• AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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

    • 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.