4 ms·

"Finland lobbied EU to declare nuclear power sustainable" Well, isn't it? Am I missing something or is nuclear about as sustainable as it gets? The perfect ba

"Finland lobbied EU to declare nuclear power sustainable" Well, isn't it? Am I missing something or is nuclear about as sustainable as it gets? The perfect baseload to cover us when solar or wind is out. Almost no CO2 produced, much lower deaths/GWh produced, plentiful fuel supplies?

gfft 5y ago
In the EU, if Germany diktates that something is bad then so it stays. While Germany energy is coal based (so its not just that their low quality cars cheat on emissions to pollute the continent) everyone in europe must obey and not use nuclear. Hope the tide turn and we once again liberate this continent of their fascism.
fsckboy 5y ago
you are focusing on pollution in terms of sustainability, but perhaps fission is unsustainable because it relies on "fuels" which can run out? there is only a finite supply of uranium.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  We’ll need to move the planet due to the warming of the sun before we’ll run out of fissible fuel.
- 3np 5y ago
  Right, but that time-horizon is orders of magnitudes compared to fossils, no?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    And accepting something comparable to coal leaves a lot of time to sort things out. We are talking about hundreds of years. Not only tens.
    - trenchgun 5y ago
      At least thousands of years with breeders.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  How finite though? I mean, everything uses materials.
- slaymaker1907 5y ago
  This is only if you define sustainable == infinite which is ridiculous. Sure solar power/wind power might be present long after humanity is gone, but that doesn't mean we can continue maintaining solar/wind power plants indefinitely, these things take resources to produce. On the other hand, if we define sustainable as being can we do this thing for a 1000 years without modification, modern nuclear power starts to look a lot more sustainable.
  - konspence 5y ago
    I see your point, but eventually the solar panels produce the energy to produce more solar panels. Including the mining IIRC there is a formal guidance for what is classified as renewable. Things like oil, while originating from biological matter, obviously being considered 'not', while tree mass, plant mass, being considered so. Believe the guidance was whether the carbon emitted in its production has been or could be absorbed within a lifetime, via the means with which it was produced. I have reservations with nuclear but I imagine it would fit within those guidelines easily.
- smileysteve 5y ago
  This seems a bit reaching; especially considering breeding reactors; and the amount of fuel contained in a small volume; Lithium is not in great supply comparatively; Photovoltaics depend on p/n junctions and silicon. Wind turbines depend on rare earth magnets.
- jjk166 5y ago
  Between waste reprocessing, breeder reactors, and seawater extraction, uranium could power our civilization for billions of years. Uranium would leach into the ocean from the crust faster than we'd need to extract it.
- blitzar 5y ago
  The sun is not infinite, when it runs out of fuel it will be gone too.

gfft 5y ago

In the EU, if Germany diktates that something is bad then so it stays. While Germany energy is coal based (so its not just that their low quality cars cheat on emissions to pollute the continent) everyone in europe must obey and not use nuclear. Hope the tide turn and we once again liberate this continent of their fascism.

fsckboy 5y ago

you are focusing on pollution in terms of sustainability, but perhaps fission is unsustainable because it relies on "fuels" which can run out? there is only a finite supply of uranium.

ashtonkem 5y ago
We’ll need to move the planet due to the warming of the sun before we’ll run out of fissible fuel.
3np 5y ago
Right, but that time-horizon is orders of magnitudes compared to fossils, no?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And accepting something comparable to coal leaves a lot of time to sort things out. We are talking about hundreds of years. Not only tens.
  - trenchgun 5y ago
    At least thousands of years with breeders.
whiddershins 5y ago
How finite though? I mean, everything uses materials.
slaymaker1907 5y ago
This is only if you define sustainable == infinite which is ridiculous. Sure solar power/wind power might be present long after humanity is gone, but that doesn't mean we can continue maintaining solar/wind power plants indefinitely, these things take resources to produce. On the other hand, if we define sustainable as being can we do this thing for a 1000 years without modification, modern nuclear power starts to look a lot more sustainable.
- konspence 5y ago
  I see your point, but eventually the solar panels produce the energy to produce more solar panels. Including the mining IIRC there is a formal guidance for what is classified as renewable. Things like oil, while originating from biological matter, obviously being considered 'not', while tree mass, plant mass, being considered so. Believe the guidance was whether the carbon emitted in its production has been or could be absorbed within a lifetime, via the means with which it was produced. I have reservations with nuclear but I imagine it would fit within those guidelines easily.
smileysteve 5y ago
This seems a bit reaching; especially considering breeding reactors; and the amount of fuel contained in a small volume; Lithium is not in great supply comparatively; Photovoltaics depend on p/n junctions and silicon. Wind turbines depend on rare earth magnets.
jjk166 5y ago
Between waste reprocessing, breeder reactors, and seawater extraction, uranium could power our civilization for billions of years. Uranium would leach into the ocean from the crust faster than we'd need to extract it.
blitzar 5y ago
The sun is not infinite, when it runs out of fuel it will be gone too.