Import Zero by Mike Conley of Earth Is A Nuclear Planet by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney @ TEAC12

earthisanuclea... Earth Is A Nuclear Planet excerpt presented by Mike Conley.
My name is Mike Conley and I'm the co-author of a new book called “Earth Is a Nuclear Planet” my esteemed co-author is Tim Maloney, and our senior science advisor is Dr. Steven Boyd.
I'm going to talk about a section in the book that I think is really important, and the title of this is called Import Zero.
While I'm a big fan of all things thorium, I'm here to talk about uranium. Because even though the thorium that we have could power this country and the world for the next several centuries, the first phase of any large and sustained nuclear buildout will almost certainly be fueled by fresh uranium burned in Gen 3 and Gen 3+ reactors, and in most upcoming Gen 4 designs as well. This raises three key questions: Will there be enough freshly mined uranium to fuel the initial phase of a nuclear buildout? What kind of mining waste would this create? And, How will that affect the perception of nuclear power as an echo-friendly, small footprint, carbon-free solution?
ThoriumRemix.com/ Thorium & MSR & Nuclear assets used in Thorium Remix project.

[@yooper8778]

Mike is a good man!

[@davidwilkie9551]

Exactly what we would expect from continuing to develop appropriate nuclear power solutions.

[@ericwillis7127]

An American solar-oriented energy system would have a lot of utility-scale solar near urban load centers, especially east of the Mississippi River, and although agrivoltaics can reduce competition for land somewhat, a large-scale solar PV buildout will consume a lot of land, right when we want to be doing reforestation and rewilding to claw back some biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, nourish stocks of soil organic carbon, and so on. There's a solar-food-rewilding trilemma and you could even throw cool roofs (solar radiation management) into the mix too. This, on top of the land use change and other environmental impacts related with the large raw materials throughput. In the medium term, the EROI of earth-abundant PV technologies might end up being ~35 (rather than teetering on the edge of the Net Energy Cliff at 10-15) whereas nuclear could reasonably hit 2,000-10,000, with a microscopic raw materials throughput.

[@koenth2359]

2:27 Did I hear right? Slipped through youtube algorithm

[@davidwilkie9551]

Tony Seba makes the point that when the effectiveness of an innovation is at least 10X current level technology, a replacement shift is inevitable, so because Nuclear Power is 1million times more potential energy available, it's the functional application of technical innovation that has to be laid out for "democratic evaluation", beyond reasonable doubt, which means replacement of the smothering dead hand of very unreasonable doubt and deliberate ignorance.

[@sambuchanan8179]

Lockheed Martin already working on fussen to power the jet fighters

[@sleepisoptional]

dont believe it for one second

[@glike2]

The Climate Emergency can not wait for nuclear power slow build out, and the market will not support higher price nuclear over super cheap solar and batteries

[@arofhoof]

"The Climate Emergency can not wait for nuclear power slow build out" It will there is no alternative

[@anhourofhonourforanhonesth2940]

Solar and batteries are all but "cheap". They are just making energy prices to skyrocket anywhere they are being built. And they have NEVER been intended to solve the climate problem from fossil fuels, which also well explains why any bit of taxpayers money squandered to this hogwash utilities has only resulted in more dependency upon gas plants for backup (which is why Green mor*ns in Europe widely backed Gazprom's gas and thus fueled the Russian scorching of Ukraine from February 2022, as well as generously enriching the Chinese by the means of these ludicrous investments in solar and wind luxury utilities, and also the Chinese enslavement of Muslim Uyghurs to make the PV panels being made). Those were just meant to suit a romantic anti-industrial ideology that took hold on the environmental movement from the late 1960s, which tried to destroy nuclear power, backed by funding from fossil fuels lobby, in order to curtail energy production and eliminate energy abundance nuclear would have provided to suit such idiotic ideology. And those acted fully as useful idiots of fossil fuels lobby who was always more than eager to give backing to those clueless "environmentalists" which were actively working to stamp out the only meaningful alternative to fossil fuels, and we are all harshly paying for this horrible delay in tackling the energetic and climate crisis in which we fell into because of having paid attention so far to these lobbies.