4 ms·
If you are on a aircraft carrier you have nuclear reactors for power.
by callesgg 5y ago
If you are on a aircraft carrier you have nuclear reactors for power.
- systemvoltage 5y agoMy inner voice: "Scale those damn bastards! Build a whole bunch of these, stack 'em on land and boy you've got yourself something really special. Nuclear driven CO2 suckers." Tell me why this is a bad idea?
- nradov 5y agoThat's not a bad idea necessarily, it's just not economical for regular civilian use. Fossil fuels are still far cheaper than synthetics regardless of the power source.
- Aachen 5y agoI'm not sure the Paris agreement optimises for "far cheaper" but for a maximum temperature increase instead. The consumer can't be expected to individually take one for the team (as it is presumably cheaper in the long run to not deal with a globally failing ecosystem) so through legislation and incentives we'd transition to clean energy, not necessarily by making something cheaper. Of course, where possible the solution is to just use batteries, but try telling frequent fliers that they'll need to take a train in the future. We're going to need some synthetic fuels where energy density is paramount.
- colechristensen 5y agoIf you wanted to retool a big chunk of the world economy you could indeed solve the co2 problem by mass producing nuclear reactors attached to synthetic hydrocarbon plants that dumped the products in deep mines. You would have to spend trillions of dollars though.
- systemvoltage 5y agoIf we assume the price for a carrier nuclear reactor + generator would stay the same. Wouldn't the costs come down simply from basic economies of scale? The costs are high because we've build a few dozen of these ever.
- colechristensen 5y agobuilding reactors has a lot of up front expense, operating them is expensive, and you would have to make a whole lot of them to make a meaningful dent