• Dalvoron@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    That’s such a disingenuous presentation of the facts. Of course there is no such thing as truly renewable energy, but there is a difference in kind between a supply of energy that is practically inexhaustible on the timescale of human civilisation (what people mean when they say renewable) and energy produced from a limited fuel supply on earth (non renewable).

    Solar (and its byproduct energies wind, hydro, biomass), tidal, geothermal are not in the same category as fission of rare heavy metals.

    I say all this as someone pro-nuclear who agrees that we should use it while it is still fissionable.

    • RamRabbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      We are talking about dozens of millennia of uranium supply on Earth. Other fuel types and nuclear technologies look to extend that into billions of years. For all functional purposes, it’s infinite. Just as solar energy is functionally infinite.

      a supply of energy that is practically inexhaustible on the timescale of human civilisation (what people mean when they say renewable)

      As I said: Nuclear is Renewable, in the exact same way everyone uses the term.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        That timespan is only calculating current usage. If we scale up to using it to completely replace fossil fuel usage, we would cut that time several orders of magnitude.