4 ms·
I have followed the nuclear for more than 3 decades and invested in junior E&P for more than a decade. Everyone, understandably, hopes for something to drop in
by throwaway5752 5y ago
I have followed the nuclear for more than 3 decades and invested in junior E&P for more than a decade. Everyone, understandably, hopes for something to drop in and save us from the situation we're in with the climate and energy intensity. Nuclear will be a part of it, but everything I said in my post was true like it or not. Plans for a thorium reactor do not amount to a commercial thorium reactor. Also, 5 grams is useless and I do discount it - the seawater extraction tech is trivial, but doing it at scale and positive net energy is not.
Everything I said can change. But let's not fool ourselves about the current state of tech. Part of the frustration is the "fake it til you make it" culture in tech being a terrible fit for nuclear, which requires thinking in centuries for site placement, staffing, and waste management.
- tim333 5y agoYeah but reserves != resources so your problem isn't a real one.
- throwaway5752 5y ago1P, 2P, and 3P reserve categories are something I'm quite familiar with and I have broadly invested in a long term increase in UO2 prices. Uranium is a fascinating basic material, and there are several ways to extract it. You have higher grade ore deposits that are directly mined. There are in situ leaching techniques, also. Increases in prices will make new techniques economically viable and 2P+ reserves will be reclassified to 1P. "My problem" is that there is a physical cap on this with fuel extraction: EROI. A trillion dollars a pound for ore will not matter if it takes more energy to recovery a resource than it takes to produce it. The seawater recovery part of this story is dubious at best at the recovery factors used in their calculations.