> New lower level reserves will be even more expensive to the point where the LCOE of solar is around the raw uranium price.
No. From the World Nuclear Association, "doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 ¢/kWh, an increase of one-quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 ¢/kWh to 1.42 ¢/kWh (an increase of almost 10%)."
Uranium could easily be $300/lb and nuclear will still be competitive.
> Pre-paying for 75 years worth of electricity rather than 25
Yeah, "electricity" which is intermittent and currently requires Russian and Qatari natgas to load balance... or perhaps you can re-open some coal mines. Pick your poison.
Won't happen anytime soon. There's a lot. We have a century's worth, and the uranium price could easily be three times higher, without hardly an impact to utilities, and unlock more reserves and exploration.
> capacity factor of <50% of the french fleet
This not an indictment of nuclear power as a whole.
American nuclear reactors have a ~90% capacity factor.
> Cheap storage like thermal (so the cheapest sand)
Won't be effective for producing electricity. Might only be ~30% efficient.
> far worse than new offshore wind
Wind is reasonable but don't forget that reactors can last a ridiculously long time ~75 years. Wind turbines might only last ~20 years in a corrosive environment.
> A 2022 PERC cell has an EBPT of about 3-6 months
Okay, so there's a new solar cell that is slightly better and perhaps can be manufactured a little cheaper. Great! So what? You have failed to take into account the burden of energy storage. The capacity factor for solar is an abysmal ~20% if not ~10% in some localities. Wind can have a superior capacity factor of up to ~50%. Energy storage is the constraint.
This is a mostly dumb and gimmicky idea. It will fail. If we want serious climate solutions we need either a massive build-out of nuclear power or wind plus utility-scale battery (or potentially ammonia) storage. Solar energy has a ridiculously low EROI. Solar energy on a car? Probably an even lower EROI.
Vanadium redox flow batteries have energy densities of ~10–20 Wh/kg. But for grid storage I think even sodium-ion batteries would be a better candidate. Those have energy densities of ~150 Wh/kg. Vanadium is mostly produced as a byproduct of mining magnetite iron ore deposits. So, sodium-ion is less dependent on the output of handful of mines globally.
Having a hydrogen economy is overall pretty inefficient. I think it's largely a dead end. We do not need multi-year energy storage. Seasonal storage is needed at most. Lithium-ion batteries have self-discharge rates of around 2% per month. Even if the batteries lose ~10% over a few months that's an acceptable loss and is superior to the inefficiencies inherent in hydrogen production via electrolysis and the subsequent use of stored hydrogen via fuel-cells — which require platinum-group metals.
Yeah, LFP is arguably good enough for 80% of all EVs is my guess. Arguably it is also good enough for energy storage as well. However, for EVs, LFP doesn't have as high energy density. Something like 70% of all cobalt is mined in the DRC. I still think there will need to be more advanced and affordable battery chemistries before there is ubiquitous battery energy storage and EV adoption.
This is why something like Li-S is the holy grail of batteries.
These are both pretty bad takes. We as a civilization do not mine the crust for uranium. We mine high-grade ore deposits. I think with our current resources and technologies we could sustain demand for about 100 years.
Nuclear energy is used at scale. Nuclear energy supplies ~70% of French electricity production.
What's more important is the development of nuclear technology. Not all uranium is used in current reactors. The majority of uranium is U238. If breeder reactors were developed, our existing resources could be utilized far more effectively.
Energy density and availability of materials. Li-S ballpark is 550 Wh/kg while conventional lithium-ion is around 200 Wh/kg. Using nickel, cobalt, and other expensive metals is not scalable.
Depends on what tech comes out. If lithium-sulfur batteries and perovskite solar cells go into mass production I think nuclear will be one of the smaller contributors. Nuclear works best where there's limited hydroelectric, wind, and solar but minimal chance of earthquakes.
Nuclear is not suited for peaker plants. It probably never will be. The fuel is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant. This is why battery tech is key to energy transition. If lithium-sulfur batteries can be produced at scale, we won't have as much of an issue with the intermittent nature of solar and wind.
> Because mining nuclear materials is an ecological disaster. Also, guess who's a big exporter of uranium in Europe? Russia.
Cameco could easily restart Rabbit Lake and McArthur River. Supply is no issue. Claiming that mining uranium is an "ecological disaster" is disingenuous. It's not excessively dangerous relative to other mining operations.
Also, gold content of asteroids is incredibly low. You'd be lucky to find a metallic asteroid with even 1 ppm of gold. Mines here on Earth often have grades above 4 ppm. The highest grade mines have above 20 ppm of gold. Second, let's say you find a M-type asteroid, how in the hell are you going to melt the nickel-iron and reprocess it for the valuable stuff like gold and platinum?
Overall, asteroid mining is pretty idiotic. It will not be economical within our lifetimes and certainly will not play a role in producing the resources necessary for combating climate change.
I'm not firmly in the terraforming camp, but something I'd like to point out is that humans don't need exactly 1 atm. About 0.5 atm would be sufficient. It's analogous to what is found in Bolivia's altiplano. Mar's gravity is sufficient to hold onto oxygen and nitrogen.
> mars is nothing more than a further, more annoying version of the Moon.
This is simply wrong. Mars has had the geological processes necessary for ore formation. Whereas the Moon largely lacked those processes. Furthermore, Mars is rich in volatiles. It is likely Mars has everything needed to sustain human civilization. The issue is developing the extraction technologies and proving mineral reserves on Mars.
No. From the World Nuclear Association, "doubling the uranium price (say from $25 to $50 per lb U3O8) takes the fuel cost up from 0.50 to 0.62 ¢/kWh, an increase of one-quarter, and the expected cost of generation of the best US plants from 1.3 ¢/kWh to 1.42 ¢/kWh (an increase of almost 10%)."
Uranium could easily be $300/lb and nuclear will still be competitive.
> Pre-paying for 75 years worth of electricity rather than 25
Yeah, "electricity" which is intermittent and currently requires Russian and Qatari natgas to load balance... or perhaps you can re-open some coal mines. Pick your poison.