7 ms·
You can stand to it as you wish but by which means is nuclear power a renewable? (See France with 91%+ renewable with mostly nuclear power) Edit: Or non-fossil
by patall 10y ago
You can stand to it as you wish but by which means is nuclear power a renewable? (See France with 91%+ renewable with mostly nuclear power)
Edit: Or non-fossil, if that is a difference
- adrianN 10y agoIt's non-fossil because it isn't made from dead organic matter.
- tomp 10y agoThe same way that solar/wind power is renewable (i.e. not really).
- maxerickson 10y agoWhat do you mean?
- adrianN 10y agothere is no renewable power. entropy in the universe must increase.
- m_mueller 10y agovery nicely put, I'll steal that if you don't mind.
- maxerickson 10y agoGood thing for this conversation that it can decrease locally. (literally, otherwise life would not exist) I don't think this is the argument tomp is making though.
- patall 10y agoThat is true, but wind and solar do not change because we do use them, they will occur anew. Nuclear material does not reappear (within our system on earth). So the entropy increases for wind and solar anyways, while much slower for uranium under normal circumstances.
- tomp 10y ago"Solar" is just nuclear on the sun.
- TuringTest 10y ago> "Solar" is just nuclear on the sun. Which comes with the desirable property of solving the problem of radioactive waste storage, as waste is stored in a very convenient place far away from any human dwelling.
- pm90 10y agoWell, the "nuclear" process in the sun is fusion, which does not (AFAIK) generate any wastes dangerous to life/environment.
- maxerickson 10y agoThe containment system will become radioactive. Not as bad as the spent fuel from fission but not zero waste either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
- drakonandor 10y agoDon't wind turbines have minor effects on climate because of the wind they slow down?
- amelius 10y agoOnly if the universe is a closed system.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoHopefully it requires less energy to leave this universe for another than is available within the current universe.
- m_mueller 10y agoAfter your edit, does your question really make sense to you still? Of course nuclear is non fossil? And yes, whether we go full renewable or a mix of nuclear and renewable is IMO a second order question, the main focus should be carbon neutral to negative economy ASAP.
- patall 10y agoWell, only if you are pedantic with fossil meaning long dead organic (which is true, of course). But for energy it makes more sense to distinguish between sources that can be used or they are gone (sun shines on the planet and at some point the heat dissipates back into the universe) and those that are gone at some point because we have used them. So, yeah, point taken, but then I do not think it makes much sense to distinguish between fossil and non-fossil for the point you want make here, which is dependence on a time-limited resource.
- m_mueller 10y agoI disagree on your last point. By far our biggest problem right now is to keep the climate stable enough. Earth's carbon absorption rate is the most critical resource we have, not the amount of non renewable energy resources that are left. The first problem we have to solve within 1-20 years max., the second is more like 100-500 years (Uranium/Thorium/Plutonium/Fossil Fuel that's available).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]