Meanwhile in Germany:

    • Bumblefumble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • 342345@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.)

        • camelCaseGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.