Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Regarding cooling, coal more energy dense (Score 1) 645

Well that is definitely a consideration that would need to be taken into account in the short term, but yeah is a circular argument that shouldn't take nuclear off the table.

On a minor note, any power generation technology that isn't using the energy from the sun is technically contributing to warming the Earth since we're liberating energy that is currently stored. Although I presume that's probably irrelevant since that eventual thermal energy is radiated from the Earth and small compared to the overall energy radiated. Global warming is the problem with those products of our current energy production methods being dumped into the atmosphere preventing that thermal energy from escaping.

Comment It's energy density, stupid (Score 5, Insightful) 645

In all these debates I'm always amazed how the simple "big picture" of the physics involved is disregarded. It all boils down to energy density. Is there any other power generation technology that comes close? The only other alternative is to reduce our energy usage and if that ain't gonna happen you need to build lots of reactors producing lots of energy. Sure you can cover the surface of the Earth in solar panels I suppose, but that seems to be a bit of a maintenance headache (not to mention the energy cost of creating the panels in the first place). It seems to me all the negatives of nuclear boil down to the cost of making it safe which surely we can do a more efficient job of? We can't keep holding out hope for fusion, we need to make plans for relying on fission for the foreseeable future.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.