{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/3/2016 7:57:54 PM
12
There are 3.3 micrograms per part billion in sea water making the concentration 3.3E^-6 per litre. This, accompanied by the 1.26E^21 litres of sea water globally, makes there to be 4.6 billion US tons, or 4.158E^15 grams, of uranium in water entirely
The extraction rate by ultracentrifuges of U235 (which makes up only 0.72% of a sample of uranium), the fissile material that actually can undergo fission, is a return rate of around 100%. This means that out of the 4.6 billion US tons of uranium in the ocean, only 33 million tons of all of the uranium in all of the ocean is actually viable for usage in a nuclear reactor
English
-
Edited by Britton: 7/3/2016 9:05:03 PMThe uranium in the sea isn't finite. That's a major part of the topic. It's kept in equilibrium ba to naturally, so if we draw uranium out, more will be absorbed from the earth. So, since this would be a reliable way to extract it, for all intensive purposes it becomes a renewable resource.
-
[quote]The uranium in the sea isn't finite.[/quote] Wanna bet?
-
Yes I do. It's finite in the rocks, but as it's removed from the seawater more is absorbed.
-
That's not what I meant. Water and organic materials are our only truly renewable resources.
-
Until the total surface area of the rock making contact with waterways that drain to the ocean runs out of uranium, which contains, on average, 3ppm which is counteracted by the low prevalence of fissile material and the low surface area meeting requirements aforementioned
-
Edited by pl0785: 7/4/2016 12:26:54 AMYou seem knowledgeable. Wouldn't this leeching have some sort of effect on the rock in the ocean? I'm imagining some adverse effect to our reefs
-
Edited by AurumPrimavera22: 7/4/2016 5:01:01 AMMinor issues would occur instantly as the sea water pulled the uranium concentrate from the rock. The .72% concentration of radioactive isotope U235 would increase the background radiation normally present in sea water and adapted to by sea life slightly and may kill some organisms through concentrated radiation levels near the rock surface of the ocean. Of course these isotopes would disperse over time through natural processes, losing radioactivity per part billion at a rate more than cubic (due to water's volume being measured cubicly; m^3). More than cubic due to liquid solubility for any material being lowered as temperature decreases, besides gases ofc TL;DR Some near rock living animals may die of radiation poisoning but not really. The U235 would dilute
-
Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and say that neither of knows enough about this to argue it further. I'll take the scientist's who study this word for it. Besides the I wrote the title to grab attention. Not make a claim.
-
The whole process is impractical, I mean to say. Even if you developed a 100% efficient method of removal, you're left with outputs of fissile material that would barely kill a sperm cell in your balls. The process would be prohibitively expensive at first and I don't see much of a reason to remove U235 from ocean water. The concentration levels of fissile material are just miniscule
-
I'll take the word of the scientist's that are actually doing this over yours.
-
Uhh...yup...I was thinking that too
-
