3 ms·
Honestly the fact that the very opening line is “ A nuclear power plant produces 8000 times more power than fossil fuels” tells you the author doesn’t understan
by mattmaroon 4y ago
Honestly the fact that the very opening line is “ A nuclear power plant produces 8000 times more power than fossil fuels” tells you the author doesn’t understand what they’re writing about. That’s gibberish. What does that even mean? Are they saying the average nuclear plant produces about as much electricity as the average 8,000 fossil fuel plants? (A cursory Google search tells me they’re actually both pretty close to a gigawatt.) Are they saying that a given amount of nuclear fuel produces 8,000 times as much energy as the same amount of natural gas, and thus just comparing energy density of fuel? That seems entirely worthless to know without dozens of other factors (fuel cost, disposal, environmental concerns, etc.).
When your lead in is gibberish (that would be obvious to anyone with half a brain) it’s hard to take the rest seriously.
- mrits 4y agoIt's an odd point but I believe they referring to energy density of fission vs fossil.
- mattmaroon 4y agoI would guess that too but that’s also entirely pointless to know. It doesn’t tell you anything of use. Even if nuclear fuel were the same energy density as fossil fuels it might not change the calculus much at all. It just shows that the author is incapable of meaningful thinking about the topic.
- hebrox 4y agoMaybe his next article will be about antimatter?
- bell-cot 4y agoThe article is from a major university's Communications (aka Marketing) Dept. Expecting to read anything better than technobabble rah-rah from such a source is kinda like expecting a milk cow to give you 20-year single-malt whisky.