• evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s zero emission but not renewable.

      Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source. Even coal and oil are renewable on long enough time scales. But there will never be more uranium than there is right now.

      We actually don’t have that much of it if we consider the long term future, only a thousand years or so. So nuclear is intended to be a bridge to eventual full renewable power generation and storage, an essential component in the present day but it’s still a bridge.

      Another thing to consider is that nuclear is the only power source that works in deep space away from the Sun. So if we’re serious about exploring the solar system or further, we’d be best not to burn up all of our fissionable material right away.

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source

        But if you go according the strict physical principle every energy source is non-renewable

        The sun fuses a finire amount of hydrogen, earth has a finire amount of latent heat, the moon a finire amount of gravitational inertia etc.

        And there’s a little paradox if you think about it, how can fusion be non-renewable but solar, that use radiation from the sun fusion, be renewable?

          • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The production of the uranium fuel, the gigantic building itself, the transport (the fule gets shipped around the world), the storage after its depleted.

            Its definitely better than any Combustion fuels, but not at all better than actual renewables.

            • evranch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              When considering these externalities for nuclear, you have to do the same for renewables as well. i.e. scrap turbine blades, concrete in dams, weathered PV panels, land use taken up by panels and turbines.

              Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

              I’m a firm renewable energy supporter but you have to be fair to both processes.

              • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You neglect the problem that the stuff from a nuclear reactor is literally unusable forever and becomes Special waste while the remains of renewables are recyclable, yes even turbine blades, there is just not enough market for it to attract a business so far, that will change of course with time, also the stuff is not toxic or radioactive…

                Remember that the materials used in most renewable generation are also shipped around the world and many have very dirty refining processes.

                Depends, newer version of the stuff don’t need rare earths, or much less, meaning the dirtiest of it falls out of the equation.

                I am fair, nuclear is just not future proof for large scale usage. It also takes to long to be “effective” 10 years to build one powerplant, and is waaaay to expensive. you could build more actually renewables for less money in the same time and the electricity from it is basically free as there are almost no operational costs.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Renewables need all of that too plus they generate SHITLOADS of waste.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No it’s not. That’s just delusional. All the ideas of a sustainable uranium fuel cycle are based on non-existent technology. Uranium is a finite resource and we have nowhere near enough of it to power the world, even if you ignore all the other problems.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        there is enough U238 to last until we get there. except if you think fusion is more than 500 years away (yes, that number is out of my ass)