Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

philipp2310 t1_iucrovk wrote

Reply to comment by brotalnia in Poland chooses US to build its first nuclear power plant by Vegeta9001

The sources with high concentration and easy to reach spots are at capacity. With growing demand more and more „expensive“ mines have to start and the prices will go up. With „old“ reactors that means, yes, we‘d run low in a few decades or have to use very inefficient mines with all the downsides from mining.

Newer reactor types don’t use as many, other isotopes etc and the problem wouldn’t be there for „hundreds“ of years. But we don’t have many of these running so far (don’t even know if there is just one not for research purpose)

−3

0_f2 t1_iucxgwf wrote

Isn't Thorium supposed to be quite plentiful?

3

Cynical_Cabinet t1_iud8gyz wrote

None of the existing or under construction reactors can be fueled with thorium, so the abundance of thorium is irrelevant.

4

philipp2310 t1_iues2yp wrote

Yeah, that’s what I meant with advances reactors we don’t yet have. Thanks :)

Glad I learned mentioning thorium prevents the downvotes ;)

3

Cynical_Cabinet t1_iuf9a8b wrote

A cult has formed around thorium so down votes are unsurprising. A lot of people believe way too much about the possibilities of a reactor type that only functioned in one research lab for like a year in the 1960s.

2

JustTryingTo_Pass t1_iudfwlb wrote

This is a straight up lie. Canada has enough alone ti rely on comically inefficient reactors.

3

philipp2310 t1_iudigrp wrote

It is not. Source it or be silent.

Edit: all Responses after this were deleted as soon as you challenge them. Just proving that this is not a lie but facts.

−1

[deleted] t1_iudm3so wrote

[removed]

1

philipp2310 t1_iudmd2k wrote

You say somebody would be lying. You source it.

Edit: too sad this propaganda was removed. Just proves nuclear isn’t the ultimate solution.

0