Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanmcdirmid | Hacker News Reader

True except nuclear is basically a renewable itself given that we have enough fuel in reserve for 70k years or so. If we could get the capital and operating (including waste storage) costs down, it would basically be free energy. Barring achieving that, it is a problem that we should keep working on, it would be a pity to see nuclear plant development completely stopped (well, unless someone figures out profitable fusion).

View on HN

I read there was 200years of nuclear (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...) but I can't find a source for your figures? Could you point me in the right direction?

For a long-term nuclear strategy you need breeder reactors which extract nearly 100 times more energy from the same fuel (and at the same time help a lot with the nuclear waste problem), or a way of getting Uranium out of sea water.

Thank you I learnt something

The 200 years number is for the most inefficient (and producing most radioactive waste) types of reactors, but those reactors are also the only ones USA wants you to have, so...

I see, which is might help explain breeder reactors are so few.

Most fast/breeder reactors get a knee-jerk reaction from so-called "nuclear haves". I think only France (a nuclear state) and Japan got close to so-called "plutonium economy" when it comes to reprocessing spent fuel, and even they don't use fast reactors on mass scale.

Most high fuel efficiency designs are fast reactors, or they employ extra radiation source to "burn down" the fissile material.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com