you forgot to mention that those 23 m high containment vessels are places in in a pool which of course have to be much bigger than that: "The reactor and containment vessel operate inside a water-filled pool that is built below grade."
We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
>We'll see of this is in any way or form sustainable, especially since uranium is also a finite ressource.
I believe at current consumption rates there is still several hundred years worth of uranium. Presumably Fusion will have been figured out by then or we've killed ourselves with a climate disaster or something worse.
First section your Article: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply. The identified reserves as of 2017 recoverable at US$260/kg are 7.99 million tons (compared to 7.64 million tons in 2015).[9]"
No, these are the reserve that are available at a given price. It is very sensitive to technology. Moreover, price of uranium is a small part of the cost of a powerplant, so there is not as much price sensitivity. We're still good for around ~200 years.
Also, fuel can be reprocessed, and we can use other things than Uranium
Almost all predictions of running out of ores have been wrong. They’re based on “proven reserves,” but mining companies don’t bother proving much beyond 50 years worth.
Well, according to "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air"
>Japanese researchers have found a technique for extracting uranium from seawater at a cost of $100–300 per kilogram of uranium, in comparison with a current cost of about $20/kg for uranium from ore. Because uranium contains so much more energy per ton than traditional fuels, this 5-fold or 15-fold increase in the cost of uranium would have little effect on the cost of nuclear power: nuclear power’s price is dominated by the cost of power-station construction and decommissioning, not by the cost of the fuel. Even a price of $300/kg would increase the cost of nuclear energy by only about 0.3 p per kWh. The expense of uranium extraction could be reduced by combining it with another use of seawater – for example, power-station cooling.
Do you know if withouthotair is actively maintained? I used it in school more than a decade ago and I would love to reread a new version. I know the author died in 2016.
This article estimates that the cost of seawater extraction would be roughly 10x the current market price, although not much word on the energy consumption.
That is not really the point, it doesn't matter if there is 4 or 40 or 400 billion tons of uranium, the point is that it is finite. At some point, there is none, or better there is no more usable ressources available. This can be shifted with technology and better knowledge but it is still finite. And that is all the point I wanted to make.
Per: https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/technology-overview