4 ms·
No idea if it will be cost effective? Are you insane? The enthalpy of nuclear fission is an order of magnitude, at least, over chemical fuels. It's all red tape
by R0b0t1 5y ago
No idea if it will be cost effective? Are you insane? The enthalpy of nuclear fission is an order of magnitude, at least, over chemical fuels. It's all red tape. There's not technical challenges in old designs. New designs are better but not necessary.
- epistasis 5y agoThe cost of nuclear is not connected to enthalpy. It's from transferring heat to make steam.
- R0b0t1 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_reaction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_reactio...
- epistasis 5y agoIt's a simple concept, but it has nothing to do with the theoretical or practical costs of a nuclear reactor for boiling water to turn a mechanical steam turbine.
- R0b0t1 5y agoIt is the first step (without going into nuclear physics) in calculating how much energy is released. You take the enthalpy of the fission reaction, joules per gram input, and that dictates everything after. In fission reactions you get (iirc) giga or megajoules per g instead of kilojoules per g.
- beckingz 5y agoWe agree that nuclear power is a better power source than fossil fuels on pure technical comparison. Your opening comment implied that nuclear power would be strictly cheaper because of the higher enthalpy. If all costs were equal, you would be correct. All costs are not equal.
- R0b0t1 5y agoThe nontechnical costs are made up FUD. If you cut that out then it is a better solution, and considering the FUD is ridiculous. It's better to properly educate people.
- epistasis 5y agoAgain, this has nearly nothing to do with the actual costs involved with turning energy into electricity. We are how many comments deep and you've failed to explain anything about your original comment? This sort of bullshitting attitude is why nuclear gets a really bad name. It's supporters do not understand it well enough. And if recent history is any guide, neither do nuclear's practitioners.
- imtringued 5y agoCan you explain how increased enthalpy makes nuclear fission cheaper? Shouldn't it get more expensive because of the dangers inherent to high enthalpy? We didn't build nuclear weapons because they were cheaper, we built them because we desire danger and more danger requires more enthalpy. By that logic even civilian usage of high enthalpy carries the risk of danger.
- R0b0t1 5y agoThe same amount of extractive and processing work releases more energy. It doesn't mean it has to be dangerous. And by what logic? I never mentioned civilian use of anything, just that nuclear is more efficient.