Nuclear Power Debate

Batteries, yo.

Dammit! I was gonna go with hamsters on wheels.

1 Like

Your number does not include the mining and transportation. They are more equal than face value.

1 Like

Well we will have to do without a lot of stuff… like silicon, aluminum, etc., stuff that modern society requires but takes LOADS of electricity to make.

What makes you think that?

Most aluminium is smelted using (pumped) hydro, AFAIK.

Go check out Vritish columbias (canada) power source. 90 plus percent is green eenrgy (hydro). Its avsolutely doable, and its cold there and needs heat. Truthfully, household heating can be totally electric (they still use curnace, natural gas a lot) very easily there. Again, im not saying ts thethe fix for.taiwan. but saying green energy doeant work is just as false as saying nuclear is 100% terrible or 100% clean.

Ill let you swim in those pools, im not gunna.

Though a common thought is the radiation is small. People are being quite unrealistic on radiation as we get a little bit of radiation a lot of times per day. Phones, tv, computer, sun, power and tramsission towers, comminucation t owers, xrays, sun etc etc. I know its common to ignore it, but that shit adds up to more than just occassional run ins.

We don’t need to mine much uranium and could extract all we need easily from seawater. Breeder reactors create more fuel than they use.

thorium. there, i said it

1 Like

Also let’s consider that you’ll only need to mine enough uranium to fit inside a truck. A single mind would probably supply half the world with electricity for a long time.

Whereas coal require you to strip the earth bare, for enough energy for one day.

I agree. That’s why modern reactors need to be built starting yesterday in places where renewables can’t.

It’s a lot of infrastructure work to get the grid in the condition you’re describing too, whereas nuclear is basically plug and play.

I’d rather go full ahead with nuclear now along with possible renewables, and slowly replace it as renewable and battery technology improves. Better to have a backup plan when +8C is coming by 2100.

I don’t like the idea of destroying new habitats for solar and wind either.

What is the concentrations these mines are able to extract uranium at?

Thorium is much more abundant and breeder reactors can turn it into fissile U-233.

2 Likes

There are really very few of these places. I can’t think of any countries that would benefit from nuclear power, and are capable of operating it, that don’t already have nuclear power. On the other hand there are a lot of places that would benefit enormously from renewables but are being discouraged from using them by vested interests trying to sell them last century’s technology.

I’d say it’s the other way about. Solar is plug and play. It doesn’t even need a grid. Nuclear is anything but plug and play. You need an enormous amount of ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ to make it work. Any country that isn’t flush with cash doesn’t have a hope in hell.

That just doesn’t happen. Solar can be ‘overlaid’ on other things, eg., pasture. Batteries can be placed anywhere - in fact the optimum location is close to point-of-load.

U-235 is 0.7% of the ore.

Ore concentrations vary, but in situ recovery is possible now, as is extracting it from seawater, which surely contains enough uranium until fusion is possible, about 4 billion tons.

Here’s 44MW.

12 SMRs could fit on 1/10 of the area and provide 600MW.

1 Like

The problem is the US would very much like to have monopoly in uranium 235 enrichment technology. The same technology to enrich uranium for reactors can be used for making bombs too.

Same goes for waste reprocessing technology.

So what does that prove?

What is being overlaid in that modern, recent implementation of solar?

They already have the IAEA that works with any country committed to peaceful uses. See the recent Saudi Arabia deals.

Solar gets put on roofs. Taiwan fucked up,royally by turning farmland and wild habitats into lower grade solar farms. Very typical taiwanese government logic. There are so many damn roof tops that cant use used for anything but the shade they provide. Its avsolute lunacy to consider otherwise…and before others start hating, our factory roof is all solar and my factory sells more power than it uses. so there. Plus we are near the mountains and have far fewer clear days than many industrial locations like kaohsiung through taichung.

Solar isnt enough alone, but right now risky and dirty sources arent either, they are combinations. eg. Coil, fossil fuels and nuclear. The all or nothing argumnet is a non starter on both sides and hurts my brain when people are straight up against things like wind. and solar. Ironically, many such people rarely consider hydro green energy despite it being exactly that. Likely because its tried and true and very efficient and effective. Bear in mind, i am not considering chinese versions as they fuck up everything.they touch.

3 Likes