3 ms·

This is off by 6 orders of magnitude? A crucial part here is that you're interested in recoverable Uranium at a reasonable price level. Assuming < USD260/kg, y

This is off by 6 orders of magnitude? A crucial part here is that you're interested in recoverable Uranium at a reasonable price level. Assuming < USD260/kg, you'll end up at ~8 million tonnes (depending on what other factors you account for): https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12/7555_uranium_-_resources_production_and_demand_2020__web.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12... And so the time estimate is similarly off. Uranium resources can power humanity's need for ~130, years, extending to 250 years if the entire conventional resource base is exploited. (pg. 113 in the report I linked). With large error margins for Uranium deposits not found yet, but not "factor of millions" error margins. That doesn't mean we shouldn't invest into nuclear (we definitely should), but it does mean that it's not the panacea it's touted as either.

deevolution 4y ago
Asteroid mining seems like it would become a necessary endeavor once uranium becomes too expensive to extract on earth. I'd bet big that humanity can figure out profitable asteroid mining within the next 100 years!
- arinlen 4y ago
  > Asteroid mining seems like it would become a necessary endeavor (...) ...or, I don't know, add a wind turbine somewhere?
  - bequanna 4y ago
    Huh, you must me lucky enough to live somewhere that the wind always blows and the sun always shines.
    - arinlen 4y ago
      > Huh, you must me lucky enough to live somewhere that the wind always blows and the sun always shines. This blend of puerile argument had been thoroughly refuted for over 30 years. Please find another cliche to parrot.
      - bequanna 4y ago
        As long as energy storage is expensive this is a valid argument. And as we erode our base generation in favor of these intermittent sources it becomes a more serious problem.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  No it doesn't. Its totally unnecessary and there are many much cheaper ways to get fertile material.
Kuinox 4y ago
20 years ago we were told there was 20 years of petrol remaining. It's sadly false.
- Jtsummers 4y ago
  > 20 years ago we were told there was 20 years of petrol remaining. It's sadly false. No, we weren't. At least not by anyone credible.
panick21_ 4y ago
There is also plenty of thorium easily recoverable. The primary problem is that we need to move on to next generation reactors. Fertile martial availability is really not the problem and will not be for a very long time. With a thermal breeder design reactors we easily have 1000s of years of material. And in fact volcanic activity will push new thorium up as well. The idea that we can run out of fertile material is mostly just not relevant.
credit_guy 4y ago
That is assuming slow nuclear reactors, which is the case for the majority of the current reactors. But with fast reactors, you gain a factor of about 100, so the 200 years turn into 20000 [1] The big picture effect is that U238 is usable as fuel instead of just U235. There is over 100x more U238 in nature than U235, so the time that 200 years of uranium can last humanity turns into 20,000. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/fast-reactor.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fast-reactor.html

deevolution 4y ago

Asteroid mining seems like it would become a necessary endeavor once uranium becomes too expensive to extract on earth. I'd bet big that humanity can figure out profitable asteroid mining within the next 100 years!

arinlen 4y ago
> Asteroid mining seems like it would become a necessary endeavor (...) ...or, I don't know, add a wind turbine somewhere?
- bequanna 4y ago
  Huh, you must me lucky enough to live somewhere that the wind always blows and the sun always shines.
  - arinlen 4y ago
    > Huh, you must me lucky enough to live somewhere that the wind always blows and the sun always shines. This blend of puerile argument had been thoroughly refuted for over 30 years. Please find another cliche to parrot.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      As long as energy storage is expensive this is a valid argument. And as we erode our base generation in favor of these intermittent sources it becomes a more serious problem.
panick21_ 4y ago
No it doesn't. Its totally unnecessary and there are many much cheaper ways to get fertile material.

Kuinox 4y ago

20 years ago we were told there was 20 years of petrol remaining. It's sadly false.

Jtsummers 4y ago
> 20 years ago we were told there was 20 years of petrol remaining. It's sadly false. No, we weren't. At least not by anyone credible.

panick21_ 4y ago

There is also plenty of thorium easily recoverable. The primary problem is that we need to move on to next generation reactors. Fertile martial availability is really not the problem and will not be for a very long time. With a thermal breeder design reactors we easily have 1000s of years of material. And in fact volcanic activity will push new thorium up as well. The idea that we can run out of fertile material is mostly just not relevant.

credit_guy 4y ago

That is assuming slow nuclear reactors, which is the case for the majority of the current reactors. But with fast reactors, you gain a factor of about 100, so the 200 years turn into 20000 [1] The big picture effect is that U238 is usable as fuel instead of just U235. There is over 100x more U238 in nature than U235, so the time that 200 years of uranium can last humanity turns into 20,000. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/fast-reactor.html https://whatisnuclear.com/fast-reactor.html