4 ms·

World Uranium production: 45,000T Natural Uranium required to start a 1GW nuclear reactor: 7500t New Net Renewable generation in US: 5GW (this is hilariously

World Uranium production: 45,000T Natural Uranium required to start a 1GW nuclear reactor: 7500t New Net Renewable generation in US: 5GW (this is hilariously low. Compare 75GW in china) Cost per GW of nuclear: $10bn -- maybe half that without NIMBYS if we assume how much the military industrial complex charges for stuff is the sameas tye juclear industry. Us military budget: $750bn Proportion of US military budget to match China's current renewable growth: 50-100% Proportion of World Uranium production to match US renewable growth: 80% Proportion of World Uranium production to match China's current renewable growth: 1200% Proportion of world Uranium reserves to match China's current renewable growth for 1 year: 7% I mean, building nuclear reactors you never turn on is a better use of money than what they normally do, but they can hardly be out bringing democracy to Niger, Namibia, and Kazakhstan to get free fuel if they're busy building something useful. It would still massively reduce emissions though, simply by virtue of the fact that they wouldn't be burning millions of tonnes of oil for normal operations. Still better to build wind if you want electricity. If you've figured out how to make electricity teleport, then renewables can do it with almost no storage.

derefr 4y ago
I think your key assumption here is wrong: uranium isn't fundamentally expensive. It's expensive because there isn't enough current demand for it to bring more uranium mines and enrichment facilities online. Uranium used to be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per gram than it is now, because there used to be more of those facilities online than there are now. With increased demand, it would be cheaper again.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Uranium used to be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per gram than it is now, because there used to be more of those facilities online than there are now. This is both false and entirely irrelevant. The costs are driven by capital (and require supply chains that don't exist) not fuel. Minerals get more expensive to extract after you extract the easy stuff. Building out 100s of GW of new nuclear would require extracting the stuff that costs several times more than present -- to the point where fuel costs would be equal to the LCOE of solar. What is relevant is the entirety of world reserves are not enough to provide even US electricity + transport energy in PWRs. Loading 800GW of reactors uses almost all of it. Reprocessed MOX and what's left might buy you 20 years of operation. Mines take quite some time to come online so the pace of production of new nuclear would be small compared to even the torpid rate of US renewable production. The PWR industry is nowhere near the scale of renewables, and it's impossible for it to get there. If you want to blow a trillion more dollars on trying to make it happen, put it into liquid sodium FNR research. At least that kinda-sorta works. You'll be quite disappointed when you finally get a design that is safe and scalable and see the price tag though. And even if you do go all in it will take decades to breed enough fissile material to make a dent.

derefr 4y ago

I think your key assumption here is wrong: uranium isn't fundamentally expensive. It's expensive because there isn't enough current demand for it to bring more uranium mines and enrichment facilities online. Uranium used to be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per gram than it is now, because there used to be more of those facilities online than there are now. With increased demand, it would be cheaper again.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Uranium used to be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per gram than it is now, because there used to be more of those facilities online than there are now. This is both false and entirely irrelevant. The costs are driven by capital (and require supply chains that don't exist) not fuel. Minerals get more expensive to extract after you extract the easy stuff. Building out 100s of GW of new nuclear would require extracting the stuff that costs several times more than present -- to the point where fuel costs would be equal to the LCOE of solar. What is relevant is the entirety of world reserves are not enough to provide even US electricity + transport energy in PWRs. Loading 800GW of reactors uses almost all of it. Reprocessed MOX and what's left might buy you 20 years of operation. Mines take quite some time to come online so the pace of production of new nuclear would be small compared to even the torpid rate of US renewable production. The PWR industry is nowhere near the scale of renewables, and it's impossible for it to get there. If you want to blow a trillion more dollars on trying to make it happen, put it into liquid sodium FNR research. At least that kinda-sorta works. You'll be quite disappointed when you finally get a design that is safe and scalable and see the price tag though. And even if you do go all in it will take decades to breed enough fissile material to make a dent.