4 ms·
Strangely enough it takes very little money, nor energy to produce nuclear power. It's very simple at its core. Have a look at the first research reactors and y
by asharp 16y ago
Strangely enough it takes very little money, nor energy to produce nuclear power. It's very simple at its core. Have a look at the first research reactors and you'll find that you need basically no technology to produce reactors that produce useful amounts of energy.
On the other hand solar power, especially photovoltaics is stupidly complex. Photovoltaics requires semiconductor processes, arguably one of the most complex things ever reliably harnessed by man to create.
Saying that you want to power your computer from a solar cell seems green, until you think of all the energy that went into building that solar cell. All the waste materials, the toxic waste produced in fabrication, the pollution, etc. Then it seems decidedly less green then, say, plugging it in to the wall socket.
- Tichy 16y agoAnd yet nature all around us seems to thrive on solar power alone, with zero toxic waste byproduct. I don't think pollution in production is a must, either. You don't have to dump your garbage in the river.
- adrianN 16y agoNature around us doesn't use eletricity either.
- Tichy 16y agoOf course it does. In any case, it uses power, the distinction is quite meaningless. Converting power can be done with a constant factor.
- asharp 16y agoFirst off no, nature doesn't thrive off solar power alone. At the very least hydrothermal vents provide energy to most aquatic life past the thermocline. I'd also like to point out that the sun produces more radioactivity then anything likely to be found on earth, and fusion as a whole accounts for all the heavy metals ever created in the universe. (just some food for thought).
- Tichy 16y agoI know about the hydrothermal vents, but I don't think nature needs them. The sun example was discussed to death in another thread. Sorry, I think it is just a silly comparison.
- david927 16y agoYet it takes Uranium and there's less and less easily available Uranium. It's a dead-end.
- Natsu 16y agoEverything is ultimately a dead end. You can thank entropy for that. The sun will die, too, as will any star we go to. Fusion would probably be the best, because a large fraction of the universe's mass is hydrogen. Antimatter would also be cool, but it's also incredibly dangerous and we're far from being able to create significant amounts of it. In the long run, we probably can't afford to drop any power sources. But in the long run, we're all dead.
- asharp 16y agoThere are large quantities of fissable materials which are not uranium. For example take thorium, which is roughly as common as lead.
- Tichy 16y ago"Strangely enough it takes very little money, nor energy to produce nuclear power." And since the new doctrine is that radiation is not dangerous at all, you will make us a good price for storing the nuclear waste in your backyard? I hear it helps grow bigger vegetables, too - win win.
- asharp 16y agoThat's a non sequitur. Look up the first nuclear pile experiments and you'll find out just how primitive you can be and still produce a functioning nuclear reactor.
- Tichy 16y agoSorry I don't speak latin? In any case, of course storage of waste has to factored into the cost? I don't see how it is relevant how easy it is to build a reactor. Guess what, it is even easier to start a fire, which produces a lot of energy, too.
- burgerbrain 16y agoDo you claim to not know spanish when people say they are going out for burritos?
- Tichy 16y agoI don't know, but I know that I'd like a burger right now.
- Natsu 16y agoI would advise Googling such things, but just so you know, "non sequitur" means "it doesn't follow" in Latin. He's saying that what you said doesn't make much sense as a reply to that other post. Indeed, I'm not quite sure what your point was, there. If it was a joke, I missed it completely.
- 16y ago