At current consumption rates there is an estimated 230 years of uranium left. And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if necessary other sources of radioactive fuel are viable alternatives. Uranium was chosen partially because one of the waste products is plutonium, which can be used in military applications. But hopefully fusion generation will get figured out one day...
At current consumption rates there is an estimated 230 years of uranium left. And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if necessary other sources of radioactive fuel are viable alternatives. Uranium was chosen partially because one of the waste products is plutonium, which can be used in military applications. But hopefully fusion generation will get figured out one day...
I think we just disagree on some things, but happy to have the conversation :)
“At current consumption rates there is an estimated 230 years of uranium left.”
Uh yeah…about that…and who is making that prediction and based upon what information?
“if necessary other sources of radioactive fuel are viable alternatives”
Really? you sure about that? Please elaborate. I want to hear all about pebble reactors, thorium cooling, and sodium reactors…please cross-reference with viable data about current state of fusion reactors and breeder technology and how much fresh water and waste storage will be needed.
“Uranium was chosen partially because one of the waste products is plutonium”
Incorrect. Uranium was chosen because it is in greater supply, easiest to refine, and easiest to crack. When Fermi & Oppenheimer chose Uranium to develop the 1st atomic bomb, I doubt very seriously they were concerned with the future use of plutonium for future military needs.
Actually, the world's first nuclear explosion, at the Alamogordo test site, was a plutonium bomb. The bomb that was later dropped on Nagasaki was also a plutonium bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb.
Oppenheimer and his team had calculated that the plutonium bomb, due to particularities in it's firing mechanism absent in the uranium bomb, was more likely to fail than the Uranium bomb, and thus the need to build two of them and use one of them for the all important test in New Mexico.
I wrote "firing mechanism," but that's not quite accurate. Without looking it up right this moment, I believe the issue was that plutonium as a fissile material was more difficult to "ignite"---there was uncertainty as to whether the plutonium bomb could set off the necessary "chain reaction" of split neutrons, the process, of course, responsible for the destructive force of the bomb. All seems self-evident today, but back then was still an unknown.
Do I trust the NEA? I dunno, about as much as any other government agency. But at least they provide a ballpark estimate. If you know more than the NEA please provide us with your information.
I wouldn't trust the NEA or any government agency report that is available for public consumption. Besides, they are based on "current" consumption levels and "projections" of deposits, reserves, and refining. If by some miracle we switch to nuclear as our primary source of electricity production, I would guess that 230 years production would reduce rather quickly to probably 50 years.
I do have information about actual reserves and how they would not be able to meet demand, but they are anecdotal and in confidence, so no sense in arguing about it.
As far as new nuclear tech, dont get me wrong, I am pro-nuclear power all the way!
The point about the new breeder reactors and thorium/salt cooled tech coming down the pike is not that they are “pie-in-the-sky” but rather they are not new, they are 40 year old ideas and because we have already lost 40+ years of development due to political hysteria, they are now in their infancy and will take decades to test and deploy . Once deployed, they use just as much resources as current tech with just as many production hurdles to be solved. IOW, how much oil and gas will be needed to produce these new reactors and deploy them? Will will also expend an equal or greater amount of energy updating our electric grid and distribution systems? Is there any plan at all to do any of this? And why are we still discussing antiquated centralized ideas of energy production and distribution now that we are 23 years into the 21st century??
I guess I am just advocating for rethinking how we distribute energy before committing to a new production paradigm. Maybe think long term, not just our immediate needs.
At current consumption rates there is an estimated 230 years of uranium left. And I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if necessary other sources of radioactive fuel are viable alternatives. Uranium was chosen partially because one of the waste products is plutonium, which can be used in military applications. But hopefully fusion generation will get figured out one day...
I think we just disagree on some things, but happy to have the conversation :)
“At current consumption rates there is an estimated 230 years of uranium left.”
Uh yeah…about that…and who is making that prediction and based upon what information?
“if necessary other sources of radioactive fuel are viable alternatives”
Really? you sure about that? Please elaborate. I want to hear all about pebble reactors, thorium cooling, and sodium reactors…please cross-reference with viable data about current state of fusion reactors and breeder technology and how much fresh water and waste storage will be needed.
“Uranium was chosen partially because one of the waste products is plutonium”
Incorrect. Uranium was chosen because it is in greater supply, easiest to refine, and easiest to crack. When Fermi & Oppenheimer chose Uranium to develop the 1st atomic bomb, I doubt very seriously they were concerned with the future use of plutonium for future military needs.
Actually, the world's first nuclear explosion, at the Alamogordo test site, was a plutonium bomb. The bomb that was later dropped on Nagasaki was also a plutonium bomb. The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb.
Oppenheimer and his team had calculated that the plutonium bomb, due to particularities in it's firing mechanism absent in the uranium bomb, was more likely to fail than the Uranium bomb, and thus the need to build two of them and use one of them for the all important test in New Mexico.
Thanks for the correction , Feldspar. I was wrong. Love learning this!
So why did they go with plutonium for two of the 1st 3 bombs? Is not plutonium harder to refine? Is it easier to crack?
I wrote "firing mechanism," but that's not quite accurate. Without looking it up right this moment, I believe the issue was that plutonium as a fissile material was more difficult to "ignite"---there was uncertainty as to whether the plutonium bomb could set off the necessary "chain reaction" of split neutrons, the process, of course, responsible for the destructive force of the bomb. All seems self-evident today, but back then was still an unknown.
With regards to 230 years:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/
Do I trust the NEA? I dunno, about as much as any other government agency. But at least they provide a ballpark estimate. If you know more than the NEA please provide us with your information.
With regards to liquid thorium:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Chinese-molten-salt-reactor-cleared-for-start-up
Liquid Sodium cooled reactor:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/New-Brunswick-fast-reactor-operational-within-the
There are other fast breeders under construction right now such as the PFBR in India and the CFR-600 in China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR-600).
The point is, it's not pie in the sky technology like fusion.
I wouldn't trust the NEA or any government agency report that is available for public consumption. Besides, they are based on "current" consumption levels and "projections" of deposits, reserves, and refining. If by some miracle we switch to nuclear as our primary source of electricity production, I would guess that 230 years production would reduce rather quickly to probably 50 years.
I do have information about actual reserves and how they would not be able to meet demand, but they are anecdotal and in confidence, so no sense in arguing about it.
As far as new nuclear tech, dont get me wrong, I am pro-nuclear power all the way!
The point about the new breeder reactors and thorium/salt cooled tech coming down the pike is not that they are “pie-in-the-sky” but rather they are not new, they are 40 year old ideas and because we have already lost 40+ years of development due to political hysteria, they are now in their infancy and will take decades to test and deploy . Once deployed, they use just as much resources as current tech with just as many production hurdles to be solved. IOW, how much oil and gas will be needed to produce these new reactors and deploy them? Will will also expend an equal or greater amount of energy updating our electric grid and distribution systems? Is there any plan at all to do any of this? And why are we still discussing antiquated centralized ideas of energy production and distribution now that we are 23 years into the 21st century??
I guess I am just advocating for rethinking how we distribute energy before committing to a new production paradigm. Maybe think long term, not just our immediate needs.