4 ms·

By the time we exhaust all nuclear reserves on Earth (after saving the planet via using environmentally friendly nuclear energy, the greenest energy known), we

By the time we exhaust all nuclear reserves on Earth (after saving the planet via using environmentally friendly nuclear energy, the greenest energy known), we will have unlocked space via nuclear rockets (fission or fusion, makes little difference. People will be more okay launching from Earth’s surface via fusion rockets). Space has boundless access to nuclear energy. As soon as we could do fission as a civilization, our energy needs ceased being a concern intellectually speaking. So in a manner of speaking, yes — uranium gives us unlimited energy.

rnk 4y ago
Okay, thanks for explaining. I get the idea, but I'm skeptical of the practical use of fission, because we haven't shown that in the last 40 or so years we can create reasonable new power fission generation systems. They always seem fragile, need huge unexpected maintenance and cost way more than projected. Of course they work, it's not like the uranium fission process doesn't work as expected. So there's this practical problem we have not solved yet. Of course vastly more clear than fusion's enormous potential. What about all the new renewable things that are working and coming online more every day?
- survirtual 4y ago
  The unsolved question with nuclear, in my opinion, is how to make constant money with it for the already rich and powerful using unskilled, unintelligent workers. With oil, you use a certain level of thought and programming in a human to generate massive profits on a recurring basis. With nuclear, the power shifts. You need more thoughtful people, which means more distribution of the wealth. Providing unlimited, clean energy is bad for economic interests of the powerful, because of many reasons including it has less side effects and higher education requirements. A more educated populace demands more equitable treatment, which results in significantly diminished recurring profits. I can explain the idea further, but the summary is that the physics of it make sense. The economics for benefitting general society is orders of magnitudes superior. The economics for the rich do not make sense in the least. The question is how long will we all accept excuses so that a cluster of greedy, small-minded human beings at the top can continue to be comfortable? It is a delicate dance. Jeopardize the safety and security of these weak egomaniacs, and they may plunge our entire planet into an abyss. Infinite energy directly threatens infinite profits. Scared energy. Our systems rely on scarcity. When scarcity ceases, it shifts to forcefully demanding scarcity. The mechanics of this are all explainable.
- survirtual 4y ago
  In response to your question more directly: renewables are not renewable. Solar panels need to be replaced every ~25 years or so. This makes them a kind of fuel like any other. They just generate electricity slower and with lower energy particles so the frequency of maintenances shifts. This extra time affords it less risk, but with increase “rent” in the space it occupies over time. There is no such thing as free energy. It is a generation vs risk equation. I find renewables to be mathematically inadequate for existing and growing energy needs by every metric imaginable, save we are in space constructing a dyson sphere and harnessing all the energy of the sun. Perhaps then, optimized solar panels will be very useful. But given our time constraints as a species, renewables are a cliff. More importantly, they enable existing power structures to satiate public demand on taking action while simultaneously not realistically threatening the boundless streams of revenue from oil based energy. This provides a social comfort for them at the cost of our entire planet, and species, future. Greed does not care about the future. It is reactive. When the cliff comes, greed will not see it.

rnk 4y ago

Okay, thanks for explaining. I get the idea, but I'm skeptical of the practical use of fission, because we haven't shown that in the last 40 or so years we can create reasonable new power fission generation systems. They always seem fragile, need huge unexpected maintenance and cost way more than projected. Of course they work, it's not like the uranium fission process doesn't work as expected. So there's this practical problem we have not solved yet. Of course vastly more clear than fusion's enormous potential. What about all the new renewable things that are working and coming online more every day?

survirtual 4y ago
The unsolved question with nuclear, in my opinion, is how to make constant money with it for the already rich and powerful using unskilled, unintelligent workers. With oil, you use a certain level of thought and programming in a human to generate massive profits on a recurring basis. With nuclear, the power shifts. You need more thoughtful people, which means more distribution of the wealth. Providing unlimited, clean energy is bad for economic interests of the powerful, because of many reasons including it has less side effects and higher education requirements. A more educated populace demands more equitable treatment, which results in significantly diminished recurring profits. I can explain the idea further, but the summary is that the physics of it make sense. The economics for benefitting general society is orders of magnitudes superior. The economics for the rich do not make sense in the least. The question is how long will we all accept excuses so that a cluster of greedy, small-minded human beings at the top can continue to be comfortable? It is a delicate dance. Jeopardize the safety and security of these weak egomaniacs, and they may plunge our entire planet into an abyss. Infinite energy directly threatens infinite profits. Scared energy. Our systems rely on scarcity. When scarcity ceases, it shifts to forcefully demanding scarcity. The mechanics of this are all explainable.
survirtual 4y ago
In response to your question more directly: renewables are not renewable. Solar panels need to be replaced every ~25 years or so. This makes them a kind of fuel like any other. They just generate electricity slower and with lower energy particles so the frequency of maintenances shifts. This extra time affords it less risk, but with increase “rent” in the space it occupies over time. There is no such thing as free energy. It is a generation vs risk equation. I find renewables to be mathematically inadequate for existing and growing energy needs by every metric imaginable, save we are in space constructing a dyson sphere and harnessing all the energy of the sun. Perhaps then, optimized solar panels will be very useful. But given our time constraints as a species, renewables are a cliff. More importantly, they enable existing power structures to satiate public demand on taking action while simultaneously not realistically threatening the boundless streams of revenue from oil based energy. This provides a social comfort for them at the cost of our entire planet, and species, future. Greed does not care about the future. It is reactive. When the cliff comes, greed will not see it.