4 ms·
But it's not squandered, just the opposite. Using nuclear (or any other fossil fuel) when you can use a renewable source seems to me like eating the emergency r
by icebraining 8y ago
But it's not squandered, just the opposite. Using nuclear (or any other fossil fuel) when you can use a renewable source seems to me like eating the emergency rations on a regular weekend dinner. It only sounds sensible if one doesn't expect us to be around much longer.
- PhasmaFelis 8y agoRenewables are better than nuclear, but nuclear is much better than combustion power. We desperately need to drop coal, and it's gonna take a long, long time to reach 100% renewable.
- philwelch 8y agoUranium isn't a fossil fuel, and you're going to run out of land to build solar and wind power collectors on long before you run out of uranium.
- icebraining 8y agoFair enough, I meant "non-renewable". I don't think that comparison makes much sense; available land limits the power, not the energy.
- philwelch 8y agoHow do you store the energy for later? Lithium batteries? What makes lithium more renewable than uranium? Even so, on the long run, power and not energy is what matters. By definition, you need a net power surplus to build up energy stores, because you need to generate energy faster than you are consuming it, and power is merely energy over time.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoLithium can be extracted from the ocean cost effectively if we had to. It’s effectively limitless.
- MertsA 8y agoThe same is true of Uranium, we will never run out. https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514 https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=4514
- icebraining 8y ago> What makes lithium more renewable than uranium? Lithium doesn't get depleted. > Even so, on the long run, power and not energy is what matters. By definition, you need a net power surplus to build up energy stores, because you need to generate energy faster than you are consuming it, and power is merely energy over time. How does this contradict my argument?
- philwelch 8y ago> How does this contradict my argument? You said that available land limits the power, but not the energy, available via renewables. If power is what you actually need rather than energy, that point is irrelevant, isn't it?
- mlazos 8y agoexcept nuclear doesn’t produce pollution on a scale close to fossil fuels. 90 reactors are producing %20 of our electricity right now without emitting air pollution (although I’m not sure about the energy used to mine/transport uranium)