The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia’s ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

  • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    Also, let’s not forget Uranium has a finite supply. A few years ago the IAEA estimated that at high usage scenarios (which might actually be happening now), by 2040 28% of remaining supplies would be used. Depending on different factors, that could either accelerate and run out not too long after, which is even for us a pretty short time. Other estimates were thinking up to about 200 years left, at current rates, 10 years ago so indeed not taking AI etc into account.

    • NoiseColor @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      In the nineties they said there is only 30 years worth of oil at that times consumption.

      If the need arises, we will find the uranium.

      • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Source? I was a kid in the seventies and the OPEC shit show brought a lot of fresh of discussion and investigation into peak oil, and that was expected to be around now , but nobody I heard from said it would run out. Have some wikipedia with that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
        May I quote that the predictions were decent, however “It has been recognized that conventional oil production has peaked around 2005–2006. What has prevented peak oil from then on is US tight oil which rapidly increased since the Global Financial Crisis in 2008. Additionally, but to a lesser extent, Canadian oil-sands production has helped increase oil supply since 2008.”

        So yes, more sources were found, however they were mostly obtainable by tight oil, AKA fracking, and as we all know, fracking is economically viable only when all environmental and other damage is externalised.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        There’s also a fuckton of gold in the ocean, just waiting for someone to figure out how to filter the entire ocean and pull out the individual atoms. All at a profitable price point.

        Same with uranium. Which means it’ll never happen.

        We will have cracked fusion, mined the far side of the moon for helium3 and brought it back to terra before we crack that nut

        For context; we’ve only mined ~200k tonnes of gold historically with an estimate ~50k tonnes left. The ocean holds 20milion tonnes, worth over $770Trillion and it’s not cost effective to get it out.

      • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        The environmental damage you will cause by digging shit up from the oceans, if that’s even possible, will be insane. Absolutely insane, completely bonkers, but it does prove once again that nuclear fanbois don’t give a rat’s arse about the environment.

            • ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              How did you get that conclusion from the article you linked? The article talks about a material that can recover 6.63 mg/g per week of uranium from seawater, so a ton of it would produce just over 10lbs/week. If you produce a large enough amount of that material and put it to work it will add up to a useful amount of uranium in a short amount of time.