4 ms·
You make it sound like I need a new hobby - which I might haha. > Do you consider nuclear energy sustainable? Low-carbon, yes. Sustainable, yes. Renewable, no
by arcticbull 5y ago
You make it sound like I need a new hobby - which I might haha.
> Do you consider nuclear energy sustainable?
Low-carbon, yes. Sustainable, yes. Renewable, not until we productionize extraction of uranium from seawater. [1]
> ... but do you believe nuclear, either fission or fusion, will play a large role in the future?
Fusion if we can crack it, totally. Seems like a clear winner. Fission probably will if there's some political will behind it, but not unless there's a change in sentiment.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/24/is-nuclear-power-a-renewable-or-a-sustainable-energy-source/?sh=21ad8e9f656e https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/24/is-nuclea...
- tomp 5y agoThis article is complete FUD. > of which the following sources are considered to be renewable in other words, it attempts to define the world "renewable" along favoured political ideologies. From Wikipedia: > Advances in breeder reactor technology could allow the current reserves of uranium to provide power for humanity for billions of years, thus making nuclear power a sustainable energy TL;DR: nuclear is just as renewable as solar (beyond any likely duration of the human civilisation).
- arcticbull 5y agoI saw the renewability as more of a thought exercise, because I agree with you, there's more than enough nuclear feedstock to keep us going indefinitely.