Hmmmm... Perhaps I should put a little "support" into Wyoming's Larger Uranium Mine Companies?

[turbguy + 1,544]

This is a well-thought out article, IMO.  I had not thought about the full geopolitics of Uranium.  At least, nowhere near THIS deep!

Let's hear it Australia!

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Power-is-Wrought-with-Challenges.html

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

14 hours ago, turbguy said:

This is a well-thought out article, IMO.  I had not thought about the full geopolitics of Uranium.  At least, nowhere near THIS deep!

Let's hear it Australia!

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Power-is-Wrought-with-Challenges.html

I've mentioned before nuclear is not renewable energy.

I've promoted in the past doing "warheads into energy" which would both reduce the likelihood of an extinction level event war and provide clean energy.  Sadly that time has passed - cold war 2 is on and now everybody is replacing their aging bombs. 

There are a lot of radioisotopes in seawater, but extracting it is difficult.

Thankfully, the earth has a perfectly working fusion reaction - it just happens to be safely stored 148,000,000 Km away and transfers us essentially unlimited energy via waves.  

Canada has a decent amount of uranium - yay.

Edited November 13 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,544]

15 hours ago, TailingsPond said:

I've mentioned before nuclear is not renewable energy.

I've promoted in the past doing "warheads into energy" which would both reduce the likelihood of an extinction level event war and provide clean energy.  Sadly that time has passed - cold war 2 is on and now everybody is replacing their aging bombs. 

There are a lot of radioisotopes in seawater, but extracting it is difficult.

Thankfully, the earth has a perfectly working fusion reaction - it just happens to be safely stored 148,000,000 Km away and transfers us essentially unlimited energy via waves.  

Canada has a decent amount of uranium - yay.

I agree, it's not renewable. 

But to be able to compete with those that continue to build base-load fossil facilities, it's gonna be very handy to have for a few decades.

At least it's operating emissions are much less bothersome than fossil fueled plants.

 

[Ron Wagner + 709]

The cost of uranium is a lesser problem than actually building nuclear plants of any size and transmitting the energy to where it is needed. The public doesn't trust it or want it either. They are already paying exorbitant prices for refurbishing nuclear plants built decades ago. Their bills were never lowered by these plants and in fact went up. 

[Ron Wagner + 709]

Yes, fossil fuel production is expected to continue rising in the foreseeable future. Despite growing awareness of the environmental impact of fossil fuels, global demand remains high, particularly in developing countries. Additionally, advancements in technology have made it easier and more cost-effective to extract fossil fuels, further driving production. However, there are efforts to shift towards renewable energy sources, which could potentially slow down the growth of fossil fuel production in the long term.