/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>13235787
>It also needs to be concentrated ya dingus, otherwise it wouldn't be economic. If you go by the percentages of the earth crust, then you are doing it wrong. Those numbers also include the infissible U-238.
you can make it fissible, but yes it requires putting more energy into the U-238 than you will get back out of the new isotope, because second law is a bitch

>>13235787
>>Yes and no. You need breeder reactors to create other fissible elements (which adds to costs)
again, the more plants there are (and the greater the variety of each plants reaction) the less of an issue this becomes
and we already have infrastructure for the basics, we arnt exactly starting from scratch nowadays
>and don't you fucking dare to mention thorium, because you saw it in a youtube video
lol no, theres plenty of different ways to run reactors with the same isotope in different rates/ratios/physical setups/ect
theres dozens of variables that impact how much power at what rate is made by the various useable materials

>>13235787
>Nuclear is good for small, power hungry nations and for baseline electricity. That's it, no more.
Nuclear is good for largescale, industrial uses of energy, and steady constant loads
its not so good with small amounts at reasonable price/risk ratio, and its not good for loads that vary drastically with time, just steady power loads, or predictable stable (and slower) cyclical loads

solar can be arguably better for residental power needs (at least in rural settings), but renewables cannot match the shear quantity that many industries need (hospital equipment can be power hogs, not to mention factory work and assembly needs, (medium induction and arc furnaces need a good 1.5 GJ per tonne of steel/iron)

you cant power the mordr world on solar and wind alone, you need nuclear or fossil fuels, and theres one thats clearly better than the other, and yet it gets shit on more

nuclear's flaw is that it doesnt scale small enough to be useful in transport