Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pulsed19 t1_iu9g2v6 wrote

Reply to comment by lostparis in Poland picks U.S. offer for its first nuclear power plant -PM by SunfireGaren

First of all, nuclear energy is renewable. That’s how little you know. There are zero carbon emissions. Did you know that?

The initial investment is higher than say setting up a gas pipeline, but with nuclear you don’t need massive amounts of land to get reasonable amount of energy like with solar or wind. Hydroelectric power is great but we need a river. Geothermic is also great, but they can’t be set up if the resource isn’t there. So yes, nuclear is viable and I hope we build more, way more. Now with micro reactors almost a reality, this is the best approach we have to replace gas and oil. More than 50% of the zero-carbon energy produced in the US is due to nuclear in spite of us not having built a new power plant in decades.

5

lostparis t1_iu9tqjo wrote

> First of all, nuclear energy is renewable.

How do you work this out? Do you know what renewable means? We extract energy from the fuel it doesn't come back it is used.

1

pulsed19 t1_iu9ures wrote

Two links for you to educate yourself.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

4

WikiSummarizerBot t1_iu9ut2n wrote

Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy

>Whether nuclear power should be considered a form of renewable energy is an ongoing subject of debate. Statutory definitions of renewable energy usually exclude many present nuclear energy technologies, with the notable exception of the state of Utah. Dictionary-sourced definitions of renewable energy technologies often omit or explicitly exclude mention of nuclear energy sources, with an exception made for the natural nuclear decay heat generated within the Earth.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

lostparis t1_iua2qkf wrote

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

I think this is clutching at straws. Sure solar/wind are not truly renewable but they have an external energy source (the sun) outside our planetary sphere. Nuclear does not get this top up.

1

pulsed19 t1_iua93kt wrote

And when solar stops needing massive amounts of land to produce a relatively small amount of anergy, it’ll be more viable than it is now.

3

lostparis t1_iuajo7y wrote

> when solar stops needing massive amounts of land

Building solar in fields in the UK will probably always be stupid. However it still has plenty of places where it makes sense.

1

pulsed19 t1_iuakans wrote

So what do we do in said countries like the UK? Nuclear :-p

2

lostparis t1_iuamdt6 wrote

Personally I think Nuclear is not what we need as I've explained. Sure keep the old ones running but new ones do not make sense. We could invest the money far better and end up in a better situation sooner.

1