Timeline for Is it possible that nuclear fission contributes to climate change?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14, 2012 at 20:00 | history | edited | 410 gone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 83 characters in body
|
| Sep 14, 2012 at 19:42 | comment | added | David Z | I had a similar thought to Ron, it's really misleading to start your answer off saying "yes" when the rest of the answer appears to be devoted to proving "no." | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 18:07 | comment | added | Yrogirg | @CatherineHoy for some strange reason they contrast mass and energy, but roughly if you have one you have the other. Probably en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence will clarify. In nuclear fission one atom splits in two, the two combined are lighter then the original atom. The mass difference is the energy you gain $\Delta m c^2$. | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 17:35 | comment | added | Catherine Hoy | @Yrogirg, this is something that I read and copied from this site library.thinkquest.org/C006011/english/sites/thermo2.php3?v=2 | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 16:33 | comment | added | Colin K | It's very important to understand that direct contributions to global heat content, while potentially interesting, are utterly meaningless in relation to climate change. Climate change is an alteration of the global equilibrium temperature, not the heat content at any particular instant. Above the equilibrium temp, any heat we add will simply radiate away; below equilibrium, the earth will absorb solar radiation. | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 13:32 | comment | added | Yrogirg | @CatherineHoy "However, this law does not apply to nuclear energy because it is produced when atoms of matter are split or fused." The law of energy conservation perfectly holds for nuclear reactions. Why do you think the opposite? | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 13:24 | history | edited | 410 gone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 352 characters in body
|
| Sep 14, 2012 at 13:23 | comment | added | 410 gone | @CatherineHoy I think that's already covered by the answer. There are no significant implications, because the effect is tiny: $0.025W / m^2$ from all non-renewable energy sources. I'll update the answer to clarify that releasing locked-up chemical energy is no different to releasing locked-up nuclear energy, as far as global heat content is concerned. | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 13:17 | comment | added | Catherine Hoy | Thank you for your response and that is certainly an interesting renewables distinction. The Law states that energy can only be modified from one form to another. It cannot be manifested or destroyed. For this reason, the sum of the amount of heat transferred in a system and the work done on the system is equal to an increase in the internal energy in the system. However, this law does not apply to nuclear energy because it is produced when atoms of matter are split or fused. What are the implications of this? | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 12:48 | history | edited | 410 gone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 503 characters in body
|
| Sep 14, 2012 at 12:44 | comment | added | Alan Rominger | I suppose it would be an interesting distinction to note that renewables in principle don't contribute to the Earth's heat content. Actually, this would be as good of a definition for "renewable" as any. | |
| Sep 14, 2012 at 12:42 | history | edited | 410 gone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 503 characters in body
|
| Sep 14, 2012 at 12:28 | history | answered | 410 gone | CC BY-SA 3.0 |