|
Coolguye posted:those renewables are themselves disruptive environmental changes because they require lots of land Does that include the area taken up by open-cut coal mines used to feed the plant? Or tailings dams and other associated coal-mining related area? How about the energy used trucking/training gas/coal from where it was mined to the plant? You're kinda forgetting the insane scale ecological disaster happening right now which to be honest is probably too far gone for people to have much impact on anyway, I'd take a large scale renewable plant causing habitat loss over the current planetary deep-dicking. On the matter of ship-bound nuclear reactors, a large factor in what causes damage and radiation release when things go wrong with commercial reactors is latent heat production. Technically speaking the fuel from a reactor once it has undergone fission keeps producing some amount of thermal energy forever (from decay of fission products) however obviously the rate of heat generation falls off exponentially from the time that the fission chain reaction stops. The fuel from a large grid-connected reactor generates enormous amounts of heat (in the megawatt range) for days after the reactor has been completely shut down, which will quite happily melt the reactor core, causing the exposure of nuclear material to water which will generate hydrogen, or air which can cause the fuel to ignite. The difference between a large reactor and a small one like you'd find on a ship is that the magnitude of the latent heat generated is much lower and the reactor structure can realistically handle it without melting and having the fuel become exposed, so accidents are going to be a lot easier to manage.
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 17:52 |
|