4 ms·

Nuclear fuel must first be mined, correct? That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat. That said I imagine it may be better as a base load than

Nuclear fuel must first be mined, correct? That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat. That said I imagine it may be better as a base load than dirty coal.

shepherdjerred 4y ago
We’re not running out of fissionable material any time soon
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  What are the limiting inputs? Because I imagine there is a lot to do to go from the ground to the reactor and back again?
junofan 4y ago
Breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    It isn’t creating more energy, it is just converting non-fissile material to fissile material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
- ncmncm 4y ago
  But we don't build breeder reactors. For reasons.
fny 4y ago
Solar panels require minerals that must be mined too. Batteries are an even greater abomination. Nuclear waste is also extremely compact. Unfortunately our world is not run without the consumption of resources. There are trade offs to everything.
rawoke083600 4y ago
> That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat I don't think you realise the VAST amount of energy density in one 1kg of coal vs 1 kg nuclear fuel. "Somewhat" is not nearly the correct comparison ! "8 kWh of heat (energy) from 1kg of coal vs 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235" [0] [0] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Does that mean 1 tonne is enough to power the world for a year?
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    As far as I know that's pretty much exactly the amount of fissile material used annually world-wide. The caveat is of course that for 1 kg of coal you have to dig up a lot less material than you have to for 1 kg of fissile material - U235 is around 1 % of natural Uranium, and Uranium is around 1 % of the ore.

Nuclear fuel must first be mined, correct? That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat. That said I imagine it may be better as a base load than dirty coal.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

We’re not running out of fissionable material any time soon

paulryanrogers 4y ago
What are the limiting inputs? Because I imagine there is a lot to do to go from the ground to the reactor and back again?

junofan 4y ago

Breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Wouldn't that violate the second law of thermodynamics?
- cortesoft 4y ago
  It isn’t creating more energy, it is just converting non-fissile material to fissile material https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
ncmncm 4y ago
But we don't build breeder reactors. For reasons.

fny 4y ago

Solar panels require minerals that must be mined too. Batteries are an even greater abomination. Nuclear waste is also extremely compact. Unfortunately our world is not run without the consumption of resources. There are trade offs to everything.

rawoke083600 4y ago

> That's not renewable and could offset the benefits somewhat I don't think you realise the VAST amount of energy density in one 1kg of coal vs 1 kg nuclear fuel. "Somewhat" is not nearly the correct comparison ! "8 kWh of heat (energy) from 1kg of coal vs 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235" [0] [0] https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/ https://www.euronuclear.org/glossary/fuel-comparison/

quickthrower2 4y ago
Does that mean 1 tonne is enough to power the world for a year?
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  As far as I know that's pretty much exactly the amount of fissile material used annually world-wide. The caveat is of course that for 1 kg of coal you have to dig up a lot less material than you have to for 1 kg of fissile material - U235 is around 1 % of natural Uranium, and Uranium is around 1 % of the ore.