I don’t think Nuclear is the best solution, because of disposal but its far better then coal.
But it is not a renewable resource and estimates of usage and reserves (depending on price of extraction) are available. You should know this.
Yes but current tech renewable simply isn’t powerful enough to produce enough power, we should invest in growing it but if your issue is climate pollution and dealing with that Nuclear is a viable solution till that tech is ready.
The amount gets a lot less if we were to expand nuclear power on the scale some are discussing.
We have about 60 years worth of uranium at current rates of consumption, which supplies a modest fraction of total energy production.
Unless breeder reactors or thorium become a reality, nuclear power is not going to be able to fill anything more than a niche.
So only a coastal quake zone is a stupid place? Anyplace else is a non-stupid place?
Agreed which is why we need to expand solar, wind, hydroelectric too the issue is coal currently.
I think you can replace current nuclear reactors but there’s no role for expansion of production.
Well, there is simply their vulnerability to attack as well… just saying, as far from population centers as possible, which also may help with transportation to long term waste disposal.
I’m not arguing, at least here, about climate (I assume you mean carbon) pollution. Actually I’m not overwhelmingly concerned with the safety of nukes, but ■■■■ happens, and that’s life. Moreover, we now have, and would have if expanded, problems with waste storage. I’ve seen (be happy to quote you later) that two nuke reactors are now coming online in the USA by 2021, and there are now 98 active reactors producing 20% of our electricity (not our total energy, mind you). But with increasing demand, another 22 reactors would need to come on line by 2030 (or something) just to keep the 20% level. I think this is from the World Nuclear Association. Imagine if even a much larger percentage was required from nuclear energy.
I’m also concerned about the stability of governments and the fate or reactors as global powers wax and wane. Expertise may fall into demise and nuclear materials left unattended. They probably last longer than civilizations.
Yes, thanks for reinforcing that point. Nonrenewable.
where did you get this “60” years of uranium left?
Depends on the price of extraction and the percent usage.
too expensive
Ergo, people are ■■■■■■■ But the planet will be just fine.
Wikipedia, but this is more authoritative.
And this says 90. Still not very impressive and not suitable for large scale expansion.
as it does with anything
uranium ore is still plentiful and economically at hand for dozens of yeats
I have an idea. Why don’t we just drawdown all possible resources from the earth? Humans can’t possibly affect that, right? How arrogant of us.
The extraction of fossil fuels will be a blip, uranium a blip, rare earth elements, a blip.
And while we’re at it, let’s include topsoil. Not a problem? Just add fertilizer and weed control with natural gas and oil-based products. Fresh water? Just melt a few ice bergs. Allow developing countries to achieve our level of wealth? Just create a few more Earths.
as typical when the agenda left posts stats, they leave out key info
from your link:
“This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.“
Sounds like a really long, long, time.
nothing goes out as far as you want. you have to keep developing new techniques to mine, refine, reuse, etc
