>I guess with nuclear it's just a matter of the scales involved.

Exactly my point. Coal is much worse for people than nuclear, even when accounting for MWh/year life lost. So many more people are affected by coal than nuclear.

It's like comparing car accidents to air accidents. Car accidents cause more deaths in total and per mile traveled, but people freak out about air accidents because there are more deaths per accident.

Or where you trying to imply that mining and heavy industry actually pay out all the indemnities they should, but nuclear plants don't? Politics kind of makes that improbable.

Still don't understand the "nuclear expert" comment. Are you referring to yourself as the "nuclear expert" or to me?

But

no results

So you are a lawyer, nuclear physicist, public health expert, and economist.

Are you implying that I am the economist/lawyer/nuclear physicist or you are?

>indemnities

That sounds like law. Not sure what you're getting at with the nuclear expert comment.

Or where you're going with this in general. But do you think kids growing up around coal generators that get asthma get a big pay out from the companies? IF they did I don't think coal plants would exist.

Not sure what you mean, but I think that falls into the field of economics. Or public health.

>privatizing profits and socializing the costs

How is this different than oil or coal? Or heavy industry?

Pollution is socialized cost with privatized profits. Mining coal destroys environments. Burning coal causes asthma.

Seems nuclear would reduce socialized costs.

It was 3rd degree.

I get the feeling you'd rather "win" an "argument" than be correct. Your whole premise is born of ignorance, but it's easier for some to remain ignorant than to recognize they are wrong.

Heat has infinite energy density, so we should just burn coal for rockets. <- your logic at work.

Depends on the car.

Where did the light come from?

Where does the solar energy on the surface of the earth come from?

Yes, exactly. Solar energy is fusion.

Einstein's most famous equation (E=mc^(2)) limits energy density of any fuel to 9 x 10^(10) MJ/kg

And that would be an antimatter reactor. Physics means no fuel can have infinite density.

Solar energy is hydrogen fusion, deuterium–tritium fusion is about 338,000,000 MJ/kg.

But we don't have the technology to create miniature suns in our rockets.

BTW, U-235 fission has an energy density of about 144,000,000 MJ/kg.

source

Another source puts the energy density of the sun's core around 6.43 x 10^(8) MJ/kg, or 643,000,000 MJ/kg.

The second source is titled The Source of Solar Energy.

Does anyone know what the total mass of the exhaust* (momentum generator) would be in a nuclear rocket versus a chemical one?

And what would that exhaust* be?

*I'm not sure what the correct term is, maybe propellant?

Nuclear reactors use light as the energy for power.

Coal generators use light as the energy for power.

Natural gas generators use light as the energy for power.

Geothermal generators use light as the energy for power.

Light is the way energy is transferred from one atom or molecule to another atom or molecule.

Heat is light.

For example:

Coal is burned, the chemical reaction creates lots of photons. Those photons get absorbed by water molecules. The water molecules become excited. Excited water molecules move faster. Faster moving water molecules have more kinetic energy. Steam is the result. High velocity steam spins a turbine. The turbine spins a magnetic field inside an coil. This produces electricity.

Energy density is really a measure of the number and energy of the photons generated by a certain fuel. Light is not the fuel (hint: fusion).

Solar power is neither infinite in energy density, total amount of energy or duration of energy.

Not sure what you mean by "Solar is infinite."

Basically everyone is saying:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_point_(thermodynamics)

For water that would be 374^(o)C and 218 atm

Next thing we are going to learn is that half of Indonesia's homicides happen on one island.

I like thinking about things like this, but it's not depressing to me. I find it liberating: no matter what I do it will only matter to those who matter to me.

Let's say that humanity (or its progeny species) could exist for ever. YOU will still be forgotten when everyone you've ever known dies. Even if you had some great achievement in life, you will be forgotten eventually. 1,000,000 years from now it seems doubtful that whatever species is the descendant of humans would care or remember who Archimedes is.

So either way, it's inevitable that you will have no grand impact on the universe or even our species. Embrace it. It's freedom. Stay home when your daughter is sick, she'll remember it, but your boss won't remember you coming in. Etc.

Life is the universe's greatest joke. Learn to laugh and don't take it seriously.

What is, is. What will be, will be. What has passed, is past will be twisted to fit a narrative.

Trying to control outcomes will not change the outcome, it will only frustrate you. Enjoy the ride. Like a roller coaster, strap in and stop thinking about it (unless thinking about it brings you joy, but given the tone of the post it seems to bring you distress).

Pretty sure it's native to Ethiopia.

My mind is absolutely blown that coffee didn't leave Ethiopia until 1414. Imagine the change in history if Rome knew about coffee [earlier].

(I guess technically the Roman Empire lasted about 40 years after 1414).

Why choose a circle? It distorts perception.

The area taken from 6 am to noon is nearly half the area from noon to 6 pm. What justifies this design choice from a data visualization perspective?

Luckily for King County, WA they are use to issuing material in about 8 different languages.