this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15897 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why does it take too long? Because there are too many people who believe it's too dangerous
Because it's genuinely complex thing?
For argument sake, let's say it takes China five years to build five 2GW plants (10GW). Let's assume 25 plants can be in this 5 year pipeline at anytime.
Rounding up from China's population, assuming instantaneous training and transformation of the global population to a similar level as China's nuclear industry, we can then assume that 60 GW can be delivered annually, globally.
With a global electricity usage of 23,000 TWh a year translating into 2.6 TW required hourly, and a capacity factor of 80 percent, it would take 54 years to completely transition to nuclear - call it 40 years to account for existing renewables, building ~1300 nuclear plants
Looking at China's uranium consumption for nuclear, we can estimate new requirements of 17,000 tons of uranium per year. So in 2065, 40 years after ham on nuclear, we'll need 750,000 tons of uranium annually.
One estimate is that about 8 million tonnes of uranium is recoverable at $260 a kg (uranium is currently ~100 a kg).
That's fine, surely we'll have a good ten years of full uranium consumption before it becomes unviable? Unfortunately not, because with the additional requirements each year, we'd hit that recoverability/cost limit within 30 years.
Too long, too expensive and too hard.
(Come back when thorium SMRs are viable though, those could be good)
why are you assuming that nuclear has to completely replace all other forms of energy, whether renewable or not, to be worth building?
Death to America
I didn't - I cut 16 years off the timeline, or about 30 per cent
That's accurate enough for a thought experiment that turns 80 percent of the world's population into China
Did your calculation account for the fact that energy and economic growth having an almost 1:1 relation, meaning a compound growth of ~3% economic growth every year will add up quadrupling the energy requirements in 50 years.
I don't think that's actually true - it might have been from 1940s USA to the early 1980s but I don't think it holds weight anymore.
For example, if there was total electrification of cars and heating within 5 years, electricity demand would increase unimaginably while GDP would barely move.