this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2026
49 points (85.5% liked)

Technology

88163 readers
2650 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
49
Startup Claims Ocean Uranium Could Power Earth for 50,000 Years (www.gadgetreview.com)
submitted 2 days ago by FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Four billion metric tons of uranium sit dissolved in the world’s oceans right now, roughly 1,000 times the total identified in hard-rock mines worldwide. A US startup called Fluxnium just emerged from stealth with a plan to get at it, backed by $7 million in seed funding and chemistry licensed from the US Department of Energy.

The catch: extracting that uranium currently costs more than twice the market rate, and no one has proven it works at commercial scale.

The timing matters. Yellowcake prices have risen approximately 75% over the past five years, according to US Energy Information Administration data. US policy discussions target tripling nuclear capacity by 2050, yet the country imports the overwhelming majority of its uranium from a short list of geopolitically exposed nations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Sorry, I think casual air travel is one of those things that's only possible with cheap energy provided by oil.

SAF is only economically approachable because nobody wants it because oil is cheaper. If we were in a situation without oil, SAF, biodiesel, etc., would immediately get smacked with a demmand curve making it unaffordable.

It's like how you can run your car on fry grease scavenged from fast food dumpsters, but everyone can't.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Sorry, I think casual air travel is one of those things that’s only possible with cheap energy provided by oil.

We're saying the same thing on this point with both our posts. You're saying "use rail instead of flying because batteries can't fly a plane". I'm saying "if we remove petroleum, the cost of jet travel will be substantially higher and consumers will seek a cheaper alternative (which may end up being rail). "

SAF is only economically approachable because nobody wants it because oil is cheaper. If we were in a situation without oil, SAF, biodiesel, etc., would immediately get smacked with a demmand curve making it unaffordable.

Sure, but you're going whole hog to the "conserve" approach, which I agree is a component, but may not be the full or best answer. My suggestion would drastically increase solar power far far beyond our current electricity needs to create liquid SAF fuels directly from electricity and basic CO2/water inputs (aka Power-to-liquids). Theres a plant in Washington state doing exactly this.

It’s like how you can run your car on fry grease scavenged from fast food dumpsters, but everyone can’t.

I see that as too short sighted. Take the longer view. Fry grease is a very easily available and low transformation source of energy. There are other sources of energy that are a level more harder to get, and a level of more transformation needed to be usable in our chosen application.

With scarcity (artificial or natural) and scale we would see switches to these other forms of non-petroleum energy. I'm not saying its an overnight thing, but I don't think you are either with your proposals.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

I did a little digging and it looks like E-Fuels are outrageously expensive to produce, that is to say, the electricity would be better put into a battery; but for all the cases where that's infeasible it could be last ditch option.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the electricity would be better put into a battery;

With any technology humaity has for the forseeable future, no amount of battery storage will enable commodity transatlantic air travel.

I'm also talking about installing enough solar to eclipse beyond what all of our batteries can hold.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I wrote:

but for all the cases where that's infeasible [batteries] it [e-fuel] could be last ditch option.

You wrote:

With any technology humaity has for the forseeable future, no amount of battery storage will enable commodity transatlantic air travel.

OK. Glad we agree.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

With cheap, clean, safe magic (fusion?) power, you can turn CO2 from the atmosphere back into jet fuel.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Cool. Let's genetically engineer leprechauns to build it..