3 ms·
> One thing that feels a bit strange to me is that he uses timelines of 1000 years when calculating nuclear reserves. Not really. Uranium and thorium are insan
by kergonath 5y ago
> One thing that feels a bit strange to me is that he uses timelines of 1000 years when calculating nuclear reserves.
Not really. Uranium and thorium are insanely energy dense and whilst it’s obviously impossible to predict energy use a millenium from now, it could handle more than a couple of centuries of exponential growth of energy consumption. Then there are things like fuels made of natural isotopes (so no enrichment needed) and breeder reactors that can run off fission products (aka “waste”), which are not used much today, but are closer to readiness than things like carbon capture.
- ben_w 5y ago> it could handle more than a couple of centuries of exponential growth of energy consumption. That rather depends on the exponent and the time period. The minimum for “a couple of centuries” is 200 years: 1%/year for 200 years? Sure; 1%/year for 1000 years or 5%/year for 200 years? 2-2.5 times global solar irradiance. I think that’s enough to raise the temperature to boiling, and I don’t think there’s enough nuclear fuel to do that (but I could be wrong about both).