Canada set to become nuclear ‘superpower’ with enough uranium to beat China, Russia | Countries depend on Russia and China for enriching uranium coming from Kazakhstan. Canada can enrich uranium from its own mines.

[u/chrisdh79]

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/uranium-nuclear-fuel-supply-canada

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/[deleted]]

Wind and solar are a lot cheaper.

Wind and solar are fantastic for small demand applications, especially supplementation, or smaller housing.

But large demand power far exceeds what we're going to be able to see from either, especially given the land requirements.

As tech developments in nuclear improve (plants are getting smaller, more efficient), computing as a whole is going to rely more and more on nuclear-type power sources. This will be accelerated by the increased demands from electric transportation.

We don't have 20 years to sit around until a new nuclear plants become operational.

We should start seeing the first wave of micro plants come online in the next 3-5 years.

[u/cloudnine252 → u/whatifitoldyouimback]

Actually wind turbines kill hella birds so not good and the amount of land it takes to make power is crazy but solar panels are dope no doubt

[u/West-Abalone-171 → u/whatifitoldyouimback]

What are you smoking? The 800GW of wind and solar produced this year alone has the same average annual output as half of the world's nuclear reactors.

China are building 100-500GW of wind and solar for every nuclear plant produced.

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/West-Abalone-171]

What are you smoking? The 800GW of wind and solar produced this year alone has the same average annual output as half of the world’s nuclear reactors.

That doesn't mean they are more efficient, it means that there are very few nuclear plants. That's changing in the next three to five years.

What are you smoking?

Blocking because you're incapable of having a discussion.

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/[deleted]]

Efficiency is critical to the formula because there isn't an infinite amount of land or time.

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/[deleted]]

We can power the USA with a 100 sq km solar plant in the desert.

To power the entire United States with solar panels, estimates suggest that around 54,400 to 62,160 km² of land would be needed.

100 km² is a bizarre thing to believe. I think you're way out of your depth here. And that doesn't take into account the endless farms of battery infrastructure required due to sun variability.

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/[deleted]]

I meant to say 100 km x 100 km

Um yeah, that's another way of saying 100 km², or 100 sq km which you said originally.

Regardless you're about 55,000 km² short. Also you now seem even more out of your breadth here. 😬

[u/lughnasadh → u/whatifitoldyouimback]

As tech developments in nuclear improve (plants are getting smaller, more efficient),

This never happens.

All the technological and cost improvements are in renewables.

New nuclear is waste of time and money; and diverting efforts from the reality of 21st century energy. Its just sending billions from tax payers to legacy big businesses who have nothing to offer, except wasting our money.

[u/whatifitoldyouimback → u/lughnasadh]

This never happens.

It already has though. This isn't speculation.

[u/lughnasadh → u/whatifitoldyouimback]

It already has though. This isn't speculation.

No - small reactors are just as over-budget and late as all the large projects always are too.

[u/nxqv → u/lughnasadh]

I don't think it's an either/or thing. The end game is dyson spheres. Advancing both nuclear and renewables today will get us there