3 ms·

Put some ice in the ocean then. But seriously, how impractical is it for sub-arctic nuclear power plants to convert ocean water into icebergs and shove it off

by _8j50 4y ago

Put some ice in the ocean then. But seriously, how impractical is it for sub-arctic nuclear power plants to convert ocean water into icebergs and shove it off so it can go melt and cool other parts of the polar ocean water and keep caps from melting. The goal not being cooling the ocean but at least slowing down the rate of warming. I know the oceans are insanely huge but nuclear power is also very powerful, build a dozen or more nuclear powerplants that each are powrerful enough to power NYC year round and use that energy to boil and the water for energy and then use that energy to freeze water. ELI5 on why this is impractical technically? Because politically getting money and support is difficult but at least it not impossible. Telling the world to take it easy in capitalism on the other hand is delusional. Not gonna happen. Scientists are always like "take is seriously" but most of the time it isn't that decision makers don't take them seriously but that they present problems not a bunch of solutions that decision makers can evaluate and you know... decide.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
generativenoise 4y ago
Your understanding of the physics is so bad I don't know where to start. Though for a first step where do you think that energy you extract from the water to turn it into ice goes? If you want to use ice cubes they have to either be made in space, or you have to get extremely good radiative cooling to space. There have been plenty of solutions proposed but the most favourable "solution" that has mostly been chosen is to make it the futures problem to figure out how to adapt.
- _8j50 4y ago
  ELI5 means assume I have zero understanding of anything! > is so bad I don't know where to start. Though for a first step where do you think that energy you extract from the water to turn it into ice goes You are not extracting energy from water, the energy comes from nuclear fission in nuclear powerplants. > If you want to use ice cubes they have to either be made in space Why? You have a giant power plant getting energy from nuclear radiation and it's entire purpose is to generate 1-2 square km of ice sheets each 1M thick along with 10-20 other plants you have 300-600 sq km of ice per year that is intended to keep polar surface ocean water cool (not the whole world). The goal is not to cool the air but to essentially use nuclear energy to transfer heat from the ocean into steam into the atmosphere.
staunton 4y ago
> seriously, how impractical is it for sub-arctic nuclear power plants to convert ocean water into icebergs and... Very impractical, to the point where I wonder if I'm missing some sarcasm in your comment. The amounts of water/ice involved are absolutely huge and due to basic thermodynamics you have to heat up some stuff to cool other stuff (and heat everything overall due to inefficiency). Even if it was doable, other approaches would be a lot easier and more effective. What might be practical is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere (e.g. above the caps) or throwing tiny glass marbles on the ice to reflect more light and keep it from being ice-free in the summer.
jfengel 4y ago
The extra heating due to climate change is about 1.6 W/m^2. That's about 800 Terawatts. The average nuclear power plant is .001 Terawatts. So you'd need close to a million power plants to combat global warming. A lot more than a dozen.

by _8j50 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

generativenoise 4y ago

Your understanding of the physics is so bad I don't know where to start. Though for a first step where do you think that energy you extract from the water to turn it into ice goes? If you want to use ice cubes they have to either be made in space, or you have to get extremely good radiative cooling to space. There have been plenty of solutions proposed but the most favourable "solution" that has mostly been chosen is to make it the futures problem to figure out how to adapt.

_8j50 4y ago
ELI5 means assume I have zero understanding of anything! > is so bad I don't know where to start. Though for a first step where do you think that energy you extract from the water to turn it into ice goes You are not extracting energy from water, the energy comes from nuclear fission in nuclear powerplants. > If you want to use ice cubes they have to either be made in space Why? You have a giant power plant getting energy from nuclear radiation and it's entire purpose is to generate 1-2 square km of ice sheets each 1M thick along with 10-20 other plants you have 300-600 sq km of ice per year that is intended to keep polar surface ocean water cool (not the whole world). The goal is not to cool the air but to essentially use nuclear energy to transfer heat from the ocean into steam into the atmosphere.

staunton 4y ago

> seriously, how impractical is it for sub-arctic nuclear power plants to convert ocean water into icebergs and... Very impractical, to the point where I wonder if I'm missing some sarcasm in your comment. The amounts of water/ice involved are absolutely huge and due to basic thermodynamics you have to heat up some stuff to cool other stuff (and heat everything overall due to inefficiency). Even if it was doable, other approaches would be a lot easier and more effective. What might be practical is spraying chemicals into the atmosphere (e.g. above the caps) or throwing tiny glass marbles on the ice to reflect more light and keep it from being ice-free in the summer.

jfengel 4y ago

The extra heating due to climate change is about 1.6 W/m^2. That's about 800 Terawatts. The average nuclear power plant is .001 Terawatts. So you'd need close to a million power plants to combat global warming. A lot more than a dozen.