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
[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's still worse than abandoning flying by and large.
While on the surface being CO₂ neutral, SAF contributes to climate change, because the airliner emissions are in a part of the atmosphere (several km above ground) where the CO₂ has a bigger effect on climate than the CO₂ would have where it was captured (~ground level).
That is if I remember correctly what I read about it some time ago and given the source was reliable. It made sense to me when I read it...

edit:
I don't intend to let "perfect be the enemy of good".
It's more like we got used to a lot of things and sometimes don't question them radically enough.
A bit of greenwashing here and there just isn't good enough, if we want to save what's left of the climate we knew.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

That’s still worse than abandoning flying by and large.

edit: I don’t intend to let “perfect be the enemy of good”. It’s more like we got used to a lot of things and sometimes don’t question them radically enough.

Do you think humanity, as a whole, is going to abandon flying? I certainly don't. So the best solution is to make changes to limit the behaviors and modify the behaviors to cause less harm. Again, this is just one component of a larger solution, but its a good one to address what air travel still needs to occur.

A bit of greenwashing here and there just isn’t good enough, if we want to save what’s left of the climate we knew.

We're already beyond that. We're not getting that back.