Fossil fuels means it’s something we are digging up and have a limited amount of, as opposed to renewable energy. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fossilized lifeforms. Uranium and other radioactive metals are exactly like that, something we dig up and can run out of.
And even then, although there’s a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years. Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.
although there’s a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years.
I found sources which state that the resources can last 60 to 150years (more if the price for Uran goes up to multiple 100 dollars per kilo or the consumption doesn’t rise 5 times as expected)
Thousands of years? Says who?
Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.
Hopefully.
Edit: Downvotes in reply to a question? I mean: it also could be a byof-discussion. (Bring your own facts.)
I know my sources are kinda lame, but I trust them. First, is this video from Kurzgesast that comments on if, how and why nuclear energy is a good strategy for long term improvement on greenhouse emissions and energy sourcing. Second, there’s this other video from nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou.
Again, not papers, but words from reputable people that I imagine have read enough. I know, as hominen fallacy and all that. But there’s a point where I don’t have the time to read papers about EVERY interesting topic.
I see your point about distinguishing between fuel types. I typically take fossil fuels as meaning non-renewable, carbon-based fuels though. Wouldn’t uranium and other nuclear materials just be non-renewable fuels?
Cleverly not counting nuclear as fossil is a joke.
How is nuclear fossil?
Uranium dinosaurs!
Fossil fuels means it’s something we are digging up and have a limited amount of, as opposed to renewable energy. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily fossilized lifeforms. Uranium and other radioactive metals are exactly like that, something we dig up and can run out of.
Actually fossil means just that. You’re thinking sustainable.
And even then, although there’s a finite amount of Uranium on Earth, the amount there is could last us thousands of years. Enough for us to get a replacement, like fusion, working.
I found sources which state that the resources can last 60 to 150years (more if the price for Uran goes up to multiple 100 dollars per kilo or the consumption doesn’t rise 5 times as expected) Thousands of years? Says who?
Hopefully.
Edit: Downvotes in reply to a question? I mean: it also could be a byof-discussion. (Bring your own facts.)
I know my sources are kinda lame, but I trust them. First, is this video from Kurzgesast that comments on if, how and why nuclear energy is a good strategy for long term improvement on greenhouse emissions and energy sourcing. Second, there’s this other video from nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou.
Again, not papers, but words from reputable people that I imagine have read enough. I know, as hominen fallacy and all that. But there’s a point where I don’t have the time to read papers about EVERY interesting topic.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
video
video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks! :) I will take a look.
Fair enough, I guess in my head I always set it up as a dichotomy of fossil<->renewable, but I guess that’s not quite right.
I see your point about distinguishing between fuel types. I typically take fossil fuels as meaning non-renewable, carbon-based fuels though. Wouldn’t uranium and other nuclear materials just be non-renewable fuels?
Ah, yes, “cleverly”. Almost as clever as not counting mud as food.