Why isn't nuclear power considered renewable?

On top of the fact that it's virtually physically impossible to destroy the moon, if we did, the heat produced would probably kill everything on earth and anything that didn't die would be destroyed as the earth's surface melts when the moon fragments fall to the surface.

On top of the fact that it's virtually physically impossible to destroy the moon, if we did, the heat produced would probably kill everything on earth and anything that didn't die would be destroyed as the earth's surface melts when the moon fragments fall to the surface.

I love it when people go off on tangents; Flibber asks why nuclear power doesn't count as a renewable resource and now people are discussing reasons to destroy the moon.

Talking about this moon thing, it reminds of the really bad Doctor Who episode last series.

So it's settled: we will not destroy the moon until it's drifted further away.

Well the question has already been answered...



You're very optimistic if you think we'll be around in several billions years time.

TLDR, why does someone want to blow up the moon?

If it's already beem answered we should leave it here. Perhaps you can make a separate thread about the pros and cons of moon destroying.

We already had a thread on that. I don't even know why we're debating that.

I didn't know how to quote you in, so here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3124621

NOBODY wants to blow up the moon! I said it was a bad idea, then was told it was impossible.

If we're going to get a mining crew up there, it might be possible. I want numbers.

Yeah, it quoted me in. Why did you do this.

I don't know how to delete threads and I don't think things through very well... also couldn't decide society vs chat, ended up in the former.

Do I need a mod to delete it? Or we can actually discuss the relative merits of using the moon as target practise.

Back to topic: renewable means replaceable within a human lifetime. Hence solar and biofuel = renewable. Coal, oil and gas= unrenewable. Nuclear is an odd case where it's not renewable but we have such large reserves that it probably doesn't matter either way.

Renewable- generally harnessing solar power in some form (e.g. wind)
Non-renewable- using distant rocks for target practise. Once they're gone, they're gone. So we better start shooting now while we still can.

The Creedence Clearwater Revival song 'Bad Moon Rising' will take on a rather apt whole new meaning. Talk about prescience!

But I digress. lol.

[video="youtube_share;4YlTUDnsWMo"]http://youtu.be/4YlTUDnsWMo[/video]

I don't know how to delete threads and I don't think things through very well... also couldn't decide society vs chat, ended up in the former.

Do I need a mod to delete it? Or we can actually discuss the relative merits of using the moon as target practise.

Back to topic: renewable means replaceable within a human lifetime. Hence solar and biofuel = renewable. Coal, oil and gas= unrenewable. Nuclear is an odd case where it's not renewable but we have such large reserves that it probably doesn't matter either way.

Renewable- generally harnessing solar power in some form (e.g. wind)
Non-renewable- using distant rocks for target practise. Once they're gone, they're gone. So we better start shooting now while we still can.

The technical definition of renewable is "A resource that is naturally replenished within human timescales" so yes, you're basically right. With nuclear energy, it depends on what fuel you're talking about. There are isotopes which certainly could be depleted within human lifetimes.

Ok.

I'm still unhappy about how my thread was desecrated by some of you lot.. Perhaps we could set up a chat group via PM to debate different issues if you are that interested, although I admit that I'm not very knowledgeable concerning science.

I'm very very sorry.

Do you feel like you know what renewable means now? To be honest, I did AQA physics for GCSE and they classed nuclear as renewable for some crazy reason (fission as well as fusion).

The important thing is not to know the words, but to know that there is a finite but very large reserve of potential fusion materials. There is a finite but still quite large amount of fissile material, but if we relied on it for long enough we'd eventually run out (I don't have numbers. I'd estimate at 150 years and some economic hardship).

This then lets you make a judgement about whether 'renewable' is a useful word in this context. I.e. AQA evidently deemed the above evidence for 'renewable'. Most people better acquainted with English will say that doesn't mean 'renewable', but 'long lasting'. This has now gotten to a linguistics debate and so is no longer important (internet rule #7)

Well, first of all, you destroy the moon.

Secondly, think of all the infrastructure needed to get stuff to the moon and back. That's a huge amount of industrialisation required. On top of that, it's definitely not going to solve any of the geopolitical problems we have with energy at the moment because it's going to be the exact same powers owning the rights over the big energy source.

The Long Summer looks very interesting, I might get it. Thanks for the advice