You said: “Adding an eyedropper full of water each minute is unlikely to change this outcome.”
It seems to me that NASA is trying to figure out how BIG the eye dropper is, and that, in my opinion, is something that should have been started long time ago.
The question is: If all the water that is put in, does not flow out , then how long will it take for the bucket to overflow?
Flow of power implies that something is happening during a certain amount of time.
You said: “The human race consumes something like 12 to 15 TW of energy” As I understand it, the CONSUMABLE energy is only somewhere around 33% of the total generated thermal energy from most power plants.
Nuclear power is different.
From this web site:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm
It says: “Breeder Reactor, actually produces more fuel than it consumes”
Even the “ordinary” reactors that are in use “breed” higher energy elements than what the original fuel is. Fossil fuels can not do that.
Off Topic » in reply to Time period is irrelevant. Watts are a measurement of power "flow."
Re: Time period is irrelevant. Watts are a measurement of power "flow."
The whole thread (31 posts)
- HEAR YE HEAR YE, The threatening THEORY explained again. (originally from Mysteries of the Multiverse)
- Re: HEAR YE HEAR YE, The threatening THEORY explained again.
- Re: HEAR YE HEAR YE, The threatening THEORY explained again.
- Re: HEAR YE HEAR YE, The threatening THEORY explained again.
- What is this again?