ago
The more uranium is used, the more it will increase in price, allocating more resources to exploring for new sources. Increased uranium prices will not significantly affect energy cost, as fuel price is very small fraction of nuclear plant operation. These days there are ways of getting uranium from sea water [1], basically making the supply practically limitless. This way is currently un-economical, but as current reserves are depleting, it will become viable option as well. (Along with researching for more reserves) So yes, it was totally possible to decarbonise electricity production long ago. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=48280806159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
It's wrong. Breeder reactors can make fuel during use. We only need enough fuel for one reactor.

hguant 5y ago

There's "uranium in the planet" - lots! - and "uranium accessible to humans" - not so much. The other fuel used would be plutonium and thorium, I believe. My understanding (not a nuclear scientist) is that there's a cycle of enrichment and decay that produces more fissile materials than it consumes. Interestingly, from my perusal of wikipedia, it seems like you effectively can recycle the uranium isotopes indefinitely in such a reactor, as well as generating fissile plutonium and thorium. Again, the problem is that generating fissile plutonium is how you make a bomb

rsj_hn 5y ago
I think China is testing a thorium reactor now. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w China is leading the way, both in terms of adding coal capacity right now to address the power outages while also building out nuclear capacity for the future. The ability to act rationally like this when popular movements turn irrational is one advantage of an authoritarian system. No doubt many in the west are looking somewhat enviously at China.
- bradknowles 5y ago
  Except coal has gotten super duper expensive, and most Chinese coal plants are designed to burn high grade coal such as produced in Australia. Many can’t run at all on the much more common lower grade coal that they can find inside of China, or they can’t run effectively on it. So, the Chinese are spending way more money than they should on building super duper expensive coal plants that can’t effectively run on the kind of coal that they can get. And they have a coal embargo against Australia, so they can’t import the stuff that they could actually burn effectively. Meanwhile, solar panels have continued to get progressively less expensive, so that even in China, it is now cheaper to run solar panels than it is to burn coal.

korantu 5y ago

The more uranium is used, the more it will increase in price, allocating more resources to exploring for new sources. Increased uranium prices will not significantly affect energy cost, as fuel price is very small fraction of nuclear plant operation. These days there are ways of getting uranium from sea water [1], basically making the supply practically limitless. This way is currently un-economical, but as current reserves are depleting, it will become viable option as well. (Along with researching for more reserves) So yes, it was totally possible to decarbonise electricity production long ago. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=48280806159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

It's wrong. Breeder reactors can make fuel during use. We only need enough fuel for one reactor.