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 This tax was added at the end of the 90's and rescinded in 2019.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The tax no longer exists - as I already stated when I noted it was rescinded in 2019 - because the costs of waste handling and storage have been paid many times over.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)