4 ms·

Why isn't nuclear considered a renewable source of energy?

• missedthecue 5y ago
  I assume for the same reasons that oil is not.
  • EricE 5y ago
    Yup, nuclear fission and burning oil are EXACTLY the same processes. /s Your response would be hilarious if it wasn't so utterly tragic. Our civilization exists because of cheap, abundant energy - and there is no more cheap or abundant or RENEWABLE energy (ever hear of breeder reactors? Might want to do some reading) then nuclear - if we can ever separate the politics and emotion from this "debate".
    • missedthecue 5y ago
      I mean from the perspective that both oil and extractable uranium are practically finite. The sun and the wind and gravity are not. Therefore, if it consumes a finite resource, I would say it isn't renewable.
      • EricE 5y ago
        Uranium isn't only created by mining out of the ground - once again, you might want to look into breeder reactors. It's not the only substance that can be used in a reactor either - China is racing ahead with Thorium reactors; based on technology that was mature in the US in the 50's but not deployed for purely political reasons.
• jfengel 5y ago
  Because it produces a kind of pollution that has to be stored permanently. The non-renewable resource is safe places to store the waste for thousands of years. More importantly it differs from other renewables in its lead-up time. Nuclear plants can take decades to build. There is hope that small modular reactors can fix that problem, but it's not proven yet. And there is the risk of conflict with renewables which are ready right now: "Don't build solar/wind/etc but instead wait indefinitely for this other technology which may not work." I would welcome successful deployments of SMRs. But I don't expect them soon, and today there remains a lot of opportunities to deploy wind and solar at costs that continue to improve in economies of scale. If SMRs join them as a supplement to reduce greenhouse gases, so much the better, but for the foreseeable future they are not a sole solution.
  • EricE 5y ago
    Current reactors do that - but there are more than a few designs that will burn what we today call waste. And then burn the "waste" from those.
• marcosdumay 5y ago
  It uses fuel that exists in a limited amount. We call "renewable" things that plug into natural flows of energy, and not things that require artificial flows.
  • EricE 5y ago
    Natural - if there ever was a more misused word! Breeder reactors utilize "natural" processes and create more fissionable material than they consume. Sounds pretty renewable to me.
    • marcosdumay 5y ago
      Are you saying that the flow of energy inside a breeder reactor would be there if people didn't intervene?
• UltraViolence 5y ago
  Because our policies are being construed by environmentalists with a Communist or leftist agenda instead of scientists and pragmatic leaders. Renewables are much less cost-effective if you take into account the energy storage needed to make them work. And even then they're ineffective because you essentially need 100% backup capacity for an indefinite period of time for when the wind doesn't blow or the sun is obscured by clouds. Current energy storage systems can only provide enough power for two days at the most. We're being led like Lemmings into the ravine by these environmentalists. It's time we scientists and engineers took charge.
  • ncmncm 5y ago
    Blaming the commies does not make you seem more sane. And, "taking charge" smells fascist. Maybe try to come up with a legitimate economic argument? Just one?
    • UltraViolence 5y ago
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      You have suggested, "every drop of fossil fuel and every pound of coal will be burned" by poorer nations as prices respond to reduced demand. At some level, though, the cost of extracting exceeds that price. As cost for renewables declines, using renewables becomes strictly cheaper than the cost of extraction, and even the poorest people will thus prefer renewables. Anyway, we may expect access to coal and oil under many countries will be forbidden. In addition, as renewable energy gets cheaper, extracting carbon from the atmosphere to fix in solid form gets cheaper than mining it, so excess atmospheric carbon dioxide can be drawn down. (That, besides extracting carbon to volatiles to be burned and re-emitted.) The deep ocean has capacity to safely sequester excess carbon already in the atmosphere. It may be moved there cheaply.
      • UltraViolence 5y ago
• pvaldes 5y ago
  Uranium mines are a finite resource
  • EricE 5y ago
    Uranium doesn't only come from mines. Sheesh.
    • pvaldes 5y ago
      Yes, there is uranium in seawater as a trace element. And there is gold in human blood also as a trace element, but nobody uses corpses yet to make gold. In any case there is still a finite amount of it, is not uniformly distributed in the planet, most of them in Australia and nuclear converts it into other elements (if I'm not wrong you can't take the opposite path yet), so is not a renewable resource by definition.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      Has uranium ever been refined in any quantity from anything but mined ore? Extracting from seawater, were it cheaper, would surely have been done. Nukes are already way more expensive than renewables; adding on more cost will not make them more attractive.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]