Nuclear Energy Is FINITE, yes?

[Shimbiris]

Really seems like people should've bet on nuclear reactors but I have a question for all the Chem, Physics and Engineering majors I've seen around here from time to time as I am not all knowledgeable when it comes to this subject... aren't these fission reactors ultimately running on finite resources? Yes, you get A LOT of output from a much smaller amount of something like uranium compared to something like coal but, at the end of the day, it will run out, no? Even with these new types of reactors I hear about that can reuse nuclear waste, isn't it going run out on us as an energy source someday?

@The alchemist

 

[Hargeysa]

It is a finite source. Current estimates is ~200 years of economically accessible uranium resources. This is before you consider technological advancement, which will lead to efficiencies, or alternative sources such as Thorium.

Technologically, 200 years is a long time, so the fact it's finite isn't the biggest concern (humans aren't known for forethought tbf). Nuclear power could buy humanity time to improve / develop other forms of energy (hopefully fission).

 

[The alchemist]

External costs and net positive gain is evaluated in the life-cycle assessment, and to this day, nuclear energy is the best option. The reality is, at our current capacity, nuclear is the best generating system with the highest return of energy invested. Uranium is a finite resource, no doubt about it. However, uranium is very common, the issue being the level of grade concentration of the ore. We can find plenty of lower grade uranium at sea and spread out throughout the world, for example, but the issue there is the cost curve for what is economically recoverable through the technology we have calculating the life/cycle analysis. At some point, the tractable energy output for the input relationship that is currently advantageous will lose its edge with the current know-how of extracting it.

The best we can do is to take advantage of this and in the meantime invest further in research and cost-cutting technological development into better-extracting methods where lower grade that is very abundant can get processed to produce condensed rich source to be utilized while also demanding less energy cost. Not to mention, fusion is an ambitious system that will give crazy amounts of energy if they can deliver on their promise, then we can worry way less about energy, to put it lightly.

I don't get alerts when I get mentioned.

 

[Adagio]

Yes nuclear energy is finite.

However, the very same NEA document that optimistically concludes there are 150 years of uranium, also have a graph that shows production will fall short in just 8 years. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2014/7209-uranium-2014.pdf

Note this chart is showing the production shortfall and includes Reasonably Assured Resources RAR because the nuclear industry had to invent their own definition of “Proven Reserves” the rest of the mining industry uses. Why? ask them. Normally new words for the same idea are used for misdirection. This is the situation for real world commercial reactors. Not new unproven tech, not future fantasies. Why do you think there is so much research and money being spent on alternate types of reactors and fuels cycles?

Nuclear power is deadly, dirty, expensive, and short of uranium in 8 years.

It also includes “inferred Resources”

They also make conclusions about how much is available in the future using “Undiscovered resources (prognosticated and speculative)", which I would translate as hopes and dreams.

The problem with these predictions is they fail to include the thermodynamics of mining and refining. At about .01% ore, it takes more energy to mine and refine than the total net energy the nuclear power plants will ever produce.

The end of cheap uranium

Those are from independent sources, not nuclear power PR sources.

The Nuclear Power Regulatory Capture Award:

What’s really fascinating is how every major nuclear agency is chartered to promote nuclear power. Every major nuclear agency is a nuclear power PR agency. The tobacco industry really wishes they could do that.

“The NEA's Mission Statement, as reflected in its Strategic Plan, is:

"To assist its member countries in maintaining and further developing, through international co-operation, the scientific, technological and legal bases required for a safe, environmentally sound and economical use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It strives to provide authoritative assessments and to forge common understandings on key issues as input to government decisions on nuclear energy policy and to broader OECD analyses in areas such as energy and the sustainable development of low-carbon economies."

IAEA:

“ARTICLE II: Objectives

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose.”

However, there is plenty of uranium for the level of nuclear power in the world today, ~12%.

If we implemented enough nuclear power to supplement renewables and end most use of fossil fuels (~33% of all electricity generation worldwide), we would need to employ some new technologies.

Fast-spectrum nuclear reactors can reuse nuclear fuel via reprocessesing. It is a challenging technology, but it has been implemented in the past on a smaller scale. Some advanced next-gen reactors can use their fuel very efficiently, like the “traveling -wave” reactor from TerraPower.