this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
367 points (94.6% liked)

World News

39184 readers
1733 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

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

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 1 points 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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] bouh -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] schroedingershat 1 points 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.

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

That's look like not renewable, but like "smaller resources cost".