>"Nuclear" reactor>It just boils water into steam that moves the turbine to generate electricityHow is this any different in principle to my kitchen kettle?
>>16787154>How is this any different in principle to my kitchen kettle?It isn't. Your kitchen kettle is also full of radioactive filth.
based OP recycling threads over and over to avoid wasting precious energy made from finite fissile isotopes that end up piling up in deadly radioactive underground landfills
>the normie hates the idea of using the same working fluid as James Watt>and yet they give a fuck when people uses CO2 or He instead of waterRemember, if someone complains about boiling water the opinions of that retard goes into the trash.
>>16787154well for one, a kettle doesn't emit neutrons.>>16787275and most power comes from natural gas, which uses air as a working fluid in the brayton cycle.
>>16787275>Remember, if someone complains about boiling water the opinions of that retard goes into the trash.My mom says I boil the water too hot and make it splash.
>>16787739doesnt all power on earth come from the sun?
>>16787992>doesnt all power on earth come from the sun?Does the geothermal heat come from the sun? Is the sun in the thread with us right now?
>>16787154your question is wrong, there are many difrent kinds of nuclear reactors
>>16787154hopefully one day we will have efficient infrared rectennas... I guess. I'm no expert on this, so ask someone else about the topic.
>>16787154>"internal combustion" engine in the bus I ride to work>it just ignites fuel and moves a piston>duuur how is this different than a forest fire?!?!OP is clinically retarded and poor
>most abundant liquid on the planet>rivers provide free water >uhh we shouldnt use it because... its not high tech enough
>>16788813nta but ya it does dumbass lmao
>>16787154>It just boils water into steam that moves the turbine to generate electricityAs far as I understand we've yet to conceive of a way of generating energy that isn't "moving a turbine, or a piston, with boiling water."In a way it's kind of disappointing, but in another way it's kind of interesting to think of how useful and revolutionary something like a steam engine really is that we've just never stepped out of its' shadow.
>>16788869There are alternatives to working fluids but all of them are vastly inferior in thermal efficiency and cost. It turns out that heating some fluid is a simple but effective way to turn heat into work. And most alternatives still uses a working fluid because at some point you're using matter (if you're rely on chemical reactions), things like magnetohydrodynamic generators are "just" replacing the turbine with a magnetic field. The alternative of fluid-less generators are things like photovoltaic generators that need an absurd temperature to work (like the sun) or thermoelectric generators that are ~10-100 times less efficient than a normal turbine or piston.And if you go full contrarian and ask for a direct nuclear fission/fussion to electricity conversion then the result is just like the magnetohydrodynamic but with worse because it's far more complex and problematic on Earth (where you're forced to make it compact instead of like the Earth's magnetic field take advantage of a huge "ball")
