3 ms·
Regarding reserves, the article makes the usual mistake of taking currently known and cheap sources as definite. But consider how Mad Max came out in the late 1
by himinlomax 5y ago
Regarding reserves, the article makes the usual mistake of taking currently known and cheap sources as definite. But consider how Mad Max came out in the late 1970s, when the fear of completely running out of oil was evident to everyone. And yet, we have now found so much more oil that we have to force ourselves to stop using it.
We haven't been looking for more uranium simply because there is no need for it. The known _cheap_ reserves are barely tapped. And there are many known sites that are simply not tapped yet because the aforementioned ones are just so cheap. If there was a need for more, prospecting would be profitable and would be done.
(As an aside, taking uranium out of sea water is almost certainly never going to be worth it.)
And the same applies to thorium or fast breeder reactors. They're just not worth the effort at this time. But again, if the demand was there, it would take just 10 years to build them.
- envengineer 5y agoSee above comment about radioactive mining waste. More mining, more waste. Forever. Of course, it's not in all the proponents back yards.
- himinlomax 5y agoCoal mining waste is also radioactive. It also damages thousands of times larger areas.