Proven Uranium reserves with breeder reactors will last 10,000 years. With a modest increase in the price of Uranium, extraction from sea water becomes viable and unlocks tens of millions of years of supply. Some geologiats have argued that rock weathering will replenish sea water Uranium concentrations faster than we would extract it making the supply last longer than the expected age of the Earth.
Well if by close to nothing he means waste lasting 300 years instead of 10,000 years and by latest generation he means gen IV reactors like bn-800, superpheonix, oklo, moltex etc sure he is basically correct. Here’s a source where you can read more about breeder reactors: (which is what he is referring to)
These aren't nuclear power plants. They're designs of nuclear power plants. None have been constructed (well, aside from old plants like Superphenix, which was a failure, so much so that the French have mothballed their fast reactor program.)
Moreover, they would be considerably more expensive than existing plants (especially if fuel is to be reprocessed), so they're nonstarters.
1GW of nuclear is worth about 3 to 6GW of solar if you account for the weather and nighttime. If you also account for nuclear not needing fossil backup its worth even more
France decarbonized way before the rest of Europe with nuclear and it wasn't expensive. 50 reactors for $200 billion. Gernamy has spent twice that on intermittents and still relies on coal
Uranium actually does not require mining. Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water. Also extracting Uranium from sea water (which would be basically unlimited) is close to being commercially viable and has received a lot of lab-scale research.
Also, Uranium is only recyclable once with light water reactors. With breeder reactors (which have been built in the past) it can be recycled a hundred times.
it depends where your electricity comes from actually. In west Virginia it comes from coal so is worse than a hybrid but still better than non-hybrid gas cars (in terms of CO2)
No it's not. The efficiency of an EV Motor > efficiency of ICEV motor. Even with 100% black coal. The carbon is reduced by about 30% IIRC (that number can and does improve as the grid greens).
Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.
I was curious to see how this number was derived and unfortunately the 20.41 euro/MWh “reducing effect” figure has absolutely no explanation as to how it was calculated. Given that AEE is a wind industry lobbying organization I suspect this number is picked in a way that is maximally favorable to wind. I really wish they would tell us how this number was arrived at so I could make up my own mind as to how reasonable it is.
reply