|
Top-level
 @empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan It's not a major factor, but I've seen some studies claiming if we would replace all energy with nuclear and taking future needs into account it would heat up earth by more than 0.2 ΒΊC this century. It's not much, but also not entirely irrelevant. 12 comments
@empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan Anyway, we fight climate change by turning that balance _negative_ as we caused a positive energy balance in the past and have "pay it all back" Nuclear energy runs contrary to that goal.  @karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan well, it'll certainly increase the amount of heat energy... Furthermore the entire concept of nucpear power is unsustainable and the very finite supply of it should rather be used for the few yet critical applications one needs nurlcear material for... @kkarhan @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan yeah.. I think the question is rather how long it takes. I think there are great innovations on the nuclear front trying to make it all more safe and more fuel efficient. And I could even see that some amount of energy production might stay nuclear. E.g. only using current nuclear waste as fuel to reduce the time we have to keep it stored securely. The problem just is, if we add energy, we also have to remove it and get to a negative balance. That's all. @karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan I soncerely doubt we'll see that hapoen at all - not even talking about our lifetimes. Now Nuclear Fusion might ne a totally new level, cuz the first to master this technology will basically be able to make as much energy as they want as cheap as they want, thus control the world... @kkarhan @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan nuclear fusion has the same problem in terms of energy balance. It converts energy stored in atoms into thermal and kinetic energy (directly or indirectly through electricity consumers) It's all fine to use it, but we also have to make sure our energy balance stays below 0 until we manage to cool down earth enough. @karolherbst @empressEvora @ShadowJonathan OFC that is ture, which is why I propose to harness the amount of energy that is inefitably hitting the planet instead of excess thermal output. Cuz that'll be more efficient and get us close to that desired amount... @empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan that assumes state and corporations are completely seperate entities and not run by people - if not the same people. THAT WAS NEVER THE CASE! Far from it... @empressEvora @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan The @EU_Commission doesn't even try to exert control over the #EU's #IT... I do agree in that #infrastructure like #energy, #transportation and #distribution grids should be owned by the public, and whether that's a state-owned enterprise, a ministry, a cooperative or whatever is more of a tool discussion. @kkarhan @karolherbst @ShadowJonathan harvesting sun rays leaves a lot on the table to never be recovered though. I would argue that allowing the sun to feed plants which can then be used to produce biofuels is a way to improve power density and reduce loss/waste. Plus a real farm is a lot nicer to look at then a solar farm.
|
Gregory's Server
@empressEvora @kkarhan @ShadowJonathan Also.. absolute numbers like that are entirely irrelevant.
What matters is the relative amount of how much of the net difference we contribute to.
If the earth absorbs 10 sixtillion joules, but release 10 sixtillion joules each year, us adding ~520 quintillion joules in a year is a problem as we cause more energy to stay in the system.
What matters is how much nuclear energy contributes to the _difference_ of incoming and outgoing energy.