Demand for uranium for reactors seen jumping 28% by 2030 -report
www.reuters.com
Demand for uranium in nuclear reactors is expected to climb by 28% by 2030 and nearly double by 2040 as governments ramp up nuclear power capacity to meet zero-carbon targets, the World Nuclear Association (WNA) said in a report on Thursday.

Nuclear capacity is expected to rise by 14% by 2030 and surge by 76% to 686 GWe by 2040, the report said

This is only good news if it displaces thermal coal and gas generating stations.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    1012·
    1 年前

    A lot of lies of wrong stuff here. The environment for example is much more damaged by renewables, because you need truckloads of space to build the wind or solar farm. China demonstrate how hydro can be damaging too. And it usually ignores the need for energy storage. Both solar and batteries need high quantities of minerals, so that’s not better than anything else here. Nuclear is arguably a lot better because of the energy density of the mined material.

    Ecologists these days seem like a cult that would rather see the world burn in coal and oil than to see even one nuclear power plant built. And this based on ignorance, fear and lies. It’s sad.

    • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.worldEnglish
      43·
      1 年前

      A lot of lies of wrong stuff here

      You’re certainly doing your part. Example:

      The environment for example is much more damaged by renewables, because you need truckloads of space to build the wind or solar farm

      Utilizing available space for renewables is hardly damage, is it? The rest of your post isn’t much better.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 年前

        Available space is free to build? That’s the least ecologist sentence I read in an ecology or energy discussion. Next you’ll tell me green fuel is renewable and green won’t you?

    • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
      32·
      1 年前

      The entirety of the US could be powered by solar power if they converted 10% of land which is just parking spaces to solar farming, and there would still be enough parking spaces left in the country to have seven for every car. The amount of land required for the benefits is completely inconsequential.

      Meanwhile, for nuclear:

      • more CO2 equivalent emissions per kWh than renewables
      • very harmful extraction of uranium ore
      • industrial processes to refine uranium ore are polluting
      • huge quantities of concrete are consumed to build a nuclear plant, concrete is an extremely environmentally harmful material
      • huge amounts of industrial traffic moving astronomical quantities of materials across the country for building and dismantling plants
      • huge amounts of water consumed and irradiated by operating plants
      • much more maintenance required
      • bouh@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 年前

        The space might be available in the US, but it’s not in Europe.

        The co2 emission from nuclear is less than from renewables. That’s a hard fact.

        Lithium extraction is as bad a uranium.

        The quantities needed to build solar or wind are far larger than for nuclear. And need to rebuild them twice or three times more often.

        You need to stop to make up fantasies about renewables.