4 ms·

>Once we make X economical, we will have all the Y we want True for like 99% of things that could ever exist. The big question is is it possible, and is that r

>Once we make X economical, we will have all the Y we want True for like 99% of things that could ever exist. The big question is is it possible, and is that really the only hurdle. IMO Uranium extraction isn't the bottleneck to nuclear power, building and maintaining the plants is.

aidenn0 5y ago
I think it's actually false 99% of the time, because as soon as we get Y for cheap, we start consuming it more, and we are back to not having enough Y.
- nxmnxm99 5y ago
  Correct. We'll all be driving nuclear jet aircraft in 70 years as global uranium reserves deplete.
  - FrenchDevRemote 5y ago
    can't we use many different things for nuclear though?(and uranium is just the most efficient?) +in 70 years we'd probably have fusion
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      > can't we use many different things for nuclear though?(and uranium is just the most efficient?) Strictly speaking, U-235 is the only fissile isotope of any element that is found in any significant amounts in nature. However, breeder reactors can also be useful. The only two starter points I'm aware of in nature for significant energy extraction are U-238 and Th-232. U-238 breeder reactors are politically complicated because they can relatively easily be used to generate significant amounts of Plutonium which is usable in bombs. Th-232 reactors have technical hurdles that are probably surmountable; specifically the neutron economy is significantly tighter than U-238 breeder reactors (this is why you often see liquid-salt reactors proposed for Th; chemically separating the decay products gives plenty of breathing room in the neutron economy). The U-233 it generates is also usable in bombs, but since it will tend to also generate U-232, which is both difficult to work with and easy to detect, it's considered less of a proliferation risk. This all misses my original point though. At any point in the first half of the 20th century we had enough oil to last us for centuries at then-present day usage. Yet here we are.
  - r00fus 5y ago
    Clearly the shielding problem will have been resolved by then as well (or we have genetically adapted our grandchildren to be rad-hardened).
- CaioAlonso 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Not quite the same; Jevons Paradox notes that increased efficiency of use is an effective reduction in cost. The fact that when you make something cheaper to use it gets used more is just simple supply and demand.
- baryphonic 5y ago
  99% of the time seems excessively high. The changes in demand are really dependent on the properties of the good in question. Also, this phenomenon is called the "income effect"[0]: as the price of a good Y falls relative to other goods, consumers' "income" will increase in a real sense (i.e. they'll be able to consume more of all goods), so they may increase consumption of Y, depending on whether Y is "inferior," "normal" or "luxury." The definitions of these concepts have to be made carefully to avoid circularity, but suffice it to say that 99% of goods are not normal. Energy, however, is a normal good when measured, though a 2x increase in income leads to less than a 2x increase in energy consumption for a sufficient starting level of income. (If you were living in a remote village that was only recently electrified, for instance, electricity would be a luxury good: increases in income would lead to significant increases in consumption of electricity up to a certain point.) What's more interesting is how firms react. Decreases in energy costs could lead to significant increases in productivity for firms, allowing for economies of scale that did not exist ex ante. This isn't really "consumption" per se, as energy is being "converted" into another good. But it seems likely that firms' demand for energy could increase quite a bit as the price for energy decreases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Income_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Income_effect
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Nuclear power has gone up in cost while wind and solar have plunged in cost. Solar panels cost 10% of what they did ten years ago. Wind's currently cheapest, but solar will likely catch up pretty soon...
- Out_of_Characte 5y ago
  You still need a reliable power source, energy consumption isn't related to the wind speed. That'll limit the amount of energy solar/wind can replace.
  - mixermachine 5y ago
    Nuclear has this problem too (in a lesser form though). Most reactors mainly run at 100%. Regulating them down takes quite some time and also wears down some materials inside.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Retric 5y ago
      It’s mostly a cost problem, idling a reactor for 12 hours produces 1/2 the power per day at 95% of the cost. Aka your cost per kwh basically doubles. France largely got around this by exporting power, but that obviously doesn’t scale if everyone tries to export power on the weekends nobody wants to import it.
      - Teever 5y ago
        Throw the excess power into on demand carbon negative activities and call it a day.
        p1mrx 5y ago
        That only helps if your desalinator/electrolyzer/etc. has a low enough capital cost to let it sit idle most of the time.
arcticbull 5y ago
Well, that's what it would take to make it renewable. Political will and what we have today is all it would take to make it viable. And potentially shifting the $0.5T in annual global fossil fuel subsidies to nuclear wouldn't hurt.
Manuel_D 5y ago
Correct. An even though fuel costs are significant, it's mostly the enrichment that drives up the cost. Even at the present un-economical seawater extraction rates, the overall cost increase would be negligible: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=2065f4c3159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

aidenn0 5y ago

I think it's actually false 99% of the time, because as soon as we get Y for cheap, we start consuming it more, and we are back to not having enough Y.

nxmnxm99 5y ago
Correct. We'll all be driving nuclear jet aircraft in 70 years as global uranium reserves deplete.
- FrenchDevRemote 5y ago
  can't we use many different things for nuclear though?(and uranium is just the most efficient?) +in 70 years we'd probably have fusion
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    > can't we use many different things for nuclear though?(and uranium is just the most efficient?) Strictly speaking, U-235 is the only fissile isotope of any element that is found in any significant amounts in nature. However, breeder reactors can also be useful. The only two starter points I'm aware of in nature for significant energy extraction are U-238 and Th-232. U-238 breeder reactors are politically complicated because they can relatively easily be used to generate significant amounts of Plutonium which is usable in bombs. Th-232 reactors have technical hurdles that are probably surmountable; specifically the neutron economy is significantly tighter than U-238 breeder reactors (this is why you often see liquid-salt reactors proposed for Th; chemically separating the decay products gives plenty of breathing room in the neutron economy). The U-233 it generates is also usable in bombs, but since it will tend to also generate U-232, which is both difficult to work with and easy to detect, it's considered less of a proliferation risk. This all misses my original point though. At any point in the first half of the 20th century we had enough oil to last us for centuries at then-present day usage. Yet here we are.
- r00fus 5y ago
  Clearly the shielding problem will have been resolved by then as well (or we have genetically adapted our grandchildren to be rad-hardened).
CaioAlonso 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Not quite the same; Jevons Paradox notes that increased efficiency of use is an effective reduction in cost. The fact that when you make something cheaper to use it gets used more is just simple supply and demand.
baryphonic 5y ago
99% of the time seems excessively high. The changes in demand are really dependent on the properties of the good in question. Also, this phenomenon is called the "income effect"[0]: as the price of a good Y falls relative to other goods, consumers' "income" will increase in a real sense (i.e. they'll be able to consume more of all goods), so they may increase consumption of Y, depending on whether Y is "inferior," "normal" or "luxury." The definitions of these concepts have to be made carefully to avoid circularity, but suffice it to say that 99% of goods are not normal. Energy, however, is a normal good when measured, though a 2x increase in income leads to less than a 2x increase in energy consumption for a sufficient starting level of income. (If you were living in a remote village that was only recently electrified, for instance, electricity would be a luxury good: increases in income would lead to significant increases in consumption of electricity up to a certain point.) What's more interesting is how firms react. Decreases in energy costs could lead to significant increases in productivity for firms, allowing for economies of scale that did not exist ex ante. This isn't really "consumption" per se, as energy is being "converted" into another good. But it seems likely that firms' demand for energy could increase quite a bit as the price for energy decreases. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Income_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_choice#Income_effect

KennyBlanken 5y ago

Nuclear power has gone up in cost while wind and solar have plunged in cost. Solar panels cost 10% of what they did ten years ago. Wind's currently cheapest, but solar will likely catch up pretty soon...

Out_of_Characte 5y ago
You still need a reliable power source, energy consumption isn't related to the wind speed. That'll limit the amount of energy solar/wind can replace.
- mixermachine 5y ago
  Nuclear has this problem too (in a lesser form though). Most reactors mainly run at 100%. Regulating them down takes quite some time and also wears down some materials inside.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s mostly a cost problem, idling a reactor for 12 hours produces 1/2 the power per day at 95% of the cost. Aka your cost per kwh basically doubles. France largely got around this by exporting power, but that obviously doesn’t scale if everyone tries to export power on the weekends nobody wants to import it.
    - Teever 5y ago
      Throw the excess power into on demand carbon negative activities and call it a day.
      - p1mrx 5y ago
        That only helps if your desalinator/electrolyzer/etc. has a low enough capital cost to let it sit idle most of the time.

arcticbull 5y ago

Well, that's what it would take to make it renewable. Political will and what we have today is all it would take to make it viable. And potentially shifting the $0.5T in annual global fossil fuel subsidies to nuclear wouldn't hurt.

Manuel_D 5y ago

Correct. An even though fuel costs are significant, it's mostly the enrichment that drives up the cost. Even at the present un-economical seawater extraction rates, the overall cost increase would be negligible: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=2065f4c3159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...