4 ms·

I recall seeing a study in the 2000’s stating that there wasn’t even enough nuclear material necessary to fulfil the world’s energy needs, assuming that it coul

I recall seeing a study in the 2000’s stating that there wasn’t even enough nuclear material necessary to fulfil the world’s energy needs, assuming that it could be swapped out 1:1 overnight. I don’t know if that’s still the case. At any rate, it’s a poor argument against it, as it will always be just one part of the broader energy picture, along with renewables, and (almost certainly) fossil fuels

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jason0597 5y ago
You're probably thinking of U238 vs U235 supply. Most reactors today use U235, which is as rare as platinum (if not more rare!). If we switched to breeder reactors that used U238, we wouldn't have this problem of running out of uranium.
p_l 5y ago
Imagine if you powered cars with only what fuel outgassed naturally from a tank full of kerosene, and dumped the liquid remainder regularly - and you'd have close comparison to how much we are actually using up of the Uranium available due to focus on light water Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors. There are designs with much higher burnup rates (how much fuel in a rod is actually used), as well as designs that do not need enrichment and will happily run on naturally occurring uranium mix - self-enriching as they work. There are designs that will take mixed in waste from other designs and further burn it down, reducing amount of high-level radioactive waste. All of that is barely scratched in practice.
acidburnNSA 5y ago
The long term plan in all nuclear programs is to switch over as appropriate to breeder reactors, which are just as renewable as the solar fusion fuel that leads to wind and solar and hydro. Breeder reactors invest excess neutrons from the chain reaction into abundant 'fertile' nuclear fuel like U-238 and Th-232 to generate more rare fissile material (Pu-239 or U-233) than they consume. Breeders are a proven technology but just aren't very common yet due to the wide availability of high grade uranium ores. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jason0597 5y ago

You're probably thinking of U238 vs U235 supply. Most reactors today use U235, which is as rare as platinum (if not more rare!). If we switched to breeder reactors that used U238, we wouldn't have this problem of running out of uranium.

p_l 5y ago

Imagine if you powered cars with only what fuel outgassed naturally from a tank full of kerosene, and dumped the liquid remainder regularly - and you'd have close comparison to how much we are actually using up of the Uranium available due to focus on light water Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors. There are designs with much higher burnup rates (how much fuel in a rod is actually used), as well as designs that do not need enrichment and will happily run on naturally occurring uranium mix - self-enriching as they work. There are designs that will take mixed in waste from other designs and further burn it down, reducing amount of high-level radioactive waste. All of that is barely scratched in practice.

acidburnNSA 5y ago

The long term plan in all nuclear programs is to switch over as appropriate to breeder reactors, which are just as renewable as the solar fusion fuel that leads to wind and solar and hydro. Breeder reactors invest excess neutrons from the chain reaction into abundant 'fertile' nuclear fuel like U-238 and Th-232 to generate more rare fissile material (Pu-239 or U-233) than they consume. Breeders are a proven technology but just aren't very common yet due to the wide availability of high grade uranium ores. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...