News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus by inter_netuser on Sunday November 28, 2021 @04:50AM (#29367622)
Do you consider nuclear energy sustainable?

It's probably not renewable (well, neither is the Sun on large enough timescale), but do you believe nuclear, either fission or fusion, will play a large role in the future?

Re:Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus by arcticbull on Sunday November 28, 2021 @05:04AM (#29367685)
You make it sound like I need a new hobby - which I might haha.

> Do you consider nuclear energy sustainable?

Low-carbon, yes. Sustainable, yes. Renewable, not until we productionize extraction of uranium from seawater. [1]

> ... but do you believe nuclear, either fission or fusion, will play a large role in the future?

Fusion if we can crack it, totally. Seems like a clear winner. Fission probably will if there's some political will behind it, but not unless there's a change in sentiment.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/03/24/is-nuclea...

Re:Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus by tomp on Sunday November 28, 2021 @12:31PM (#29370846)
This article is complete FUD.

> of which the following sources are considered to be renewable

in other words, it attempts to define the world "renewable" along favoured political ideologies.

From Wikipedia:

> Advances in breeder reactor technology could allow the current reserves of uranium to provide power for humanity for billions of years, thus making nuclear power a sustainable energy

TL;DR: nuclear is just as renewable as solar (beyond any likely duration of the human civilisation).

Re:Proof of stake is incapable of producing a consensus by arcticbull on Sunday November 28, 2021 @07:32PM (#29374892)
I saw the renewability as more of a thought exercise, because I agree with you, there's more than enough nuclear feedstock to keep us going indefinitely.