• Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago
    1. spent fuel can be recycled and it isn’t a terrible complex process to do so

    2. even if we didn’t recycle spent fuel there’s far more than 50 years worth left on land

    3. even if we ran out of land sources spent fuel there’s 4.5 billion tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean

    • psud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. Doesn’t that require breeder reactors? They’re a nuclear proliferation risk, so can’t really be allowed in untrusted countries
      2. I think the 50 year number excludes resources that are unavailable, for example an enormous uranium deposit in Australia, which cannot be extracted because the indigenous owners of the land have traditions about the area which make it untouchable
      3. Extracting elements from sea water is stupidly expensive
      • Cleverdawny@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago
        1. no, just simple reprocessing. Breeder reactors are even better and can generate fuel from u-238, but wouldn’t be necessary for several centuries at least

        2. I think the 50 year number comes from anti nuclear activists, there’s about 8 million tons of uranium out there only considering proven reserves, if we restarted prospecting we could find more

        3. if you’re desalinating anyways and reprocessing spent fuel you don’t need much, the average nuclear plant needs 27 tons per year per 1000 MW of capacity, and 95% of that can be recycled without breeder reactors

      • nukeworker10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. No, not breeders, but reprocessing. There is still a lot of usable fuel left in an “expended” fuel cell, just not in enough concentration.