Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   pettter (pettter@mastodon.acc.umu.se)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:06 JST pettter

   in reply to

   • Charlie Stross
   • Marty Fouts
   • Rama

   @cstross @MartyFouts @photos_floues Do you know how much seawater you'd have to process to get sufficient uranium for, say, 1GWh of useful power?

   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:08 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Charlie Stross
     • Rama

     @photos_floues @cstross you might want to look into the carbon consumption of mining. Also note that there are only finite quantities of nuclear materials so sustainable doesn’t apply. Nuclear is also a huge source of waste heat. It is only somewhat better than fossil fuels once you account for all of the downsides.

   • Embed this notice
     Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:08 JST Charlie Stross

     in reply to

     • Marty Fouts
     • Rama

     @MartyFouts @photos_floues I take it you didn't get the news about uranium extraction from seawater? By some estimates there's enough dissolved uranium in the oceans to run our civilization's current peak power consumption for over a billion years.

   • Embed this notice
     Rama (photos_floues@bagarrosphere.fr)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:10 JST Rama

     in reply to

     • Charlie Stross
     • Marty Fouts

     @MartyFouts @cstross
     If you take that into account, it is only extremely carbon-efficient and sustainable, and immensely more sound than fossil fuels...

   • Embed this notice
     Marty Fouts (martyfouts@mastodon.online)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:11 JST Marty Fouts

     in reply to

     • Charlie Stross

     @cstross nuclear is only carbon neutral if you ignore mining and refining. Oh and construction and fuel transport.

   • Embed this notice
     Charlie Stross (cstross@wandering.shop)'s status on Wednesday, 27-Dec-2023 23:28:12 JST Charlie Stross

     I mean, with climate change we're going to NEED big-ass container ships that can go really fast, just to move food around between regions hit by drought/crop failure. And nuclear is *obviously* a smart bet (because it's carbon-neutral), and for a half-million-ton ship it's even reasonable. But why pick a fuel cycle that lends itself to weapons proliferation?