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.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
13 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

Lol. Relax. Seriously, take a few deep breaths and maybe turn off your device for an hour.

Nobody cares about what you wrote. It’s not even the topic of conversation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There are 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

You don’t have to dig anything, it’s literally in the water, you could filter it out. In theory.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Too bad we closed the door on thorium reactors, I bet whoever made that decision is really upset rich right now

permalink
report
parent
reply

Green Energy

!energy@slrpnk.net

Create post

everything about energy production

Community stats

  • 1.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 408

    Posts

  • 1.6K

    Comments