On 11/08/2019 16:46, Fredxx wrote:
On 11/08/2019 15:56, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* The Natural Philosopher wrote:
And in terms of dependency of supply, nukes can make their own fuel up
to a point. The sea is also said to contain some 4,500 tons of Uranium.

Wrong, The sea contains 4,500 MILLION tonnes of uranium. Enough for
abput 5000 years of use at economically extractable rates.

It also contains hydrogen. In even more vast quantities. Enough for all
the energy ever needed. If it could be extracted economically.

One very big difference, even using conventional means it would still be
viable to extract uranium from the sea and burn in reactors, from a cost
as well as an energy perspective.

The same could not be said for extracting hydrogen from an energy
perspective alone.

Exactly. Current spot rate of yellowcake is around $30 per lb ($66/kg) IIRC.

Japanese study estimated $200/kg for seawater extraction. Take you up to
about 0.3p per unit of elecrticity in a conventional reactor. Less in a
breeder.

Only problem is time and cost of meeting regulations to build a sodding
reactor.

SMRs are not better reactors, just a way around the regulatory red tape




Your judgement is flawed once again.

Less flawed, more nonexistent



--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."