3 ms·

Humans are ridiculous. Coal, solar, wind are all stone age compared to nuclear power. If humans went full bore nuclear, they'd have so much energy it would be n

Humans are ridiculous. Coal, solar, wind are all stone age compared to nuclear power. If humans went full bore nuclear, they'd have so much energy it would be nothing to move spent fuel to space. It's sort of depressing how this technology that can be used to colonize space gathers dust, so little progress.

blake1 7y ago
Nuclear power is pretty Stone Age. Hold a bunch of special rocks close together. They get hot and make water hot. And turns into hot, wet air, which turns a big fan. Hook a magnet to that fan, and spin it in some hoops and you get electricity. Oh, and always, always, always keep the rocks from getting too hot. Compare that to solar cells, which are semiconductors doped with cleverly designed impurities, and layered to exploit quantum effects to deliver electrical power simply by pointing it at the sun. You can make it more useful by hooking it to a rechargeable battery, which also exploits clever quantum chemical effects to store that electricity. And the combo of these two wonderful quantum-technological devices is cheaper than the reactor. Both technologies require understanding of modern physics, but it's pretty telling that you can do enough math to make a fission reactor with a hand calculator, and not a high-powered computer.
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  Ah yes, the stone age phase change turbine. Well attested in cave paintings and stone chippings. Solar cells in space are a great idea. Much more efficient than nuclear power when you're closer than the orbit of Venus. A lot less so when you're at the bottom of an atmosphere with dust and clouds.
  - wyre 7y ago
    > Ah yes, the stone age phase change turbine. Well attested in cave paintings and stone chippings. Because coal and nuclear are in so many cave paintins
xupybd 7y ago
The economics of nuclear are good but not as good as you're implying. It takes a long time and a lot of money to start earning on a nuclear plant. Given the risks involved it's not that easy to build one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY I don't think firing nuclear waste into space would be wise either. The risk of that blowing up on launch is high and the fall out from that would be a disaster.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Just imagine 10 years after you've built your nice new nuclear plant and someone makes a breakthrough on some form of cheap reliable energy. The current development focus on alternative forms of energy makes nuclear high risk purely due to the payoff period.
- crystaldev 7y ago
  In the short term nuclear waste should be stored in remote sites on the earth, in the future it should all be moved to space by elevator rather than launch.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    Nuclear waste is a non-issue. All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste

blake1 7y ago

Nuclear power is pretty Stone Age. Hold a bunch of special rocks close together. They get hot and make water hot. And turns into hot, wet air, which turns a big fan. Hook a magnet to that fan, and spin it in some hoops and you get electricity. Oh, and always, always, always keep the rocks from getting too hot. Compare that to solar cells, which are semiconductors doped with cleverly designed impurities, and layered to exploit quantum effects to deliver electrical power simply by pointing it at the sun. You can make it more useful by hooking it to a rechargeable battery, which also exploits clever quantum chemical effects to store that electricity. And the combo of these two wonderful quantum-technological devices is cheaper than the reactor. Both technologies require understanding of modern physics, but it's pretty telling that you can do enough math to make a fission reactor with a hand calculator, and not a high-powered computer.

buzzkillington 7y ago
Ah yes, the stone age phase change turbine. Well attested in cave paintings and stone chippings. Solar cells in space are a great idea. Much more efficient than nuclear power when you're closer than the orbit of Venus. A lot less so when you're at the bottom of an atmosphere with dust and clouds.
- wyre 7y ago
  > Ah yes, the stone age phase change turbine. Well attested in cave paintings and stone chippings. Because coal and nuclear are in so many cave paintins

xupybd 7y ago

The economics of nuclear are good but not as good as you're implying. It takes a long time and a lot of money to start earning on a nuclear plant. Given the risks involved it's not that easy to build one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY I don't think firing nuclear waste into space would be wise either. The risk of that blowing up on launch is high and the fall out from that would be a disaster.

keanzu 7y ago
Just imagine 10 years after you've built your nice new nuclear plant and someone makes a breakthrough on some form of cheap reliable energy. The current development focus on alternative forms of energy makes nuclear high risk purely due to the payoff period.
crystaldev 7y ago
In the short term nuclear waste should be stored in remote sites on the earth, in the future it should all be moved to space by elevator rather than launch.
- keanzu 7y ago
  Nuclear waste is a non-issue. All of the used fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry since the late 1950s would cover a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards. https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste https://www.nei.org/fundamentals/nuclear-waste