Why isn't nuclear power considered renewable?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Fusion is renewable.Fusion uses hydrogen as the its energy source and hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe. nuclear fusion is renewable in the same sense as solar and wind, those will only last as long as the Sun keeps shining.Even if the Sun stopped, shining Hydrogen will still be available.

There is information about the solar system and about Earth that we can only get from sources outside of the Earth because there's not been any significant activity for billions of years. Industrial activity on the moon wouldn't completely invalidate its archives but once again, I ask the question: Why? We can easily cope with the resources we have on Earth if we behave responsibly. To have to resort to the moon is to accept that we are incapable of managing our own resources properly and if that's the case, isn't it incredibly irresponsible to start trashing other bodies once we've sucked our own planet of usefulness? I've used the virus analogy before and I think it works well. I'd like to think that humans are better than viruses, that simply exploit a host until it's no longer useful before discarding it and moving over to a new host. We can live sustainably, it just requires care and putting value in the importance of sustainability and nature, as well as accepting that we are simply intelligent animals rather than god-like dominators of nature.

Your geopolitical argument doesn't make sense. As long as you've got particular groups dominating resources that everyone needs, you're sowing the seeds for conflict. The only way of solving this is by using energy sources that everyone can access.

Cheers not sure where to post tho?

I think humans aren't as good as we'd like them to be. Couldn't you use that virus analogy to the human consumption of animals, in which case I have reservations (although the justification, if you want me to tell you what it is, can be misused a lot for many evil things)? I however accept your analogy to argue against moon exploitation.

You are putting my maxim 'if it's not practical, then don't do it' to the test! One could argue that getting these groups to drop their claims to the world's resources is impractical, yet another may say that my maxim can be manipulated as a cover for cowardice and indecisiveness and to justify the status quo and arguably, conservatism.

I would however love a solution where we can encourage groups with incentives to refrain from drilling oil, mining coal, or pumping gas, and instead try to take advantage and profit from the rapidly advancing technology and in the meantime invest in renewable energy! It's my view that it is in the best interest of the people of Kurdistan to make revenue from something which outlasts oil!

But for now, we must accept the fact that current reality will last for quite a while. To stop the situation of particular groups dominating resources, we must (currently) either persuade them (unlikely) or dismantle them (euphemism for bombing ISIS! ). There are some humans who are greedy, unfortunately, and the current dilemma I pose is a recognition of the present reality. However, it is my view that the more and sooner we seriously invest in renewable energy, as the price of renewable energy becomes lower than oil (peak oil will be reached in 38.5 or so years apparently, so fewer people will buy it as the price increases), these individuals will pay the price for their greed and will lose their money.

Would your arguments against moon-destroying apply to asteroid mining as well, considering that there are so many asteroids out there?

Shall we carry this discussion/argument/debate elsewhere?

P.S Am I writing clearly? My former geography teacher said that my QWC needed to be improved.

I think the point is that by using nuclear fusion we will cause Hydrogen to be used up faster, whereas wind and solar wouldn't cause the sun or wind to be used up faster. I.e. if you ran a trillion fusion reactors at full power the earth would run out of hydrogen eventually, but if you covered every square meter of the planet in wind turbines made out of solar panels, we wouldn't make the sun die any quicker. So even though we do have enough hydrogen last us for thousands of years, the amount is still finite, so it isn't renewable.

You seem to be treating sustainability like it's something that's kinda nice if you can afford to do it but not totally necessary. Sustainable, by definition, means an activity that you can pursue indefinitely. If something isn't sustainable, it's going to end at some point whether you like it or not. If humans keep disregarding the environment, we are ultimately going to be the ones to lose out the most because the greatest economy in the world is utterly worthless if you haven't got a planet that can actually sustain civilization on it. We are literally talking about the livelihoods of billions upon billions of people who have yet to be born here, this is not a trivial matter.

We shouldn't be giving Oil and Gas companies incentives to stop drilling. That's as absurd as me demanding an incentive from you to stop throwing my trash in your garden. When a company pollutes, that pollution has to go somewhere. Pollution doesn't respect human-designated borders, it goes all over the world. Climate change and air pollution affects everyone on the planet, whether they're responsible for it or not. The default should not be "I have a right to pollute and I should be compensated if I'm asked to stop", the default should be "I have no right to pollute and should be severely punished if I do". I don't see why you're so happy for companies to be given the right to pollute the environment you live in.

The current reality cannot be allowed to last for "quite a while". We literally have ten years for carbon emissions to peak and start rapidly decreasing before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable. We don't have time to play with. The stakes in this game are absolutely enormous, we're talking about the next millennia. People keep talking about how unfair it is to pollute our children's earth. That is a massive understatement - it's not just going to affect them, it's going to affect hundreds of generations into the future. All for a little bit of short term convenience and the profit of a small number of economic elites. It's absolutely absurd and it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

I'm also absolutely against mining asteroids but less so than mining the moon. And by the way, we're already passed peak oil by all reasonable estimates.

And you're writing just fine.

Hugh,You won't need need 1 trillion nuclear fusion plants.Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe, the Sun will stop shining before Hydrogen runs out.

I think you are missing the point somewhat.

The hydrogen needed for use as fuel in the most promising (1st generation) nuclear fusion power generation technologies, are the isotopes ²H (deuterium) and ³H (tritium).

Deuterium is extracted from sea water at around 150ppm. No problems with sourcing deuterium then.

Tritium, on the other hand, is extremely rare as a naturally occurring element. It is radioactive with a half-life of 12.32 years and sufficient quantities can only be produced in a nuclear process by bombarding Lithium-6 with neutrons currently in conventional fission 'breeder' reactors.

Lithium-6 is a finite irreplaceable resource.

Proposed 2nd generation fusion power requires Helium-3 as a fuel and is also an extremely rare element. It can also be produced from the beta-decay of tritium and therefore suffers form an even worse requirement for Lithium-6.

Helium-3 also occurs in extra-terrestrial locations with moon regolith touted as a potential source. But since an estimated 150 million tonnes of regolith is needed to produce 1 tonne of Helium-3, gigantic open cast lunar mining operations are controversial to say the least.

The commercial advantage of fusion power is far from maturity as is the technology for industrial scale fusion-power generation.

Posted from TSR Mobile
No, I'm saying when Nuclear fusion reaches its full potential with all the problems solved that it can be considered a renewable resource.The finite of the resources for fusion isn't that finite compared with how long the Sun is shining.Nuclear fusion will also potentially give us more energy compared with solar and wind.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Fusion is renewable. nuclear fuaion won't destroy anything your confusing yourself.Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe.

Abundant but not infinite? Fusion converts matter into energy so there is less hydrogen at the end of it?

Posted from TSR Mobile

All forms of nuclear power converts matter into energy, but fusion fuses hydrogen to form helium as a waste product and lots of energy.Mass is a form of energy anyway not sure what your point on that is.

My point is that there is a finite amount of hydrogen in the universe. We will get a LOT of energy by fusing that hydrogen but it won't be infinite energy.

And if we assume we then have the technology to start fusing helium and then even heavier elements, they will theoretically run out sooner or later.

There's also a finite amount of negentropy, do you have a point? For all intents and purposes, a universe of Hydrogen may be considered infinite hydrogen to the extent that physical infinities make any sense in the first place.

Whether there's infinite deuterium or tritium in the same sense... I don't know. Anyone know how much deuterium we have?

I'm probably wrong about everything seeing as I have very limited knowledge about this. But can you explain the thing about finite negentropy to me? I get that it is the concept of disorder becoming order.

I'm probably wrong about everything seeing as I have very limited knowledge about this. But can you explain the thing about finite negentropy to me? I get that it is the concept of disorder becoming order.

Good debate B-).