3 ms·
Your statement about uranium is incorrect for a couple of reasons, but that's beside the point. You're asking us to take a leap of faith and believe in experime
by epups 3y ago
Your statement about uranium is incorrect for a couple of reasons, but that's beside the point. You're asking us to take a leap of faith and believe in experimental technologies that have not been proven to work at scale at all. I'm not denying they might work one day, and I'm all for investing in them to see if they do. But in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people will die due to switching to coal reactors. This is a concrete fact that is happening today. We have a safe energy source in nuclear, and we should make use of it to avoid these real, measurable, tangible consequences.
- pfdietz 3y agoCANDU reactors may be an exception, since they can operate with a conversion ratio of nearly 1 (about 0.9, IIRC, which will extend the uranium concentration by an order of magnitude). But breeders are not currently commercial reactors -- there have been prototypes, but they are not commercial. Nor is seawater uranium extraction commercially demonstrated (it's not even ready for that; the resins have too short a lifespan, for one thing).