3 ms·
"Nuclear is not considered to be a renewable energy source." Nuclear isn't renewable in the same way directly building your own artificial sun isn't renewable.
by survirtual 2y ago
"Nuclear is not considered to be a renewable energy source."
Nuclear isn't renewable in the same way directly building your own artificial sun isn't renewable. It is orders of magnitude the better way to produce energy for a large, growing, and thriving society with multi-planetary aspirations.
The "renewables" aren't actually. They rely on a sun that has a bit over 4 billion years left, and they put a hard cap on our planetary energy consumption possible without negatively impacting the environment (image a planet covered in solar panels for an extreme).
Nuclear energy is in a different tech tier not far off from the sun itself. The order of magnitude of unleashing energy directly from atoms is the end game of energy production for humans. It allows for space travel to every planet in this solar system and beyond. It allows for thriving colonies on other planets and trade between them. It will allow for an explosive growth in innovation, trade, and economic activity. And, it will open up access to resources orders of magnitude larger than what is possible on Earth, with the asteroid belt alone -- all without harming the Earth's precious ecosystems.
Most importantly, it gives the next generations hope. Hope of a better future, of extreme progress, of something to feel pride in our species for. This is what creates life in human civilization.
We, as a species, can eventually offload ALL manufacturing from Earth to other, ecologically dead planets. Mars is a great candidate for this. And at 1/3 the gravity, activities like drilling into the ground and building large, shielded warehouses will take significantly less energy than Earth.
Energy should be the foundation of currency, not whatever our current currencies foundation is. Energy capacity and usage is the truer measure of a civilization's productivity. The sooner we all realize this, the smoother our planetary transition to the next phase will be.
If curious, there are more "foundational measures" -- computational capacity (cumulative of neurons and artificial compute), and attention (what the compute is targeting), but that's another thought.
- cinntaile 2y agoI'll stick to the generally accepted definitions, but you do you.
- radford-neal 2y agoNuclear power is "generally accepted" as non-renewable amongst people opposed to nuclear power. Since uranium fuel is not going to run out on any reasonable time scale (and thorium will last even longer), it is "renewable" by any practical standard. It makes no sense to worry about how "renewable" or "sustainable" some technology is if the time when it would start to matter is long after the technology has likely been replaced by something else anyway. That is, it makes no sense unless you're trying to score some political point...
- cinntaile 2y agoConsidering how you formulated your reply, I'm gonna guess you're the one with the political axe to grind. No need to project it on me, I don't have anything against nuclear. "The International Energy Agency defines it as "energy derived from natural processes that are replenished at a faster rate than they are consumed" You want to use another definition, that's fine by me. I'll stick to the generally accepted ones.
- credit_guy 2y agoIn the end it looks like the OP wanted to say "low carbon" and said "renewable", because everyone nowadays says "renewable" when they mean "low carbon". Would you be ok if he said "low carbon" in the first place?
- akmittal 2y agoI actually thought Nuclear was renewable. But it doesn't matter if by defination it is not, it is much better than current Indian energy sources(mainly Coal)
- whythre 2y agoIndeed. All this quibbling about whether it is renewable or not really just comes off as making the perfect the enemy of the good.
- 2y ago
- BigParm 2y ago[flagged]