It's not about energy density but availability. If a nation cannot buy uranium (scarce resources, embargo...) it loses at least temporarily its nuclear infrastructure (and gasps for energy).
This is not a real concern for renewables.
> Nuclear is capturing strong and weak forces
Other (way more practical and determinant) parameters are less enticing. For example: it 'burns' uranium and produces dangerous waste.
>>If a nation cannot buy uranium (scarce resources, embargo...)
not an issue at all, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, bunch of other nations mine and sell uranium. Whenever there are big mountain ranges, there is uranium. and it is cheap as a commodity
Current uranium reserves are sufficient, under current obtention conditions, for slightly over 130 years of supply.
Nuclear now produces, worldwide, less than 10% of electricity (which is less than 2.2% of total final energy).
Double the reactor fleet and each new one will only produce under current conditions for 60 years (in other words it will probably be quite difficult to finance).
Canada and Australia pertain to the Anglosphere, therefore if nuclear enjoys a 'Renaissance' in the US they will provide uranium to their friends first, and will not provide it to any nation not aligned with the Anglosphere. For quite a bunch of nation Canada and Australia aren't dependable providers.
Kazakhstan can be subdued by Russia (yeah, I know, their current stance is apparently defiant, however recent history is quite clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan%E2%80%93Russia_rela... ) or even China. Uzbekistan, also extracting uranium, stands in similar shoes. Who wants to have to beg Russia for uranium?
this is not an issue at all, Ukraine is at war with Russia, yet Russia continues to pump natural gas through Ukraine to Europe and even pays $$$ to Ukraine for transit (!!!!)
When it comes to commodity trading - $$$ trumps everything.
uranium reserves are plentiful, given that you dont need a lot of Uranium to recharge the plant
the most importantly: for Uranium producer there is zero reason to withhold uranium. Like what are you gonna do by stockpiling radioactive rock ??? You just gonna lose your customer to another country. Isn't it better to get rid of radioactive rock and get $$$ instead?
even OPEC cannot agree to maintain oil production to keep price stable, there is absolutely ZERO chance someone can cause trouble on uranium market
Uranium has been strategic mineral for nuclear weapons and yet still is traded free on the global market.
Every country that has nuclear weapons does have nuclear reactors, and supply is basically not an issue. The technology is the main moat (uranium enrichment & reactor tech & turbine tech & missile tech)
No, it never was as all pertinent nations could easily obtain enough uranium to 'cook' it for weapons. Even the most eager to build huge amounts of weapons (USSR and USA) never had any problem related to the amount of uranium needed.
Short version: the amount of uranium needed to build an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons is way, way lower than the amount needed to produce a fair part of gridpower for years.
> Every country that has nuclear weapons does have nuclear reactors
Yes, because a reactor is needed to 'cook' uranium (in order to obtain high-grade Pu-239) for weapons. This very need was what led nations to build reactors, electricity-generating nuclear plants were at best an aftermath and in some cases an excuse (hiding the real objective).
> This very need was what led nations to build reactors, electricity-generating nuclear plants were at best an aftermath
In absolute history, though, this is arse backwards.
The UK and the US both had piles and generation plans before they even thought building nuclear weapons was at all possible.
The US, in particular, had a nuclear science body that were pretty damn sure weapons weren't feasible and had a major focus on atomic power to generate energy.
They ignored the letter by Einstein that highlighted the dangers of a German nuclear program suspected of chasing weapons and only paid heed after several approaches by Tube Alloys (the UK nuclear weapons group) when the Australian nuclear scientist Mark Oliphant visited the US and laid out in detail a method by which a bomb could be feasibly constructed.
In fact the first man-made nuclear reactor was the 'Chicago Pile-1' ( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 ), which was built by the Project Manhattan, exclusively aiming at building a nuclearbomb.
In WP's article please don't miss this: "Emilio Segrè later recalled that:
I thought for a while that this term was used to refer to a source of nuclear energy in analogy with Volta's use of the Italian term pila to denote his own great invention of a source of electrical energy. I was disillusioned by Fermi himself, who told me that he simply used the common English word pile as synonymous with heap. To my surprise, Fermi never seemed to have thought of the relationship between his pile and Volta's."
The world's first reactor used to generate electricity (another one generated some during an experiment in 1948), albeit it wasn't its main purpose, was the 4th reactor, and it started nearly 10 years after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I
uranium can be stockpiled. Or like in japan/france - reprocessed & reenriched. It'll be more expensive but will cover most of temporary problems of uranium supply.
For renewables - if you don't have local factories at scale and a steady supply of materials, incl for energy storage - the problem will be the same
Imo I find such statements like 100-150 years of supply similar to the statements about petroleum supply that was about to end and suddenly with demand, new supply was found, just like with other materials like lithium
you need to gradually replace renewables, especially for a grid that was gradually deployed.
You still can stockpile nuclear, France does have several years worth of fuel for such emergencies.
France reprocesses only part of the fuel, is expanding Orano facility, but why is this relevant? They do it and they get additional un-enriched uranium stockpile. WTH dude? Are you just throwing random antinuclear statements around? Only in german forums i've seen such strong antinuclear opinions
Indeed, 'le stock stratégique', about 9 years at best (counting the average amount of uranium already present in reactors). 9 years at best for an overall of your gridpower production system... good luck with this!
I mean... france really doesn't have a problem with n fuel... It's not just classic stockpiles but the reprocessed ones. Needless to say that imports are pretty diversified - even if one country will ban exports to France, they'll not face total ban from all partners, so in this regard they are indeed lucky.
This is not a real concern for renewables.
> Nuclear is capturing strong and weak forces
Other (way more practical and determinant) parameters are less enticing. For example: it 'burns' uranium and produces dangerous waste.