• CountVon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It is somewhat unclear how much Uranium is available worldwide (for strategic reasons), but even at current production, supply issues have been known to happen.

    Nuclear fission using Uranium is not sustainable. If we expand current nuclear technologies to tackle climate change then we’d likely run out of Uranium by 2100. Nuclear fusion using Thorium might be sustainable, but it’s not yet a proven, scalable technology. And all of this is ignoring the long lead times, high costs, regulatory hurdles and nuclear weapon proliferation concerns that nuclear typically presents. It’d be great if nuclear was the magic bullet for climate change, but it just ain’t.

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thought thorium was way less problematic from a nuclear proliferation perspective, that the risk was largely constrained to dirty bombs?

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, there is Plutonium option, but superpowers want to be superpowers. Probably only USA, Russia, France and Britan can do it.

    • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’d run of our uranium that’s economical to extract using current technology and at current prices. All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

      • CountVon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        All known mineral reserves could power the world on exclusively nuclear energy for several thousand years at least.

        You got a source for that? Because the one I linked says that we run out of known Uranium deposits by 2100 at current usage rates. Our known Uranium deposits run out mid-century if we use nuclear to follow the IEA Blue Map plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50%, and we run out of even speculated deposits by 2100 under that scenario. Where are you getting “several thousand years” from? Is Thorium part of the mineral reserves to which you’re referring?

        • Harrison [He/Him]@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The source you linked talks about uranium reserves. Mineral reserves, known and unknown deposits, refer explicitly to the known amount of economically minable supplies of that mineral.

          Discussion around them can be misleading, especially for a growing industry, because as a resource becomes more scarce, it becomes more economically viable to mine difficult deposits, this growing the reserve. On top of that, the effort and technology tend to yield new methods of both mining and refining that increase yields.

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think you have a point. Look at how the Oil & Gas industry pivoted to fracking and tar sands after conventional oil started drying up around 2005.

            There are deposits out there, probably, and the only time mining companies will consider changing ehat and how they currently mine is if they have a reason to do so,: aka an economic (or governmental) reason.

            Still, discovery, technology r&d, and supply chain establishment might take more time than what we have. It’s good that we should keep nuclear and all of this on the table, but it shouldn’t be a priority.