• AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nuclear fission is actually by definition the least renewable energy source

    But if you go according the strict physical principle every energy source is non-renewable

    The sun fuses a finire amount of hydrogen, earth has a finire amount of latent heat, the moon a finire amount of gravitational inertia etc.

    And there’s a little paradox if you think about it, how can fusion be non-renewable but solar, that use radiation from the sun fusion, be renewable?

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      A bit of a stretch maybe, but I’m considering us to be discussing whether an energy source is renewable on Earth. The Sun is not renewable, but by the time that it’s no longer viable the Earth will be long gone as well! So as long as the Earth exists, I would say that solar PV and other solar driven processes like wind and hydro are renewable.

      By these standards yes, deep geothermal and tidal are “not renewable” either.

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        but by the time that it’s no longer viable the Earth will be long gone as well

        But that’s exactly the “problem”, there’s enough fertile material for potential millions of years of consumption, and that’s for fission alone.

        I think the debacle is more because the definition of “renewable” is a little arbitrary than the dilemma if nuclear is renewable or not

        • evranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think we both agree on fertile material as discussed in another comment, the longevity issue is mostly with conventional LWRs burning up our fuel rapidly.

          I’m just being pedantic about the sun, lol

          • AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            mostly with conventional LWRs burning up our fuel rapidly

            Well, yes, the obvious counter argument being that, you will never build more advanced reactors on scale (some are already available), or develop new fuel cycle if you stunt the evolution process and block the technology we already have.

            Imagine saying to be favourable to installing solar panels but only when they will be 100% recyclable and with efficiency close to the theorical maximum

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This would be relevant if any reactor had ever gotten its energy from primarily from fertile material. None have so it is not.

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We would if ecologist weren’t shutting down any research on this subject.

            • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “It wouldn’t have bankrupted every program that tried if you’d just let us fill every body of water with lethal levels of Pu240, Cs137 and Tc99” isn’t a great counter argument.