• Fakename_Bill [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    With current battery technology, there isn't enough lithium on the planet to run the world on wind and solar. Pumped storage is inefficient and relies on specific geographic features that aren't available everywhere. So critical support for nuclear.

    • Fourny [he/him,comrade/them]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      I support nuclear, but just a reminder that lithium isn’t the only way to make batteries.

    • T_Doug [he/him]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      With current technology, there's also not enough Uranium to run the world on solely Nuclear, with our present known reserves we only have enough to last about another 80 years under current (small) levels of consumption.

      • AliceBToklas [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        that's just of currently proven reserves at current prices; and as the article mentions a doubling of the price of uranium ore will barely even impact the costs of nuclear energy but dramatically increase proven reserves.

          • AliceBToklas [she/her]
            ·
            4 years ago

            80 years is probably not enough to develop fusion... But Thorium reactors were built as early as the 60s

            • Fourny [he/him,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I agree that thorium is a good option. I’m a fan of the LFTR designs. But if we are willing to invest in research I feel like 80 years is more than enough time to get working fusion power generation.

              • AliceBToklas [she/her]
                ·
                4 years ago

                idk, the tokamak folks have been saying they're super close to energy positive reactor designs but they've been saying that for over 20 years and are still nowhere near energy positive and are still usually working with fission byproducts anyways. I think fusion is a great thing to keep researching but it's just far enough away that we need to focus more on fission for energy production, partially just because more experience in fission reactors on an economic and operations level will prepare us better for when fusion reactors are more closely within grasp.

        • T_Doug [he/him]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 years ago

          It's also enough time to develop any sort of theoretically better battery technology that would allow for us to run our power grid solely on renewables.

          If we assume technological innovation, things get a lot easier.

          • Fakename_Bill [he/him]
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 years ago

            Exactly, nuclear is the only way to completely kick fossil fuels quickly. Developing a replacement for uranium fission can come later.