|
|
|
|
|
|
by DrJaws
1689 days ago
|
|
|
uranium may not be a fossil fuel but it shares all the problems of them - pollution and waste
- it's limited At the current consumption, uranium would only last 80 years, if all the countries start to build new power plants, won't last more than 2 decades before it's depleted, and we will have the same problem again. nuclear power is not a solution, is just a small patch. |
|
|
Interesting. I had not heard this before, and Wikipedia seems to somewhat agree. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Uranium_resource...:
> As of 2011 the world's known resources of uranium, economically recoverable at the arbitrary price ceiling of US$130/kg, were enough to last for between 70 and 100 years.[60][61][62] In 2007, the OECD estimated 670 years of economically recoverable uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ores assuming the then-current use rate.[63]
> Light water reactors make relatively inefficient use of nuclear fuel, mostly using only the very rare uranium-235 isotope.[64] Nuclear reprocessing can make this waste reusable, and newer reactors also achieve a more efficient use of the available resources than older ones.[64] With a pure fast reactor fuel cycle with a burn up of all the uranium and actinides (which presently make up the most hazardous substances in nuclear waste), there is an estimated 160,000 years worth of Uranium in total conventional resources and phosphate ore at the price of 60–100 US$/kg.[65]