Look up thorium reactors. Way safer with less dangerous waste

While I do agree that we must move towards a system which runs off of nuclear power, I disagree with much of what you said, and I'm genuinely sorry because you're a good guy, but I absolutely have to tell you that what you've said is a horrible representation of science. We should avoid referring to "science" like a person. The scientists working on this project are to blame for the conclusions made, not an intangible concept. The reason why this should be avoided is because it starts creating the idea that the term "science" is a valid citation, and starts influencing people to accept things on faith rather than through a strict understanding. For instance, when the flat earth guy proposes a theory through skepticism, and he's called an idiot because "science proves him wrong," the idiot is within the person not being able to prove their own stance and rather accepting it with the assumption that other people know better than they do. Now, of course, you can mathematically verify spheres being the most geometrically stable objects, and the principle of least action, and a score of other real things that occur due to the spherical nature of Earth, but many people think it's okay to simply say "science." This is the exact dogma science looks to avoid by creating an epistemological dichotomy between itself and suspended faith. To the topic: Not renewable. The efficiency of power plants is necessarily low because they use a steam turbine rather than the actual energy displaced by the weak force. This, along with the fact that uranium is not actually infinite in terrestrial abundance, means that it is not renewable. Maybe if our power plants were breeder reactors, but they're not. I think that's probably what this article left out, that we would need reactors that we don't actually have in order to do this, and that said reactors are not economically viable or competitive until money is being [i]poured[/i] into them. You want nuclear power to be renewable and practical? Look at fusion. We're still a ways away from this though, but that's where we want to be. Don't get hung up on fission because it can never physically come close to doing what fusion can, which you can see simply in the difference of the strong force and the weak force. I'll tell you right now though, sea-water extraction of uranium will not be the end-all-be-all, and expending a massive effort towards this instead of fusion is a bad idea.

This is somewhat related. I always thought that people are misusing solar panels. I mean, they're building solar panel farms, and it ruins one of the best things about solar panels, which is that they don't take up any space. You can just stick em on top of things. I think governments should make it a legal requirement, or at the very least highly rewarded, to put solar panels on all new buildings. Wouldn't solve the problem by a long shot, but it would certainly help a lot.

Even if uranium wasn't renewable its the most clean and environmentally friendly source of energy we have. If we look at how much is made for how little we do its amazing. Nuclear power is far superior to any other source of energy we have. It's better than wind because that kills many birds and takes up lots of space and doesn't make alot of energy. Hydropower relies on destroying an ecosystem to build said damn and can only be made in specific locations. Obviously fossil fuels are bad for the environment so only solar is left. And the environmental impact of creating g enough solar panels for the entire world would be devastating. The only downside to nuclear is if something goes wrong.

We need the opinion of our resident physicist, a cellar door

Or, just let our lord and savior Elon Musk build his solar panels and all of our energy problems will be solved. [spoiler]seriously, this guy is great.[/spoiler]

What I take away from this is, "Science, [b][i]bītch[/i][/b]."

What use of uranium shall we use it for, other than electricity and nukes.

There are 3.3 micrograms per part billion in sea water making the concentration 3.3E^-6 per litre. This, accompanied by the 1.26E^21 litres of sea water globally, makes there to be 4.6 billion US tons, or 4.158E^15 grams, of uranium in water entirely The extraction rate by ultracentrifuges of U235 (which makes up only 0.72% of a sample of uranium), the fissile material that actually can undergo fission, is a return rate of around 100%. This means that out of the 4.6 billion US tons of uranium in the ocean, only 33 million tons of all of the uranium in all of the ocean is actually viable for usage in a nuclear reactor

Which is better nuclear fission or nuclear fusion. In terms of safety, energy production, and cost. Anyone know. You get a cookie if you do

This sounds awesome. But I'm predicting people to start fearing nuclear disaster, protests will erupt, maybe a riot or two, nuclear disaster happens, protests evolve into a full scale revolution. All nuclear power plants shut down and we slowly suffocate in our own pollution. If that doesn't happen then we need to give someone an award.

This isn't entirely true. Although it may be true in the fact that it may last a long time, that still isn't considered renewable. In the event that we did run out millions of years from now, our only source would be outside of Earth. For it to be truly renewable, there would have to be a way to produce it. Which is why we have plutonium, a also highly radioactive element that is man made, and is uses more often in nuclear plants than uranium

we won't need this when nuclear fusion is achieved

It's not renewable, just really -blam!-ing abundant.

Thorium reactors may be more beneficial in the long run though. Produces more energy, nearly as common as coal (I think) and only takes 100 years to decompose unlike 1000 for uranium.

Still not renewable :/

It's much more cost effective to mine