[z64555]

**is tempted to study nuclear engineering now**

[Flaser]

I feel obliged to link this:

Thorium Remix (2011)
https://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4

...the point being, our current reactor designs are *old*.
We could do a lot better, both in terms of efficiency and safety.

No.1 reason why we don't use Gen 4 designs? Regulation and FUD by the vitriolic greens.

[BirdofPrey]

I've actually heard of some groups suggesting breeder reactors being classified as renewable energy since the rate they use up fuel input puts fuel sources being used up on a timescale similar to that of other renewables (the sun isn't infinite either).

I only watched the first few minutes of that linked video, but the mention of producing fuel from the carbon in the atmosphere is something that piqued my interest.  As an advocate of space exploration and colonization, I have a high interest in in-situ resource utilization, and the ability to make fuels and plastics literally from thin air on mars using the CO and CO2 in the atmosphere combined with hydrogen and oxygen from water is something I've read up on some.  it also warrants a mention that synthetic fuels are naturally low sulfur since it would only be present if you put it there whereas petroleum specifically requires its removal.  It's a similar situation with other undesired contaminants.

[Flaser]

At the moment, nuclear power is the only power source dense enough to make synthetic fuels / products viable. Do you remember those "carbon neutral" iPhone cases and such lunacy? Yes, lunacy, because creation of synthesized stuff is pretty energy intensive. Unless your energy source is very cheap *and* clean you're (a lot) better off with recycling and using resources already present. Nuclear energy sources being several magnitudes denser, i.e. having the potential to be a lot cheaper on a kWh basis are what could actually make these ideas viable.