4 ms·

If you have to mine a finite Uranium resource from Saskatchewan, you do not have renewable energy. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources

If you have to mine a finite Uranium resource from Saskatchewan, you do not have renewable energy. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/renewable-energy/about-renewable-energy/7295 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources...

jopsen 4y ago
Just curious, how finite is it?
tedk-42 4y ago
Agreed. Conflating nuclear with renewable into 'zero carbon' is wrong
rowanG077 4y ago
Is that really a problem? I mean technically any energy resource is finite/non-renewable due to second law of thermodynamics. That doesn't mean anything in practice.
throwaway5959 4y ago
Ah yes, the old “what will we do in 10000 years when the Uranium runs out” problem.
- naasking 4y ago
  Easily mined uranium will deplete in less than 100 years unless we start using breeder or thorium reactors that are more efficient in using up fuel.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    100,000 years supply is dissolved in the ocean. Breeder technology, and (thorium fuel cycle) are pretty well understood at this point. In fact, CANDU reactors widely deployed already support thorium fuel cycle. The reason we don't use them is because with all the uranium available, it's not necessary.
    - idiotsecant 4y ago
      We could say the same about lithium supplies. It turns out 'mining' something measured in the parts per billion is enormously damaging to environments and quite expensive to the point of impracticality
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        Early stages, but current state of the art involves putting fabric out that captures the uranium passively. [1] > Mining of underground uranium has environmental challenges not encountered with extracting it from the oceans. And Wai says the fibers, which have affinity for more heavy metals than just uranium, can likely be used one day to clean up toxic waterways themselves. He says the fibers have potential to extract vanadium, an expensive metal used in large scale batteries, from the oceans instead of mining it from the ground. [1] https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
        idiotsecant 4y ago
        Yes, filtering ocean water for material is a well known technique. You need a massive throughput of ocean water for a small output and you also filter salts, other metals, polymers, and sea life. You must further refine those materials to get the stuff you want. You also change the ph of the filtered water in a way that would be disastrous if reinjected, and you consume filter media quickly. That all adds up to a huge waste and massive ecological damage.its simply not practical at scale.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        I'm curious why you think deploying some of these fabrics would change the pH of the ocean? There are geological processes which replenish dissolved uranium in the ocean per the article I linked. I haven't seen any particular waste or sustainability concerns. The nice thing about uranium is that it's so incredibly energy dense that you don't really need to pull out all that much. I'm not ready to be so defeatist. I defer to the researcher. > "We have chemically modified regular, inexpensive yarn, to convert it into an adsorbent which is selective for uranium, efficient and reusable," said Chien Wai, president of LCW Supercritical Technologies. "PNNL's capabilities in evaluating and testing the material, have been invaluable in moving this technology forward."
- freeflight 4y ago
  This is from the 2020 IAEA world's uranium resources report [0]; "Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of < USD 130/kgU (USD 50/lb U3O8) and 87% of identified resources available at a cost of < USD 80/kgU (equivalent USD 30/lb U3O8)." Apply some exponential growth to that, and those allegedly 10.000 years would actually end up looking more like not even 50 years. [0] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium...
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    The 10,000 years refers to the 4 billion tons dissolved in the ocean. However consider that its possible to dramatically extend the useful life of supplies with breeder reactors - and also to use thorium in existing designs such as the CANDU.
thereddaikon 4y ago
CTRL+F tells me Uranium isn't mentioned once in the page you linked. So where exactly does it prove that running out of Uranium is a problem?
multiplegeorges 4y ago
If you have to contend with the expansion and death of the Sun, you do not have renewable energy.
arcticbull 4y ago
It’s the four billion tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean and the trillion tons that replenish it as it’s removed that I was referring to. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=3d8b1ff3159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

jopsen 4y ago

Just curious, how finite is it?

tedk-42 4y ago

Agreed. Conflating nuclear with renewable into 'zero carbon' is wrong

rowanG077 4y ago

Is that really a problem? I mean technically any energy resource is finite/non-renewable due to second law of thermodynamics. That doesn't mean anything in practice.

throwaway5959 4y ago

Ah yes, the old “what will we do in 10000 years when the Uranium runs out” problem.

naasking 4y ago
Easily mined uranium will deplete in less than 100 years unless we start using breeder or thorium reactors that are more efficient in using up fuel.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticbull 4y ago
  100,000 years supply is dissolved in the ocean. Breeder technology, and (thorium fuel cycle) are pretty well understood at this point. In fact, CANDU reactors widely deployed already support thorium fuel cycle. The reason we don't use them is because with all the uranium available, it's not necessary.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    We could say the same about lithium supplies. It turns out 'mining' something measured in the parts per billion is enormously damaging to environments and quite expensive to the point of impracticality
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Early stages, but current state of the art involves putting fabric out that captures the uranium passively. [1] > Mining of underground uranium has environmental challenges not encountered with extracting it from the oceans. And Wai says the fibers, which have affinity for more heavy metals than just uranium, can likely be used one day to clean up toxic waterways themselves. He says the fibers have potential to extract vanadium, an expensive metal used in large scale batteries, from the oceans instead of mining it from the ground. [1] https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
      - idiotsecant 4y ago
        Yes, filtering ocean water for material is a well known technique. You need a massive throughput of ocean water for a small output and you also filter salts, other metals, polymers, and sea life. You must further refine those materials to get the stuff you want. You also change the ph of the filtered water in a way that would be disastrous if reinjected, and you consume filter media quickly. That all adds up to a huge waste and massive ecological damage.its simply not practical at scale.
        arcticbull 4y ago
        I'm curious why you think deploying some of these fabrics would change the pH of the ocean? There are geological processes which replenish dissolved uranium in the ocean per the article I linked. I haven't seen any particular waste or sustainability concerns. The nice thing about uranium is that it's so incredibly energy dense that you don't really need to pull out all that much. I'm not ready to be so defeatist. I defer to the researcher. > "We have chemically modified regular, inexpensive yarn, to convert it into an adsorbent which is selective for uranium, efficient and reusable," said Chien Wai, president of LCW Supercritical Technologies. "PNNL's capabilities in evaluating and testing the material, have been invaluable in moving this technology forward."
freeflight 4y ago
This is from the 2020 IAEA world's uranium resources report [0]; "Meeting high case demand requirements through 2040 would consume about 28% of the total 2019 identified resource base recoverable at a cost of < USD 130/kgU (USD 50/lb U3O8) and 87% of identified resources available at a cost of < USD 80/kgU (equivalent USD 30/lb U3O8)." Apply some exponential growth to that, and those allegedly 10.000 years would actually end up looking more like not even 50 years. [0] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium-resources-enough-for-the-foreseeable-future-say-nea-and-iaea-in-new-report https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/worlds-uranium...
- arcticbull 4y ago
  The 10,000 years refers to the 4 billion tons dissolved in the ocean. However consider that its possible to dramatically extend the useful life of supplies with breeder reactors - and also to use thorium in existing designs such as the CANDU.

thereddaikon 4y ago

CTRL+F tells me Uranium isn't mentioned once in the page you linked. So where exactly does it prove that running out of Uranium is a problem?

multiplegeorges 4y ago

If you have to contend with the expansion and death of the Sun, you do not have renewable energy.

arcticbull 4y ago

It’s the four billion tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean and the trillion tons that replenish it as it’s removed that I was referring to. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=3d8b1ff3159a https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...