4 ms·

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 f

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.

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.