If you're willing to do things like extract uranium from seawater (which IIRC is about 10 times more expensive than mining, but the cost of mining uranium is not a significant fraction of the cost of running a nuclear power plant) and reprocess used fuel, there's enough uranium for the next hundred thousand years.

https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac... if I interprete this correctly, it doesn't work.

Doesn't work yet but plausibly will in the future or if there's sufficient demand for it

you have enough uranium to last for hundreds of years if not thousands.

Most sources I found on the topic seem to be as diverse as this one: [1]

The estimates range from 80 years to hundreds of thousands of years, depending on the assumptions made, including: Possible sources (land mining, sea refining), current consumption level, efficiency of reactors. Where it is approximately this:

Mining land uranium at current consumption (i.e., no new nuclear): 80-250 years.

Refining uranium from sea: 5000-500.000 years.

Overall, it seems to me that just assuring that we have resources for hundreds of thousands of years is a bit misleading or at least undisclosed strong optimism.

I'd be happy to have a more scientific source with reliable information.

[1] https://bettermeetsreality.com/how-much-uranium-is-left-in-t...

Extracting Uranium from sea water might solve the fuel problem but it does not deal with the waste problem. Breeder reactors can deal with both by reworking spent fuel into new fuel and a bit of waste. The resulting waste has a far smaller volume and shorter half-life which means it needs to be stored for hundreds, not thousands of years. Combining the two - Uranium from the sea plus breeder reactors to rework spent fuel - should last until either nuclear fusion has become practical or our species has left this planet.

The costs for keeping waste for hundreds of years are currently not accounted for in the nuclear energy prices. In fact, they are not even properly estimated because we cannot make economic forecasts for centuries. So any decision that involves storing waste for hundreds of years is basically offloading the consequences of dealing with it to future generations. Obviously this is not a responsible way to handle such matters.

Where are those costs not accounted for? Where I live they are, and then some - nuclear energy was taxed extra [1] to pay for waste storage and handling as well as to pay for alternative energy sources. This tax was added at the end of the 90's and rescinded in 2019. By that time waste storage and handling had been paid off several times over.

[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4rnkraftsskatt

The article you are referencing is saying that the tax no longer exists. This is not a recipe for economically sustainable nuclear waste storage organization, is it?

The tax no longer exists - as I already stated when I noted it was rescinded in 2019 - because the costs of waste handling and storage have been paid many times over. In what way would milking money out of nuclear power generation be "sustainable"?

> The costs for keeping waste for hundreds of years

Do you know that you could fit the whole amount of nuclear waste on a ridiculously small surface? That's not for no reason uranium works: it's extremely dense in energy, and the same goes for its waste.

> Overall, it seems to me that just assuring that we have resources for hundreds of thousands of years is a bit misleading or at least undisclosed strong optimism.

there's also apparently asteroid uranium resources, and with SpaceX making it progressively possible to have payload delivered with economies of scale such industry may start in space once it makes economic sense.

Do we – if we build up Nuclear ten-fold? Looks like we've used ~3Mt up to now over 60 years. IAEA says there's 60Mt out when including 'unconventional' resources: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE1843_web.pd....

Now, if we use 30Mt for the next 60 years, it doesn't look like enough Uranium for the next 1000 years... (even without considering the fact that those 50Mt of uncovential resources are probably not usable)

How does shutting down nuclear power plants help us to use less energy?

> have depleted the cachet earth history hid for us

Not sure that word means what you think it means.

thanks https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cache-and-cach...

Uranium will last long enough by itself (around 90 years given current reserves) and far longer (thousands of years) once enough fast breeder reactors have been built to rework spent fuel into new fuel. This also takes care of the problem of storing spent fuel since the remaining waste is both far less in volume (less than 10%) as well as well as has a far shorter half-life. This means the remaining waste needs to be stored for ~300 years instead of thousands.

> Climate change aside (which will kill us all)

That is a religious viewpoint, not based in fact. Either show the proof or retract it, statements like that add nothing to the discourse. It also makes it hard to take the rest of your question seriously.

>That is a religious viewpoint, not based in fact. Either show the proof or retract it, statements like that add nothing to the discourse. It also makes it hard to take the rest of your question seriously.

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/9/5/187/htm - this looks very much like it can kill a lot of us and I wonder how many will survive the following chaos.

I also still don't get how you are pro-nuclear and think climate-change is not an existential threat, but so be it. It makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

Climate change is not an existential threat because climate change is something which the human race has been subject to since forever. Sometimes the change was radical, sometimes subtle. Radical as in glaciation, subtle as in the "Little Ice Age" or the warmer periods which saw the flourishing of the Roman and Viking civilisations - which, incidentally, both declined once the climate turned cooler. Humans are adaptable animals and will make it through the effects of whatever turn the climate makes this time as well. Thinking otherwise is just silly doomsday prophetising.

This is, by the way, also why I am pro-nuclear. It is clear that there are better ways of generating electricity than burning fossil fuels (which lead to environmental pollution/destruction as well as often subsidising less savoury regimes (and companies)). I'm also for putting PV panels on top of roofs an other "unused" surfaces while I see "solar farms" as a waste of space unless established in deserts or similar areas.

I'd suggest to read [1] some [2] books [3] and think this whole "we're all going to die" thing over. Yes, die we will, all of us, but not for the reason or in the way many people seem to think.

[1] https://www.unsettledsciencebook.com/

[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56643992-false-alarm

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50173134-apocalypse-neve...