this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
307 points (92.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43963 readers
1395 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

With climate change looming, it seems so completely backwards to go back to using it again.

Is it coal miners pushing to keep their jobs? Fear of nuclear power? Is purely politically motivated, or are there genuinely people who believe coal is clean?


Edit, I will admit I was ignorant to the usage of coal nowadays.

Now I'm more depressed than when I posted this

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because the amount of fuel used in a nuclear reactor is exponentially less than fossil fuels.

There's enough nuclear material on this planet to power nuclear reactors for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear power is clean, efficient, and lasts for essentially ever

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's close to 'renewable' but technically it should be called 'low carbon fuel'.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's like saying air isn't renewable..

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are processes on our planet renewing air. I'm not aware of similar processes for fission materials.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's renewable in the same way that solar is. Eventually the sun will die and solar won't work just like we'll eventually run out of fissible material.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

where's the carbon in nuclear?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

The graphite neutron moderator.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

As with all power plants, wind turbines, solar panels, etc. there are carbon costs associated with the manufacturing, construction and transport. Remember that there's a lot of steel involved.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

The carbon expended in producing the fuel is a good example.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's an interesting take. I guess the sun is not renewable either.

Is any practically infinite (in human scales) source of energy called renewable? I am hearing this for the first time.

[–] SeeingWhereThisGoes 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are asking The Last Question It's one of those short stories that you'll read once and think about it occasionally for the next 20 years

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't understand this comment.

How is the sun not renewable?

Renewable energy means using renewable resources. Meaning things that either replenish themselves within a short enough period or things that produce massive amounts of energy over long periods of time.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because the sun is also a depleting source of energy. I question the definition of renewable that's all.

I would have never considered nuclear energy being renewable, but I guess a similar argument could be made.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The sun will exist for hundreds of thousands of years after humanity has gone extinct. The sun will exist for millions of years before it burns out. Humanity will thrive diminish and die before the sun dies.

It is by all intents and purposes an infinite resource for a finite species.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The sun will exist for hundreds of thousands of years after humanity has gone extinct. The sun will exist for millions of years before it burns out.

Your timescales are off. Even if humanity lasts a very long time, which seems unlikely, the sun will last for billions of years after humanity is gone. In one billion years the sun will have become hotter so that life becomes impossible on Earth. There will be four billion years of a lifeless Earth before the sun expands into a red giant and either swallows up or cooks the Earth. One billion years after that the sun will kick off its outer layers into a nebula and become a white dwarf. At that point it's not reacting any more so it just gradually cools down over billions more years until it's just a cool lump.

[–] TopRamenBinLaden 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Technically speaking, it does not renew itself. It is being slowly depleted. You are right in saying that we can treat it as a renewable source as far as us and our technologies are concerned.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Which is similar to the reasoning for calling fissile material renewable.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The sun will eventually explode.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Long after humanity has ceased to exist.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm quite certain we can manage to stop existing before nuclear fuel runs out as well.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Is lemmy just stupid?

Like seriously?

The sun is an infinite resource to humanity. This isn't a debatable fact. Yet I seem to be receiving downvotes despite this.

The sun will outlive humanity a million times.

We can either harness it's energy and other sources like it or run out of energy.

It seems people just don't like the word "renewable"

That just makes those people stupid.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Is lemmy just stupid?

Like seriously?

Lemmy at this point is the same as Reddit for quality of discussion.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The sad part is it seems like this has become a recent problem. As in the past few days.

I deliberately switched from sh.itjust.works to lemmy.world because I was sick of hexbear users starting fights and just being disingenuous with their arguments.

Now it seems that's normal everywhere..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It’s not big enough to explode, it’ll have a heat death