logoalt Hacker News

bonesss • today at 11:51 AM • 1 reply • view on HN

Nuclear doomerism is what has lead us to this silly "status quo" and the subject of the article/thread.

There is more than one kind of nuclear, and the fuel situation has known reserves that aren't being used because of lack of demand. Fuel costs in reactors are only a very small part of their operational costs so new mines are not the priority. We also have viable seawater extraction technologies that are waiting for appropriate demand. Past that, there are also breeder and waste-burning reactors long held-up as a vital and fuel-conserving part of a complete nuclear eco-system.

Bluntly: the nuclear build-out France achieved in the 70s, scaled globally, would solve the climate problem and position us for synthetic fuel production at a civilizational scale. Modern technologies & robotics have us on track for facilities producing low greenhouse energy for more than a century. Global shipping, transport fuels, and energy-intensive industry require high-energy inputs. WWS are wonderful, but very awkward in those domains.


Replies

KellyCriterion • today at 12:44 PM

If you would start to re-rollout nuclear, Uranium will be consumed within 10-20 years by all participants. In most countries, nuclear supplied usually a small but stable fragment of the overall energysupply.