4 ms·

I must say, your sole sourcing via wikipedia is not confidence inspiring. At least link the sources directly from the footnotes. We're not going to 100% nuclea

by evilos 3y ago

I must say, your sole sourcing via wikipedia is not confidence inspiring. At least link the sources directly from the footnotes. We're not going to 100% nuclear energy, at least not in the foreseeable future so the concerns of Uranium supplies is not material. We haven't looked very hard for it because you don't need much. Plus there's literally an inexhaustible supply in the Ocean. Yes, it would be an order of magnitude more expensive than current in-situ mining. But that's still fine because fuel costs are a tiny portion of O&M costs of NPPs. Your sources on the the "meager 15% increase" is a gross mischaracterization of the source which says: "The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration." I doubt we looked very hard due to the other facts linked in your sources saying that most plants already had long terms contracts and therefore did not need to go looking for new fuel sources. > AFAIK CANDU never industrially burnt thorium, please source (yes, it is in theory possible). This is true, the fuel characterization is happening right now at Idaho National Labs. I'm waiting for updates on this front. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-for-testing-of-innovative-fuel https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Clean-Core-prepares-... > CANDU is a dead-end, there is absolutely no project nor R&D towards it. This is not true. India is building 3 or 4 as we speak. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=IN https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.... Canada has refurb projects going right now and the associated supply chains that would make new orders for CANDU very logical. There is very recent talks of this right now thanks in part to C4NE's release of the "The Case for CANDU" report which has caused a stir.

natmaka 3y ago
> your sole sourcing via wikipedia IMHO the referenced articles adequately concisely describe the facts, and provide sources. > there's literally an inexhaustible supply in the Ocean We try to obtain uranium from seawater since the 70's, with (as with industrial breeder reactors) grand announcements from time to time. Net result: "pumping the seawater to extract this uranium would need more energy than what could be produced with the recuperated uranium". Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/epjn150059.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/e... > gross mischaracterization Therefore, in your opinion, uranium mining operations weren't interested into launching surveying during a period of nearly exponential growth in the price of natural uranium because they already had customers? Let's see: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium... >> CANDU > India is building 3 or 4 Indeed, thank you, and a relaunch in Canada could trigger a renewed interest.
- defrost 3y ago
  Your supply and demand link appears broken, perhaps you meant: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu... In any case that's a secondary source, you're better off using the primary: Uranium 2022: Resources, Production and Demand (aka U Redbook) https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_79960/uranium-2022-resources-production-and-demand https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_79960/uranium-2022-resource... although at 560+ pages it's perhaps doubtful you'd read that. It's worthy of note that broadscale coarse uranium exploration gets "thrown in" with any airbourne geophysical survey that typical runs magnetic + radiometric sensors at the same time (saves fuel costs + 256 channel ground emissions give geologic structure via K + Th + U patterns ) https://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200812/radiometrics.jsp https://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200812/radiometri...

by evilos 3y ago

natmaka 3y ago

> your sole sourcing via wikipedia IMHO the referenced articles adequately concisely describe the facts, and provide sources. > there's literally an inexhaustible supply in the Ocean We try to obtain uranium from seawater since the 70's, with (as with industrial breeder reactors) grand announcements from time to time. Net result: "pumping the seawater to extract this uranium would need more energy than what could be produced with the recuperated uranium". Source: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/epjn150059.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/jones-j2/docs/e... > gross mischaracterization Therefore, in your opinion, uranium mining operations weren't interested into launching surveying during a period of nearly exponential growth in the price of natural uranium because they already had customers? Let's see: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/ http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium... >> CANDU > India is building 3 or 4 Indeed, thank you, and a relaunch in Canada could trigger a renewed interest.

defrost 3y ago
Your supply and demand link appears broken, perhaps you meant: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu... In any case that's a secondary source, you're better off using the primary: Uranium 2022: Resources, Production and Demand (aka U Redbook) https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_79960/uranium-2022-resources-production-and-demand https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_79960/uranium-2022-resource... although at 560+ pages it's perhaps doubtful you'd read that. It's worthy of note that broadscale coarse uranium exploration gets "thrown in" with any airbourne geophysical survey that typical runs magnetic + radiometric sensors at the same time (saves fuel costs + 256 channel ground emissions give geologic structure via K + Th + U patterns ) https://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200812/radiometrics.jsp https://www.ga.gov.au/ausgeonews/ausgeonews200812/radiometri...