            
              Doesn't that require breeder reactors? They're a nuclear proliferation risk, so can't really be allowed in untrusted countries
I think the 50 year number excludes resources that are unavailable, for example an enormous uranium deposit in Australia, which cannot be extracted because the indigenous owners of the land have traditions about the area which make it untouchable
Extracting elements from sea water is stupidly expensive

[–] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

no, just simple reprocessing. Breeder reactors are even better and can generate fuel from u-238, but wouldn't be necessary for several centuries at least
I think the 50 year number comes from anti nuclear activists, there's about 8 million tons of uranium out there only considering proven reserves, if we restarted prospecting we could find more
if you're desalinating anyways and reprocessing spent fuel you don't need much, the average nuclear plant needs 27 tons per year per 1000 MW of capacity, and 95% of that can be recycled without breeder reactors

[–] nukeworker10@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, not breeders, but reprocessing. There is still a lot of usable fuel left in an "expended" fuel cell, just not in enough concentration.

[–] Clarke311@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

If I remember correctly non-viable fuel ratio is anything under 95% pure.