Hacker News Reader

Comment by lovemenot | Hacker News Reader

You are right. I believe the disconnect with many of those who argue like your parent is that they expect no societal changes should be forthcoming. So nuclear (both kinds) is the only way to continue with this lifestyle. As wastefully as we may wish, since massive over-provisioning is a possibility with these technologies.

I disagree with the premise and therefore with their conclusion. Renewables (plus storage, plus demand management, plus HVDC transmission) will get us there. But there isn't here

View on HN

When I read here about nuclear as a solution I never read about how much fuel there is left, where it comes from, how much CO2 digging up the fuel and processing it is created as well as the waste management.

The waste is not a solved problem. In Germany we have huge problems with it hence why nuclear is on the way out.

Nuclear in France had problems with running during the summer due to the water in rivers being too hot and the system not maintaining the correct temperature difference.

Those numbers are easily found but you also have to ask the same questions about waste produced by manufacturing renewables.

Good questions. Just the first question is a rabbit hole on its own. How much nuclear fuel (lets focus on uranium) is left on Earth ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium Looks like there is uranium everywhere, including under your feet. There is more uranium than gold for instance. The question is about cost to extract. The more you spend the more you find. And the more you look and the more you find. "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015)".

Then on the other hand, it depends on how much uranium we use. "LWRs only consume about half of one percent of their uranium fuel while fast breeder reactors will consume closer to 99%. Currently, more than 80% of the World's reactors are Light Water Reactors (LWRs)."

So moving to fast breeder reactors would essentially live us with enough uranium for hundreds of years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com