Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why isn't nuclear power considered renewable?

Scroll to see replies

Once you build something like a space elevator its built tho. Mining the moon would most likely involve colonisation and make space exploration easier and more environmentally friendly as you wouldn't have to constantly propel things out of the earths gravity.

Okay, a space-elevator isn't really in the realms of reality at the moment though.

Reply 81

green.tea

Therefore you wouldn't destroy the moon because there'd by huge advancements into space before you'd have time. We're more likely to destroy by not moving forward to the moon, mars etc than talking about what happens if we destroy the next potential source of resources. Apparently the moon has loads of titanium. Pretty convenient stepping stone.

Reply 82

green.tea

Original post by Chlorophile

Okay, a space-elevator isn't really in the realms of reality at the moment though.

It's not so far off in terms of the availability suitable materials.

http://www.cnet.com/news/japanese-company-plans-space-elevator-by-2050/

Reply 83

green.tea

http://www.space.com/13247-moon-map-lunar-titanium.html

Reply 84

flibber

Original post by green.tea

http://www.space.com/13247-moon-map-lunar-titanium.html

I'm warning you, this is the final straw.

Reply 85

green.tea

Original post by flibber

I'm warning you, this is the final straw.

Reply 86

flibber

Original post by green.tea

I've already expressed my wish for general discussion regarding using the moon (unless it's to do with nuclear fusion) to be held elsewhere.

Reply 87

Chlorophile

Original post by green.tea

It's not so far off in terms of the availability suitable materials.

http://www.cnet.com/news/japanese-company-plans-space-elevator-by-2050/

Have you heard of the concept of vapourware? Lots of corporations are very fond of making sci-fi claims like these, very rarely do they actually deliver. Google is running a competition in the precise matter of space elevators and they don't think anyone has yet come up with a reasonable proposal.

Reply 88

green.tea

Original post by flibber

I've already expressed my wish for general discussion regarding using the moon (unless it's to do with nuclear fusion) to be held elsewhere.

Ahh ok. I'd say that the titanium does relate to the economic viability of getting nuclear fuel from there.

Reply 89

flibber

Original post by green.tea

Ahh ok. I'd say that the titanium does relate to the economic viability of getting nuclear fuel from there.

Well, my original question has already been answered long ago. I only needed information for my GCSEs. I've given enough warnings by now. I've honestly lost patience today. Come back tomorrow, when I might be in a better mood.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 90

green.tea

It's certainly more renewable than fossil fuels because earth is the only known source of those. You could argue than no energy source is more renewable than nuclear. The sun is a giant nuclear reactor and all the energy in fossil fuels is originally from there. Solar power is as nuclear as nuclear.

Reply 91

Observatory

Original post by Chlorophile

There's a pretty obvious difference between a source of energy that is completely free and limitless as long as human lifespans are concerned and a source of energy where you constantly have to get more fuel, regardless of how abundant that fuel is.

The difference being that the latter exist and the former don't. The sun doesn't have infinite fuel, it has more fuel than we care to think about. So does nuclear fission, at least with breeder reactors. So do oil, coal, and gas, in the sense that the logical length of longest time to care about isn't the time it takes for us and our grandchildren to die but rather the time until we next have to replace the engine due to mechanical wear (which, btw, solar panels and wind turbines also need to be replaced, in a time much less than our lifespans).

Now as I've said before, I'm not against fusion if the fuel can be obtained in a genuinely environmentally friendly and non-destructive manner, like deuterium extraction from the oceans. I don't think it's as good as renewables, but it's a compromise I could make. What I absolutely am against is this ridiculous idea of mining the moon for He-3 to drive fusion reactors.

It's also ridiculous to claim that I don't agree with development or people being able to enjoy themselves. I'm absolutely fine with that, as long as it's not in an environmentally destructive manner. First of all, it is perfectly possible to recycle most raw materials. Yes, it's expensive in the short term, but it's worth it in the long term because of the benefits to the environment. There is no reason why we should need to mine the moon. The only reason why we would ever need to mine the moon is because of a gross failure to manage our own planet responsibly - that is the only reason. Of course if we continue to mine in the cheapest possible fashion and to continue consumerism without a care in the world then we're going to run out of raw materials because that's not how you treat a natural system.

You want to, at the very least, trade off human quality of life against preserving morally worthless inanimate objects like the moon and asteroids. This is irrational. Or more accurately, what you are saying is that you claim ownership of the moon, and from a position of vast ill-gotten wealth, want to deny that wealth to others.

I don't want this to sound rude, but you really do seem to have a God complex when it comes to humans. Increasingly, there's this delusion in the western world that the role of humans is to dominate and rule over nature. This is such a dangerous idea. There are situations where it genuinely is ideological - the ultimate reason why I don't want the moon to be mined is because I think it deserves to be untouched. I can give you rational arguments but ultimately the true reason why I want to stop the industrialisation of the moon is because I don't think it's our place to do that.

I don't have a god complex about anything. There is no god, be it Jesus, Allah, or The Environment. There are only inanimate objects and conscious beings. What I know is whose side I am on, and whose side is dangerous.

And I'll admit that. But this wider idea of nature being subservient to humans is completely wrong and it's a delusion of grandeur that has somehow emerged from western culture.

Humans are a part of nature. There is no dichotomy. It's no more immoral for us to mine the moon than for asteroids to impact it or for the gravitational laws to form it. We may choose not to for our own purposes, but your argument explicitly doesn't rest on it serving our purposes.

The idea of nature serving humans, explicitly put in Western culture, comes from the Old Testament, with the idea that god made nature for our purposes. We now know that isn't correct, but the logical conclusion is neutrality between nature and humans - neutrality in the sense of evaluating any claims to rights either may have on their merits, not assigning equal worth to preserving whatever is there - whereas you appear to have inverted it, assign to everything-but-humans special rights that trump ours, even when that everything-but-humans is just a cold lump of rock.

Human civilization is ridiculously fragile - for all our technological advances, we're still completely vulnerable to nature. I'm not a technophobe, I think technology is wonderful if it can be used responsibly and for the genuine good of mankind, but consumerism does not fit that description. I passionately believe that a key aim should be to ensure the welfare and happiness for all humans (on the condition that it doesn't compromise the welfare of people yet to be born) but endless irresponsible resource consumption isn't the answer to that.

We live lives that are so detached from nature these days, I think that's why there's so little respect towards it from people. I just cannot understand your perspective and I honestly don't think I ever will be able to. I am not able to understand people who don't see an intrinsic importance in nature, it genuinely makes me upset.

There are members of my family who are just about old enough to remember a life attached to nature in the greatest extent you would likely accept (I'm guessing you don't insist on hunter/gatherer and the attendant 99% depopulation of earth). They universally regard animals as objects or tools, not because they're callous, but because that was the only way to survive. Several of them watched their parents die of diseases and accidents that today could be trivially cured. Most of them expected to live lives of menial toil and die in the same village in which they were born - the reality was a lot more exciting!

It's probably what you mean by god complex, but I've no apologies whatsoever for the technological developments of the past centuries.