[Sporktacular]

"today’s so-called environmentalists"

The nuclear industry had decades to fix its economic, safety and environmental issues but sat on its hands instead. If half of the subsidies they received over that time when into research we would have fixed the renewable storage problem a decade ago.

There is not and never will be enough uranium on this planet to completely power humanity for more than a few decades. Fission was only ever a temporary measure. Turns out "today’s so-called environmentalists" as the author disparagingly calls them, and not arrogant industrialist cheerleaders, had it right all along.

[erentz]

> There is not and never will be enough uranium on this planet to completely power humanity for more than a few decades.

This source says up to 4 billion years. Nuclear power is sustainable.

https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...

[Sporktacular]

It is not sustainable. But it can be more so, under some optimistic, unrealistic scenarios.

This info is based on some projects for tech that hasn't yet proven to be economical at scale. In theory we could replace all reactors with breeders, develop a zero-carbon thorium fuel supply chain etc. but we haven't because it's expensive like hell, slow to commission and still not environmentally sustainable.

What's easier and cheaper to fix, all that or battery/storage technology?

[erentz]

Batteries and storage haven’t proven to be economical at scale. And also aren’t infinitely sustainable either (renewables and their storage don’t grow on trees, they use more resources and valuable minerals than nuclear). So by your measure we shouldn’t do that either.

[Sporktacular]

Oh, so you concede that nuclear power actually isn't sustainable then? Okay.

So if you want to pivot to batteries... look at how much secondary batteries have evolved in the last 70 years. Genuinely novel nuclear power plant designs have barely left the drawing board over the same time. It's pretty hard to conclude batteries have proven uneconomical at scale when the term 'battery' is such a fast moving target.

No one claims infinite sustainability is a requirement, or even a possibility, but I see you dropped that in anyway. First, the paper in a paper battery, literally grows on trees. Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerable. Enrichment techniques are unchanged after 70 years. About 100 times more common, and much much less valuable, is Lithium, the efficient sourcing of which (and its alternatives) is an area of active development. Lithium extraction is also damaging, but it is more deserving of research funding than a process for a fuel source that didn't advance for decades.

In 20 years this won't be a discussion because renewables research will have solved these simpler problems.

[erentz]

No, I was reflecting your argument back to you but it goes straight over your head apparently.

> Unlike Uranium, which is relatively scarce and the cost of which, in $ and kg of carbon, after mining and enriching to 5% LEU is considerable.

Simply not true. Nuclear power when considering all lifecycle emissions is lower than wind and solar: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

[Sporktacular]

You earlier in the thread: "Nuclear power is sustainable."

You a few posts later: "[Battery and storage] also aren’t infinitely sustainable either" (also meaning in addition to nuclear).

Me: "Oh, so you concede that nuclear power actually isn't sustainable then? Okay."

Just read back. Is it sustainable or also not sustainable? You contradicted yourself and I think my comment went over your head.

The carbon cost of the construction and decommissioning a nuclear plant as well as producing and disposing of nuclear fuel is significant, and unlikely to become less so. Wind turbines and solar panels have a carbon footprint almost purely at the construction phase. It's significant too but manufacturing techniques are improving yearly while nuclear has been stagnant.

But according to to your source the difference between renewable and nuclear is marginal anyway and it only considers CO2 and air pollution as it affects human lives. It ignores water pollution from uranium mine tailings, radon or leaks of spent fuel are considered and so is a poor source for considering environmental damage in general.

Finally, your link doesn't mention batteries or storage, so is not an especially relevant source to the discussion either.

[diffeomorphism]

Oh, wow. That link is some horribly bad and unrealistic math. Hint: Filtering all oceans in the world might require just a little effort. Also no comment on where uranium is mined?

I saw some merit to the pro-nuclear argument before, but with such "arguments" ....

[pfdietz]

In particular, supplying a 1 GW(e) burner reactor would require a U absorber field over 170 km^2 of continental shelf (in a strong current). This is roughly an order of magnitude lower average power/area than solar.

[Schroedingersat]

Note that there's not enough uranium to use at 3% burnup. At 90% there's plenty for baseload providing we end growth immediately, but breeder reactors and reprocessing are even less likely to happen than an affordable LWR

[Blammar]

Got a citation for your claim about the U supply? And there are reactor designs that burn much more of the U in the fuel...

[Sporktacular]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152...

Or Sabine Hossenfelder's explanation https://youtu.be/0kahih8RT1k?t=365

Current reactors use U235 which is less than 1% of all Uranium on the planet. Don't know about reactors that use other uranium isotopes, but if after 70 years they are still at the design stage, it kind of makes my point. It's just too late to turn that around. The article just overlooks this fundamental problem.

[Blammar]

Thanks for the links!