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.
> 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...