​

>No it wouldn't, given the abundance of the elements involved and the impossibility of recycling irradiated materials on a viable timescale. Renewables ismply don't suffer from the inherent shortcomings nuclear has here. Extracting Uranium from other sources would make nuclear power even more unviable from an economic standpoint.

I didn't say anthing about nuclear waste. Renewable energy needs non-renewable minerals just like nuclear.

​

​

>The issue is that the concentration in seawater is measured in ppb to begin with and the amount of water you need to filter to extract meaningful quantities of Uranium rises to infinity as the Uranium is extracted.

According to that paper 7.6 x 10^6 m3/s of sea water would need to processed to begin with. If you would reduce consentration by 0.01 % (30 years/ 300000 years) you would need to process 7,60076 x 10^6 m3/s of seawater after 30 years. Not 7x10^15 as the study claims. The calculations just doesn't make any sense. The equation doesn't take properly to account the total amount of seawater in the oceans.

​

>Nuclear is already the most expensive option out there. It simply isn't viable as a replacement for fossil fuels on a global scale, and given the growth in energy consumption it is bascially impossible to scale it to meet global base load demands.

I didn't say anything about the feasibility of using nuclear to replace all fossil fuels, so please do not argue against this strawman.

The effect of direct heat released from powerplants would be miniscule in the lifetime of any powerplants we are going to build in the near future(in the next 30 years), so making any decissions based on that doesn't make any sense.

The change of albedo caused by air pollution is more significant, but it isn't an issue with nuclear.

Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2218924S/abstract

The effect of direct heat released from powerplants would be miniscule in the lifetime of any powerplants we are going to build in the near future, so making any decissions based on that doesn't make any sense.

The change of albedo caused by air pollution is more significant, but it isn't an issue with nuclear.

Also with those scales the change of earths average albedo with solar panels starts to have an effect, so I am not sure if renewables even are better in this context.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020EGUGA..2218924S/abstract

​

>This would be an issue with fission as well as with fusion. Seeing how you can scale neither fission nor fusion to even meet global base load demands that issue is mainly theoretical though. Basically all forms of nuclear power run into massive issues when you try to scale them beyond 1 TW globally.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

If many of these points were true it would also make renewable energy transition impossible. New sources of uranium and minerals(such as rare earths needed by renewables) are made avalaible if the price increases.

Also this point just wrong.

>for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years

Extractring it from seawater isn't economically feasible, expect it is because it is because it can become economically unfeasible, after we exctract just 0.01% of the uranium from the seas, which in turn doesn't make any sense. How would such tiny a reduction in consetration would make process unfeasible? Not to mention that new uranium is dissolved in the seawater if concetration decreases.

I agree with you that going 100 % nuclear doesn't make sence, but quality of that study highly questionable.

In 2019 around 15 % and now probably more, but still a long way of the 42.5 percent target. I am assuming that the article doesn't mix up elecrticity and energy, but it might have done that looking at those numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

The effect is absolutely miniscule and is a non-issue even if we would get all of our energy from nuclear. As the article you linked says it will be only be problem when we get to scifi-power source such as fusion.

Well it is more accurate and I am guessing it uses less power.

Bikes are great, but transporting them in busses generally isn't possible. There is usually space for one or two, but if you wan't to transport more you'll need to start reducing the number of people carried. They can be used with busses if there is a bike park near a bustop where you can leave your bike though.

There is, but it still isn't train. My point is, while trains are great, suggesting them for alternative for robotaxis doesn't make much sense.

Generally public transportation does require high enough population density and unfortunately USA is build such a way that it isn't high enough in many places. This can be fixed over time, but rebuilding half of America in short timeframe isn't realistic and therefore shared robotaxis are better transportation method than privately owner gas powered cars in many places.

Kind of diffcult and expensive to build traintracks to every house.