Japan has opened its first osmotic power plant

(www.theguardian.com)

301 points pseudolus | 4 comments | 25 Aug 25 02:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | source

Show context

setgree ◴[26 Aug 25 18:44 UTC] No.45030567[source]▶

> While it is still an emerging technology being used only on a modest scale as yet, it does have an advantage over some other renewable energies in that it is available around the clock.

I notice the 'some' here, and the absence of the word 'nuclear' from the article, which of course is also available around the clock. Most readers will know something about Japan's troubled relationship with nuclear power and can fill in that context themselves, but to my eyes, it's a startling omission.

replies(2): >>45030651 #>>45032016 #

Arnavion ◴[26 Aug 25 18:52 UTC] No.45030651[source]▶

>>45030567 #

Some other *renewable* energies. Nuclear isn't generally considered renewable.

replies(1): >>45032325 #

wafflemaker ◴[26 Aug 25 21:05 UTC] No.45032325[source]▶

>>45030651 #

But it's inexhaustible. Sun will die at some point and moon will fall down to earth. Then we'll have no solar and no waves.

replies(1): >>45032552 #

immibis ◴[26 Aug 25 21:29 UTC] No.45032552[source]▶

>>45032325 #

Nuclear is quite exhaustible. If we use it to power everything, we have about 100 years worth. It's just another kind of fossil fuel, storing energy that was captured long ago.

replies(3): >>45033877 #>>45034570 #>>45038230 #

jrflowers ◴[27 Aug 25 00:06 UTC] No.45033877[source]▶

>>45032552 #

I love that you can post whatever you want on the internet. “Nuclear is quite exhaustible”, “The earth is flat”, “Ernest Borgnine killed JFK” you can just put words together and put them online. Such a thrill

replies(2): >>45034047 #>>45041481 #

immibis ◴[27 Aug 25 00:32 UTC] No.45034047[source]▶

>>45033877 #

Do you believe that underground elves are continuously manufacturing more uranium, or what do you believe is the case?

replies(3): >>45034635 #>>45035056 #>>45056810 #

jrflowers ◴[27 Aug 25 01:58 UTC] No.45034635[source]▶

>>45034047 #

I’m just having fun posting online as an expert on nuclear energy that’s never heard of fusion, breeder reactors or thorium it is a blast because you can just write numbers. 100 100,000 100,000,000 are all the same to me

replies(1): >>45035230 #

1. zarzavat ◴[27 Aug 25 03:42 UTC] No.45035230{3}[source]▶

>>45034635 #

The question is whether current nuclear power can be considered renewable. The answer is that it is not.

Renewable, to my mind, means energy that will be there in a million years. Solar. Wind. Waves. That kind of thing.

replies(1): >>45035283 #

2. jrflowers ◴[27 Aug 25 03:51 UTC] No.45035283[source]▶

>>45035230 (TP) #

Exactly. Nuclear power is not eternal because uranium is finite whereas solar will last forever because the aluminium, cadmium, copper, gallium, indium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, silver, selenium, tellurium, tin and zinc to make the panels exist in infinite quantities

replies(1): >>45035438 #

3. zarzavat ◴[27 Aug 25 04:23 UTC] No.45035438[source]▶

>>45035283 #

If we can extract minerals from the Earth then we can extract them from PV panels to refurbish/build new PV panels.

If you don't like that, then there's also concentrated solar. We're not going to run out of mirrors.

Fissile isotopes on the other hand, once they're gone, they're gone. You can build new reactors that run on different fuel but that's not the same thing as you were doing before, so you can't call the original process renewable.