mdsolar's Journal: 61 reactors a year

Not long ago, four climate scientists wrote about nuclear power . It is not hard to look up how much uranium can still be mined at a reasonable cost. In terms of how quickly we use it now, there is about 80 years left.

The climate scientists pointed out that fossil fuel electricity generation could be replaced if 61 reactors a year were built for 35 years. So, 61 reactor per year. 35 years: 2135 reactors. 5.3 times number of current reactors. On average over 35 years, the rate of uranium consumption goes to 1+5.3/2 current rate, about 3.65 times faster. Available uranium will last 80 years with no change so 22 years at the new rate. So, we'd run out of uranium before finishing the build.

It is fine to propose this kind of scenario for renewable energy, but for technology that requires fuel, you need to check that there is some fuel. That is, after all, why we pursue fusion energy. We realized in the 1970s that both coal and uranium would run out. Duterium is abundant enough that it doesn't have that problem.

we're all f***ed

[greenfruitsalad]

every 2 weeks, there's an article about something like this. not enough uranium, arable land, oil, oxygen in the air, fish in the sea, etc... It all boils down to a simple fact - there's just too damn many of us. and no politician in the history of universe wants to be the one who says "stop breeding like rabbits people".

Re:

[mdsolar]

We knew in the 1970s that uranium would run out. It's not really a population issue. In fact, nuclear is mainly used where population is stable or shrinking.

Argument FAIL

[DesertNomad]

Your argument that supplies of uranium (U) cannot meet the hypothesized demand represented by the plan you reference appears to be influenced by your interest in fusion energy and many simplistic analyses of U reserves. Summaries of some of those analyses can be seen at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

With existing, proven fast breeder technology, the world's uranium reserves, at consumption rates beyond proposed above, can provide the world's total energy needs for at least hundreds to thousands of years.

The current cost per kg of U, and the greater cost of the "harder to get to" reserves, is still a tiny fraction of the value of the energy extracted. Also, according to the "Peak Uranium" link above, the cost of U is 9% of the cost of running a power station. From the same link, coal represents 77% of the cost of running a coal-fired plant. So doubling or tripling the cost of the U, an outcome of making the "harder to get" U economically practical, and ensures a massive increase in the reserves. How massive depends on the available extraction technologies and the willingness to act.

There is no practical limit in U reserves, given the time frame involved before a "better" energy resource, such as fusion, may become practical.

Breeders

[mdsolar]

Breeders are much more expensive than conventional reactors. They are impractical for that reason. Even now, conventional reactors are too expensive for competitive markets so seeking more expensive uranium is a non-starter.