3 ms·
> You need to generate 3x the amount of heat, with nuclear you are converting matter into energy; it's boiling the planet. This doesn’t make sense to me. Our p
by krisoft 3y ago
> You need to generate 3x the amount of heat, with nuclear you are converting matter into energy; it's boiling the planet.
This doesn’t make sense to me. Our problems with climate change is not caused by the heat output of the reactors we use. It is because the by-products of combustion increases our atmosphere’s capacity to trap energy from the big fusion reactor in the sky.
- t_von_doom 3y agoMy interpretation of your quote was that the boiling wasn’t referring to the heat produced, but instead the idea that mass (our planet) is being converted to energy, reducing the mass of the planet
- ben_w 3y agoThis may be technically correct, but all the sunlight falling on the ground (which is about 10,000 times our current power usage) is about a kilogram per second under E=mc^2 — it isn't going to be measurable on the timescale of this planet's future existence before being consumed by the sun or ejected from the system due to orbital instabilities, and only even significant compared to the current planetary mass over time periods significantly longer than when all stars in the universe will finish burning all their fuel.