5 ms·

Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independ

Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independence.

steeve 4y ago
France's Uranium strategic reserves are 3 years. The main supplier is Canada. France has Uranium mines, but they were closed since it was cheaper to import. They still do exist, though.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
Mostly because it's not financially interesting, in the same way that the US did not pump oil on its own territory for the longest time because it wasn't worth it. There are 200 uranium mines in France.
- melling 4y ago
  Yes, I agree. Coal was much cheaper. Back to my “pay now, pay later” point.
melling 4y ago
My main point was we could have avoided half a century of massive coal usage. 40% of global power is still from coal. It appears that we still need to resort to coal instead of renewables: https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy-climate-change/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy...
Zealotux 4y ago
But uranium is much easier to store due to its energy density, and we can rely on better sources for it such as Canada and Australia, and not questionable countries like for oil.
- pomian 4y ago
  Yes. It is much better if Canada and Australia are left with contaminated tailings ponds, that are full of acidic and radioactive waste. Those countries are definitely nimby.
  - belorn 4y ago
    Tailings ponds exist for all mining. This is why groundwater leakage is a major issue in all mining operations. Regardless if you mine for steel, copper, coal, rare earth minerals, or uranium, operations like those will also bring to surface heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive contents. Northern Sweden is known for its iron ore mines, and people who live anywhere near those areas are recommended to install radon detectors. The iron from those mines is then used in multiple countries, leaving behind the contaminated water and air in Sweden.
  - melling 4y ago
    Coal, the current solution, is definitely a much better choice. No residual mess to clean up. Kicking the climate change can down the road even farther requires a few more additional miracles. Heck, we still don’t see climate change as a major problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-change-republicans-delay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-chang...
himinlomax 4y ago
Uranium fuel is a non issue. It's imported because there are very cheap sources abroad and it's a tiny fraction of nuclear power cost. There are known uranium sources in France, they're just not exploited at the moment because that would be a waste of money. But they're there in case demand rises.
tomjen3 4y ago
How many cargo planes with Uranium do you have to fly to satisfy the entire requirement of France for a year? Compared to the same for LNG?

Almost all of the EU's uranium also has to be imported from non-EU sources, just like fossil fuels. So it's not really better if you want actual energy independence.

steeve 4y ago

France's Uranium strategic reserves are 3 years. The main supplier is Canada. France has Uranium mines, but they were closed since it was cheaper to import. They still do exist, though.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

Mostly because it's not financially interesting, in the same way that the US did not pump oil on its own territory for the longest time because it wasn't worth it. There are 200 uranium mines in France.

melling 4y ago
Yes, I agree. Coal was much cheaper. Back to my “pay now, pay later” point.

melling 4y ago

My main point was we could have avoided half a century of massive coal usage. 40% of global power is still from coal. It appears that we still need to resort to coal instead of renewables: https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy-climate-change/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8993093/german-europe-coal-energy...

Zealotux 4y ago

But uranium is much easier to store due to its energy density, and we can rely on better sources for it such as Canada and Australia, and not questionable countries like for oil.

pomian 4y ago
Yes. It is much better if Canada and Australia are left with contaminated tailings ponds, that are full of acidic and radioactive waste. Those countries are definitely nimby.
- belorn 4y ago
  Tailings ponds exist for all mining. This is why groundwater leakage is a major issue in all mining operations. Regardless if you mine for steel, copper, coal, rare earth minerals, or uranium, operations like those will also bring to surface heavy metals, sulfides and radioactive contents. Northern Sweden is known for its iron ore mines, and people who live anywhere near those areas are recommended to install radon detectors. The iron from those mines is then used in multiple countries, leaving behind the contaminated water and air in Sweden.
- melling 4y ago
  Coal, the current solution, is definitely a much better choice. No residual mess to clean up. Kicking the climate change can down the road even farther requires a few more additional miracles. Heck, we still don’t see climate change as a major problem: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-change-republicans-delay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/politics/climate-chang...

himinlomax 4y ago

Uranium fuel is a non issue. It's imported because there are very cheap sources abroad and it's a tiny fraction of nuclear power cost. There are known uranium sources in France, they're just not exploited at the moment because that would be a waste of money. But they're there in case demand rises.

tomjen3 4y ago

How many cargo planes with Uranium do you have to fly to satisfy the entire requirement of France for a year? Compared to the same for LNG?