this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
225 points (94.5% liked)

Green Energy

2116 readers
72 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The head of the Australian energy market operator AEMO, Daniel Westerman, has rejected nuclear power as a way to replace Australia's ageing coal-fired power stations, arguing that it is too slow and too expensive. In addition, baseload power sources are not competitive in a grid dominated by wind and solar energy anyway.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 13 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Also, let’s not forget Uranium has a finite supply. A few years ago the IAEA estimated that at high usage scenarios (which might actually be happening now), by 2040 28% of remaining supplies would be used. Depending on different factors, that could either accelerate and run out not too long after, which is even for us a pretty short time. Other estimates were thinking up to about 200 years left, at current rates, 10 years ago so indeed not taking AI etc into account.

[–] ThrowawayPermanente@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

There are 4 billion tons of uranium in the ocean

[–] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There's also a fuckton of gold in the ocean, just waiting for someone to figure out how to filter the entire ocean and pull out the individual atoms. All at a profitable price point.

Same with uranium. Which means it'll never happen.

We will have cracked fusion, mined the far side of the moon for helium3 and brought it back to terra before we crack that nut

For context; we've only mined ~200k tonnes of gold historically with an estimate ~50k tonnes left. The ocean holds 20milion tonnes, worth over $770Trillion and it's not cost effective to get it out.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)