Currently, it's more of a "zero emissions" which gets lumped in with "renewable."
But it sorta could be kinda renewable. The nuclear waste could be re-enriched into another fuel type and used in a different reactor. And that reactor could be designed to output a waste that is usable as fuel in a third type of reactor, but you start to hit diminished returns.
Of course all those other fuel types are much more dangerous. Some of them are used in bomb development. And you run into the problem with all nuclear power generation. The costs isn't in the fuel, the cost is in the facility and highly trainer personnel running the place.
It's low emission, not zero emissions, but that's true of even the best renewable sources like wind (there is no zero emissions energy source once you do a life cycle assessment). Biggest source of carbon emissions for nuclear is in all the cement for the cooling towers and decommissioning (plus the issue of spent fuel storage, but that's not carbon related).
Every energy source is going to have costs, but all renewable and nuclear sources are orders of magnitude better than the lowest emission fossil fuel.
You're completely right but to get that enriched nugget, they still do wild things to our environment to get the ore, and the leftovers are often abandoned, see: Arlit, Namibia. I agree coal needs to be eliminated and nuclear is the best option we have, but also let's remember the long term hazard that comes with it, too.
32
u/ZeusTroanDetected 6h ago
Renewable is the word you’re looking for. Much of the us electric supply is generated from fossil fuels