Post #2499279
2026-04-17 09:53 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@kravietz@agora.echelon.pl 2026-04-17 10:02
@anderesu@masto.es Kind of yes, but the scale of uranium mining is millions times less than any fossil fuel to energy density, and so is the environmental impact. And it needs to be mined anyway because we also need the rare earth metals. @GhostOnTheHalfShell@masto.ai @sgued@pouet.chapril.org
-
@kravietz@agora.echelon.pl 2026-04-17 10:04
@anderesu@masto.es I very much recommend this very broad UNECE 2021 report on environmental impacts of various energy generation options, as it compares more than a dozens of impacts (pollution, land use, mining, human health etc) and then normalizes them against amount of electricity produced: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/LCA_final.pdf The final conclusion is buried on page 59 :) @GhostOnTheHalfShell@masto.ai @sgued@pouet.chapril.org
-
@GhostOnTheHalfShell@masto.ai 2026-04-17 11:24
@anderesu@masto.es @kravietz@agora.echelon.pl @sgued@pouet.chapril.org The amount of uranium needed for energy production is incredibly small. I watched a discourse on this about a week ago. To give you an idea of the total energy demand could be serviced with a ball of uranium about 10 m in diameter I think is what I heard. It might be only 2 m. This would last for quite some time before the fuel cells were expended. Add issue though is is the time it takes to build these things. And the fact that isn’t suitable for all energy needs.