No. It's better than renewable. The definition of renewable is that after the energy is consumed that the source can be replaced. But the amount of energy in Thorium is so dense that one persons lifetime need of electricity can be obtained from a Thorium sphere the size of a Golf ball.
If it is used in a Molten Salt Reactor, yes it's mildly radioactive, the design is unique and if used properly can achieve 200 times as much energy compared to the same amount of Uranium in a conventional nuclear reactor. Conventional reactors only use 5% of the fuel. Molten salt reactors use 99% of the fuel. But Uranium is still useful for getting the reaction started. Thorium is three times more abundant than Uranium.
Renewable energy sources will not produce as much energy for the amount of land and resources used.
Solar energy is not totally renewable since it uses toxic chemicals to make the panels and they need backup energy sources (baseload) when the sun's not shining.
Wind is not totally renewable since they needed backup energy when the wind's not blowing. The backup energy recommended in recent years is natural gas which causes pollution and carbon dioxide and would contribute to global warming.
The other reason wind and solar are not totally renewable is that they use a huge amount of land to produce the quantity needed if they are expected to replace non-renewable energy sources such as coal and natural gas.
You might ask why we are not building Molten Salt Reactors. The answer is complicated but you should know. Nuclear Energy has frightened people since it was first used in a nuclear bomb.
When nuclear reactors were still new and when the government wanted a technology that could assist them in the process of enriching Uranium for nuclear weapons the Molten Salt Reactor worked without pure Uranium that was needed for weapons so the more radioactive and more expensive solution was chosen for political reasons.
Also Russia's irresponsible design of a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl without a containment vessel resulted in a dangerous release of radiation because they decided to bypass the expensive containment process that all nuclear reactors now have.
The over publicized Three Mile Island incident got a lot of attention partly because of the lack of knowledge therefore general irrational fear and the inconvenient fiction of the The China Syndrome film made around the same time as the accident.
Ironically the better safer choice the Molten Salt Reactor was abandoned. Molten Salt Reactors will not cause a melt down. They are designed to shut down when temperatures get too high. They also require no water and run without pressurized steam.
So Nuclear Energy may not be renewable but it's sustainable and renewables are not nearly as sustainable except maybe hydro and Nuclear is safer than Hydro.
Nuclear energy is not considered a renewable energy source because it relies on the fission of uranium atoms, which is a finite resource. However, nuclear power plants can help support renewable energy sources by providing a baseload of constant power that can complement intermittent sources like wind and solar.
Nuclear energy
Nuclear power is considered a non-renewable source of energy because it relies on uranium, which is a finite resource. Although nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, the fuel source itself is not naturally replenished on a human timescale.
No, nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy resource. It relies on the fission of uranium or plutonium, which are finite resources. Although nuclear power produces electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, its fuel source is not renewable.
Nuclear fusion is not renewable. It requires hydrogen nuclei as an energy source, and once these have been used in fusion they are not naturally replenished. In fact, fusion power has a very high energy change, rendering it near impossible to reverse the process. A star, for example, is powered by nuclear fusion, and will eventually die out due to a lack of hydrogen.
Nuclear energy is not considered a renewable energy source because it relies on the fission of uranium atoms, which is a finite resource. However, nuclear power plants can help support renewable energy sources by providing a baseload of constant power that can complement intermittent sources like wind and solar.
Non renewable.
Nuclear energy is not renewable. There is a fixed amount of potential fuel on the earth. Once it is used, there will be no more.
No, nuclear is a type of energy that is renewable.
Nuclear energy is classified as a nonrenewable energy source. This is because the nuclear fuel used in power plants (such as uranium or plutonium) is a finite resource that can eventually run out.
No, nuclear energy is not renewable nor sustainable. For nuclear fission to work, it requires a special type (isotope) of uranium. There is a finite amount of uranium on the planet, therefore this is not renewable. Also, the nuclear waste produced is not sustainable. An example of renewable energy would be a wind turbine.
Nuclear energy
Yah it is; Yah, what is Yah?
Nuclear Fusion
- Fossil fuel energy sources (coal-natural gas - petroleum - wood) - Nuclear energy sources (fission - fusion). Nuclear energy may be considered as renewable energy source.
Nuclear power is considered a non-renewable source of energy because it relies on uranium, which is a finite resource. Although nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, the fuel source itself is not naturally replenished on a human timescale.
No, nuclear power is not considered a renewable energy resource. It relies on the fission of uranium or plutonium, which are finite resources. Although nuclear power produces electricity without emitting greenhouse gases, its fuel source is not renewable.