It would, since larger atoms on average release more energy per atom, due to a combination of the decay taking more steps, (more moments where energy is released,) and the energy per step is on average higher. Moscovium has an atomic number of 115, while uranium has an atomic number of 92. However, due to how moscovium has a half-life of half a second, good luck finding it anywhere. The only way to obtain it currently is by making it ourselves, which even in theory has a maximum energy yield of 1.
3 Likes
Temporaryly, you are joking, there is no other energy source that gives this much energy yet creates 0 carbon emission ?
Carbon emissions aren’t the only kind, disposing of nuclear waste isn’t trivial. Mining for uranium isn’t cheap, and you can run out. FAR better than oil or coal in basically every regard, but compared to solar power (preferably with power satellites so it works at night and you don’t need free land area) or fusion, suboptimal.
1 Like
Are you aware of everything is finite Which means you can ran out of everything? It is still cheaper than coal and “green” energy. The problem with solar energy, it is too weak to power something. And also it is not adaptble to all contions, not only you need sun but also humiliation, dustiness and other parameters are so important. You cant cover land with solar panels just to get same amount of energy.
I said it was better than coal or oil. I also disclaimed that solar would preferably use orbital power satellites to overcome those limitations, I am aware of them. You can run out of anything, but uranium is easier to run out of that hydrogen or even helium-3, and the sun is giving away free energy for the next few billion years, so running out isn’t a problem we have to worry about there. Even if we never get fusion, I’d say we’d still be better off focusing on solar because places without sunlight or long distance space ships should have radioactive available to them. Right now solar is all dumb and on the ground so unless you have a TON of lithium and rare earth metals lying around for batteries, yes, nuclear is better than solar too.
What do you think is the future like for nuclear energy?
- good (will gain a better reputation and get more reactors built)
- bad (will decline even more)
- as it is (following the trend; “balanced”)
0
voters
1 Like
Well, I hope there’s more nuclear energy in the future, but here in the USA I expect no major developments in nuclear and the power sector to focus on natural gas and coal for the time being.
2 Likes
The AI industry is trying something slightly useful for a change (they’re getting nuclear power plant built because AI consumes an unhinged amount of power)…
2 Likes
Are you serious or not with this?
1 Like
Yep. I still dislike the idea that power plants are being built to power nothing but this nonsense industry, but it’s always good if relatively green power sources are being funded, and it’s super nice that it’s coming largely from the pockets of the sort of people who invest in AI.
3 Likes
Who would’ve though…
I wonder when will these new types of thermonuclear reactors start getting build outside of experimental facilities…
2 Likes
Fusion reactors have a very good prospect. From what I’ve understood, they don’t produce nuclear waste like fission reactors do and apparently they can’t meltdown.
3 Likes
I hope that people don’t make up stuff to demonize them because “NucLEaR BaD!!1”. Eh, probably some still will.
2 Likes
On this subject, I think it would be a good idea to use nuclear energy as a transition station for renewable energies, as a substitute for energy that is already depleting.
Uranium is also depleting, but it is much more efficient than coal or gas and does not produce air pollution, so it is the best way to a greener future. Especially with the development of new technologies that are more efficient in both the use of nuclear energy (I remember a technology that uses nuclear waste recycling, but still in its infancy) and safety (look at the difference between the Fukushima disaster and the Chernobyl disaster in terms of area and effect), then I would say that they are the basis for a better world, if not for public opinion about the dangers (both from a justified basis but do not know precisely about the technologies and efforts to warn of the damage, due to the blood price).
On a personal note, my mother is considered a survivor of the Chernobyl disaster due to very bad luck and I know very well what happened there from her story, but that is another story.
In any case, the basic problems that seem to be getting worse over the years are energy shortages and overconsumption (electric cars, anyone?) which, ironically, requires even more energy to prevent, so I think nuclear is the best way as a stepping stone to new energies like fusion reactors (let’s say aside - at the moment I know, it requires an amount equal to the consumption of the city of Paris to start the latest research fusion reactor that managed to create more energy than was absorbed into it - still, a lot of energy to create energy) and with improved technologies in other sources and ideas - like Energy Tower (aka Downdraft), molten salt and gravity reservoirs that are able to create and store energy.
And, let’s not talk about the biggest central problem with renewable energy compared to nuclear - we still don’t have the technology to store a huge amount of energy! (Or in another name - giant batteries)
This is the biggest central problem that nuclear really has no problem with (being that it functions like coal plants in fact). Hydropower is the closest to solving this problem, but not everyone can use it without causing problems (look at what is happening between Ethiopia and Egypt with the Nile Dam without going into details) or can afford it (desert and dry countries it is useless).
And with other energies, they are not always available and that is the big problem with them. I guess you know that already.
In conclusion - nuclear is probably the most important thing to fight air pollution and global warming as a stepping stone to a better future - and there is no better time than now - before you regret it.
3 Likes
Nuclear fusion reactors to power electric planes would be nice.
3 Likes
There would still need to be lots of work done before these planes can takeoff and carry an acceptable amount of stuff.
1 Like
Getting fusion energy would be so nice, it would be nuclear energy without the “but the nuclear waste!” And you could fuel it with a moon base, or literally water and the only emissions are the building emissions and helium. The only disadvantage is Q>1 is always 20 years away no matter when you ask.
3 Likes
What is this “Q>1” you mentioned?
1 Like
Making more power than you put into it.
Benefit of fusion over fission is you can run open-cycle and no one can stop you. I mean, it may cause cancer, but like, don’t land in New York I guess?
3 Likes
I guess it would then face the same problem as project orion: cancer causing
1 Like