4 ms·
>Renewable? Sure, you can't. This silly if it runs out in a million years you can't call it renewable is just that, silly. As long as it lasts a 100 years it'
by aaron695 10y ago
>Renewable? Sure, you can't.
This silly if it runs out in a million years you can't call it renewable is just that, silly.
As long as it lasts a 100 years it's renewable. If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoI was going to add that the present estimates of available nuclear fuel suggests we're pretty good for the next thousand years[0], but I didn't want to start an argument over the meaning of the term "renewable energy source", which would detract from the general point that nuclear is a viable and eco-friendly replacement for fossil fuels. [0] - https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_161.shtml
- hutzlibu 10y ago"As long as it lasts a 100 years it's renewable." Not really, a good option for now, yes, but not renewable, so nothing sustainable in the long run. Which is why I disagree to put it together with solar and wind, because as long as the sun shines, there will be energy. So yes: " If we don't have solar etc up and running by then we never will" Nuclear as transition and backup, but not propagate it as green and awesome. And with progress on medicine, many people on earth now can hope to live 100 more years. (or even 1000 years)
- TeMPOraL 10y agoBut it is both green and awesome. It's just isn't "renewable". Good for transition period, and should be enough to last until we finally crack fusion.
- hutzlibu 10y agoSo fusion in 20 years? I don't get it, why not just use the big fusion reactor right out there? There are plenty of deserts out there and enough storage technologies avaiable, which does not need a breakthrough. Improvements, yes, but renewable technology is allready good as it is.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoBecause the big fusion reactor is very, very far from us, and our technological civilization uses a lot of power. Renewables tend to suck on the energy-per-square-meter metric, and we need the land for other things (like agriculture). Also, the question should be reversed. Is irrational fear of nuclear energy a good reason to abandon it and instead pave over the Sahara desert?
- hutzlibu 10y agohttps://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sein.de%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fbilder%2Fdesertec-teaser.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sein.de%2Fdesertec-initiative-gestartet-kommt-der-wuestenstrom%2F&docid=Rukg-ub1xOlFDM&tbnid=8Qlmn8bfExJDWM%3A&vet=1&w=230&h=230&bih=616&biw=360&q=desertec&ved=0ahUKEwj8nrSe9rrSAhXDC5oKHcfIC7UQMwhOKCIwIg&iact=mrc&uact=8 https://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sein.d... I dont think it is that much space. Plus last time I checked, not so much space in the desert was used by agriculture. And given what happened allready, I don't see what is irrational fear about it, when there is a safe alternative.
- nl 10y agoRenewables tend to suck on the energy-per-square-meter metric There are many reasonable criticisms of renewables, but this isn't one. For example the largest aggregate solar deployments are rooftop solar in cities. Wind and geothermal are both much smaller than non-renewable sources.
- TeMPOraL 10y agoRooftop solars are good at replacing some of the use of residents - especially the wealthy ones that have houses. That doesn't cover urban areas, where people live in blocks of flats; that doesn't cover skyscrapers, which have important efficiency benefits. And most importantly, that doesn't cover industrial use of energy. Land use for power sources is still an important metric.
- nl 10y ago