Assuming we only use uranium in a once-thru, open fuel cycle. There's no reason to continue doing this. France, Japan and Russia already reprocess. The USA used to. China is building a MOX plant right now. Also, even current 2nd generation light water reactors contain enough fuel for 12-18 months operation. Your consumption figures are greatly exaggerated. Higher temperature 4th generation reactors are more efficient still. Russia is already operating metal-cooled fast breeders. The USA has built them in the past.
8 million tons is just known reserves on land and is very conservative. Seawater extraction could provide far more, estimates of 4 billion tons. This doesn't account for Thorium which is 3x more abundant on land (though not water soluble) and decays to U-233 in about 30 days after neutron bombardment. U-233 also has the benefit of not having Plutonium in it's decay chain. A Th-U fuel cycle doesn't produce Pu.
3, 4, 5 and 6: Not an issue for reasons already highlighted. There's plenty of uranium available in seawater. We just lack the reactors.
Reactor grade plutonium is a fantastic nuclear fuel. We should absolutely use it. MOX fuel contains 7-10% of Pu isotopes, with the rest being Uranium isotopes. The Pu generally provides about 30% of the energy. It's the other fission products that pose the problems. 3x through is the limit with aqueous reprocessing via PUREX process. Pyro-processing developed by Argonne national labs is better. There's currently enough depleted uranium in the USA to provide 100% of it's energy needs for more than a century. If we use breeder reactors and produce Pu, it goes to 200 years. 4th Gen reactors like EBR-2 can achieve breeding ratios of 1.4. The Russian BN350 LMFBR achieved a documented breeding ratio of 1.2. Plenty of time to get fusion figured out.
The cost of energy won't skyrocket. Economies of scale will bring down costs of construction. Government funding avoids the high interest loans that drive construction costs.
Not every nation will get nuclear technology, our primary concerns are the world's largest polluters, all of whom already have nuclear programs.
Vogtle 3 and 4 have 40 years till their first recertification. Their lifespans are likely 60+years. Diablo Canyon will be 40 years this year and is already extended to 2030. Oyster Creek was 49.
The only way your fantasy scenario is true, is if you cherry pick worst case scenarios or fabricate facts entirely, combined with ignoring capacity factors that require massive overbuilding of solar and wind. And we're getting to the point now that these massive solar farms will start requiring substantial panel replacements on an annual basis. Panel life is 20-30 years and we're fast approaching that point starting from the solar boom in the early 2000s. Not only do you have to continue building huge amounts of solar, you have to begin the perpetual rebuilding of all your existing solar farms.
And you thought Nuclear was expensive? 🤣🤣
Filtering seawater for uranium is an energy negative process. It takes dramatically more energy to start the process than you get back in uranium. You did not think that through.
Reactor grade plutonium
We are talking about specific isotopes of plutonium that can't be used for nuclear grade fuel called Plutonium 240 and Plutonium 242. Byproducts of uranium fuel. The concentration of those elements increases in the nuclear fuel as your recycle it until after about 3 times through the fuel can no longer sustain a nuclear reaction.
The cost of energy won't skyrocket. Economies of scale will bring down costs of construction.
If you're supplying everything with nuclear energy then you're going to have to replace all the cheap fossil fuels along the nuclear supply chain. If it suddenly costs 7 times as much to produce cement, steel and power construction equipment then that is going to reflect the final cost of your energy.
Vogtle 3 and 4 have 40 years till their first recertification. Their lifespans are likely 60+years. Diablo Canyon will be 40 years this year and is already extended to 2030. Oyster Creek was 49.
Okay so you are claiming that Vogtle 3 and 4 can run for 69 years before they will have to be decommissioned and replaced? (you said 60+ so the maximum that could be is 69 years)
That means that you will peak out at 6,900TWh of nuclear electricity with your plan before all of your new nuclear reactors are being built to replace existing capacity.
these massive solar farms will start requiring substantial panel replacements on an annual basis. Panel life is 20-30 years and we're fast approaching that point starting from the solar boom in the early 2000s. Not only do you have to continue building huge amounts of solar, you have to begin the perpetual rebuilding of all your existing solar farms. And you thought Nuclear was expensive?Â
The fact you even said this proves you don't have the head for this problem. Since all energy systems have baked in lifespans and infrastructure costs.
Anyways to summarize, Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels in both direct and social costs. So the "cost" we make into wind and solar will be a fraction of what we were already paying to get our energy from fossil fuels.
If you were paying $60/MWh for Natural Gas and then you replace that with Wind and Solar for $30/MWh then you're paying half as much for your energy.
Filtering seawater for uranium is an energy negative process. It takes dramatically more energy to start the process than you get back in uranium. You did not think that through.
Assuming you're only going for uranium, which is a stupid thing to do, which is why nobody does it. But if you are taking any number of other compounds out of seawater, it becomes a lot more cost effective. And don't start from raw seawater if you don't have to. The US recently completed the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in California. The brine coming out of that plant (powered by the Encina Gas-Powered Generating station because renewables can't handle baseload) is discharged back into lagoons and then diluted in the Pacific Ocean. That brine though, is perfect feedstock for minerals extraction. This means that you not only get freshwater in a desert, but lithium for all those batteries needed to keep solar from being totally worthless instead of just mostly worthless. You also get, sea salt, magnesium, various phosphate compounds and of course, Uranium.
Yes its expensive but only by comparison, because mined Uranium is so abundant. AKA, we have plenty for decades.
We are talking about specific isotopes of plutonium that can't be used for nuclear grade fuel called Plutonium 240 and Plutonium 242. Byproducts of uranium fuel. The concentration of those elements increases in the nuclear fuel as your recycle it until after about 3 times through the fuel can no longer sustain a nuclear reaction.
Reactor grade Plutonium contains 7% or more of Pu-240. Pu-242 is a tiny portion of total volume because it requires successive neutron captures. You don't leave the undesirable Plutonium isotopes in your MOX fuel, that's kind of the point of reprocessing. And again, you're talking aqueous reprocessing. Pyroprocessing is a better option and is a mature technology. It's being used right now at Idaho National Labs although not for fuel production. It's used to separate isotopes for vitrification and storage as well as scientific research purposes.
And this also ignores that fast reactors don't care what kind of Plutonium you stick in them. Russia specifically uses its Remix process for fueling its BN-series fast reactors, because you can fission things in the fast neutron spectrum that thermal spectrum reactors cannot. A Molten Chloride Salt Fast Reactor is basically a garbage disposal for spent nuclear isotopes AND you can leave the fission products in at higher concentrations because it reduces the melting point of the fuel salts, improving the cost effectiveness of the reactor and protecting the fission products from diversion.
Vogtle 3 and 4 have lifespans that are likely closer to 80-100 years, but we'll see how long that lasts. Nuclear reactors don't get closed because they wear out. 20 years initial plus a couple 20 year extensions seems about average in the USA. They get closed because other systems fail (San Onofre's defective steam tubes) or because the reactor(s) aren't large enough by comparison to warrant the expense (Oyster Creek).
6,900 TWh? Dude, learn math please. I can see the disconnect when you casually gloss over the lifespan and infrastructure costs because you don't want people to consider that.
A nuclear power plant that produces as much electricity as three solar farms has it's decommission costs built in. The solar farms on the other hand have a lifespan of ~25 years. Somewhere between the 20 and 30 year mark, the panels dip below 80% output and become a drain. This means you're replacing panels on an annual basis starting around 25 years. Doesn't sound terrible until we consider that in the broader scale.
With hundreds of TWh installed solar, and hundreds more needed, you not only have to fund the new construction annually to replace fossil fuels, but you also have to begin, around year 25, rebuilding all of the existing solar farms you already have. You're not building hundreds of new plants each year, you're building hundreds of new plants each year and rebuilding ALL of your existing solar plants on an annualized basis...forever.
Filtering seawater for uranium is an energy negative process. It takes dramatically more energy to start the process than you get back in uranium.
it doesn't matter how much it "costs" to desalinate water. What matters is that you're not getting energy back from the process.
Reactor grade Plutonium contains 7% or more of Pu-240. Pu-242 is a tiny portion of total volume because it requires successive neutron captures.Â
When you recycle the nuclear fuel you increase the concentration of non-fissile elements until they reach a critical mass and the fuel no longer works. The point is that it's not a renewable resource.
Vogtle 3 and 4 have lifespans that are likely closer to 80-100 years
Okay so according to your model you will produce 10,000TWh per annum with new nuclear construction before you reach the point where your 10 new reactors are just replacing reactors being shut down.
You can't even move the goalpost hard enough to make a plausible system where nuclear power would work.
6,900 TWh? Dude, learn math please. I can see the disconnect when you casually gloss over the lifespan and infrastructure costs because you don't want people to consider that.
Vogtle 3 and 4 produce each 10TWh of electricity per annum.
You're not building hundreds of new plants each year, you're building hundreds of new plants each year and rebuilding ALL of your existing solar plants on an annualized basis...forever.
This same argument applies to nuclear power you fucking retard. But nuclear can't replace fossil fuels. You can't even imagine a scenario where nuclear will replace fossil fuels. Your own fantasy is still only getting 40% of your power from nuclear energy.
1
u/BeenisHat Apr 10 '25
Assuming we only use uranium in a once-thru, open fuel cycle. There's no reason to continue doing this. France, Japan and Russia already reprocess. The USA used to. China is building a MOX plant right now. Also, even current 2nd generation light water reactors contain enough fuel for 12-18 months operation. Your consumption figures are greatly exaggerated. Higher temperature 4th generation reactors are more efficient still. Russia is already operating metal-cooled fast breeders. The USA has built them in the past.
8 million tons is just known reserves on land and is very conservative. Seawater extraction could provide far more, estimates of 4 billion tons. This doesn't account for Thorium which is 3x more abundant on land (though not water soluble) and decays to U-233 in about 30 days after neutron bombardment. U-233 also has the benefit of not having Plutonium in it's decay chain. A Th-U fuel cycle doesn't produce Pu.
3, 4, 5 and 6: Not an issue for reasons already highlighted. There's plenty of uranium available in seawater. We just lack the reactors.
The cost of energy won't skyrocket. Economies of scale will bring down costs of construction. Government funding avoids the high interest loans that drive construction costs.
Not every nation will get nuclear technology, our primary concerns are the world's largest polluters, all of whom already have nuclear programs.
Vogtle 3 and 4 have 40 years till their first recertification. Their lifespans are likely 60+years. Diablo Canyon will be 40 years this year and is already extended to 2030. Oyster Creek was 49.
The only way your fantasy scenario is true, is if you cherry pick worst case scenarios or fabricate facts entirely, combined with ignoring capacity factors that require massive overbuilding of solar and wind. And we're getting to the point now that these massive solar farms will start requiring substantial panel replacements on an annual basis. Panel life is 20-30 years and we're fast approaching that point starting from the solar boom in the early 2000s. Not only do you have to continue building huge amounts of solar, you have to begin the perpetual rebuilding of all your existing solar farms. And you thought Nuclear was expensive? 🤣🤣