Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Wearing out the hammer

Unfortunately, no...

You only get to win when the "other guy" admits that he has lost.

You can lead this horse to water, but you can't make him think...

Anyone with a basic scientific or mathematical education can work out the detonation velocity of a cube of TNT and hence the DURATION of the explosion. From this comes POWER (rate of doing work) not ENERGY (Amount of work done [or technically, do-able - but now we're into thermodynamics which gets messy...])

Whether this same person can cope with a nuclear-based process yelding slow power over long time versus thermal burning of chemical energy giving higher poer over drastically shorter timescales is a moot point.

People think that nuclear explosions are impressive, but they waste So much of the available energy. So too do "traditional" Uranium reactors. There are MUCH more fuel-efficient designs available that produce less radioactive waste, but unfortunately are ideal for breeding weapons-grade plutonium.

Politics does get in the way of science...

While we're at it, Johannes, why is it so much more difficult to build an Uranium bomb than a plutonium bomb?

And which one will heat the Earth's atmosphere more?

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (63 posts)