Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

That is fractional. What they are is potential heat sources, not unlike coal or oil. Yes, they give off heat due to radioactive decay. But the amount of heat is miniscule.

 

Yes, if someone wants to make that argument like that, they need to estimate that heat and then convert it to watts per square meter for Earth. Maybe they could throw in wild fires, wars, steel plants, etc.

I think they will find that they're not chasing a real issue.

 

Yes, and what makes them give off a lot more heat than they would in nature is the high concentration of slow neutron sources.

The point of a nuclear fission reactor is that the high concentration of fissionable material means the decay of one atom is likely to make another one decay much faster than normal.

What do you think runs the turbines?

 

No, not really. The actual temperature of a nuclear fuel rod when not in use in a reactor is only fractionally above ambient temperature (maybe 0.01f). As in, less than a full degree.

The "heat" one feels from such rods is mostly illusionary. The effect of atomic particles given off during radioactive decay striking the skin. But that is just the body's reaction to the radiation, it is not "real heat". That is why when exposed to such even in sub-zero temperatures you can get radiation burns. They are not "real burns" like you would get from a flame or heat source, it is the radiation itself damaging the cells of the body.

That is why people undergoing radiation therapy normally feel "hot", even in cold temperatures. They are not hot, their body temperature has not risen. That is their body reacting to the radiation itself.

But they do not give off "a lot more heat", outside of refined elemental form inside of a reactor. Or enough is placed in close proximity to reach critical mass.

 

But when it is in a reactor, producing electricity, it is much, much hotter.

The heat that turns water to steam to run a turbine isn't.

But they do when they are in a reactor.

Nuclear power plants are designed to stay subcritical, but produce a lot of heat to run turbines.

 

But the Earth is not a nuclear reactor. There is no fusion or fission going on in the core, just radioactive decay.

Therefore, even bringing this up is silly, as it has not a single thing to do with this thread at all.

Oh my dear, do you actually believe that?

That is not how it works, that is not how it works at all. If they were subcritical, there would be no fission at all.

 

We don't know what is going on at the core, but there is probably some fission. However, that is not relevant to your incorrect claim that nuclear reactor fuel is not hot.

Wrong. Criticality occurs when newly released neutrons equal absorbed neutrons. Reactors are designed to be critical when producing power -- i.e., when the rods are hot and producing the constant flow of heat that runs the turbines -- or subcritical (when they are not producing power), just never supercritical.

 

OK, make up your mind here, will you?

First you say they stay subcritical, then you describe what critical is. Then segue into supercritical.

You are the one that said reactors are subcritical. Which is incorrect. Then when I correct you you say that is wrong, then describe criticality.

And your definition of criticality is close, but not quite right. It is when the amount equals (but generally exceeds) the nuclear containment and can maintain a sustained fission chain reaction.

If it was just equal, the Second Law of Thermodynamics would quickly kick in and the reaction would end.

Therefore, your first statement is very much wrong, by your own later statement. If the reactor was subcritical there would be no atomic reaction, no fission, just radioactive decay.

However, if you want another example of a reactor that does work off of the heat from radioactive decay, then we can discuss Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators, or "RTGs". Now those do produce heat, and I never said that radioactive decay does not produce heat.

But to give an idea, I can only assume you have seen "The Martian". Where in one part the main character scavenged the RTG in order to provide some power and to stay warm. With about 40 kg of plutonium. And that is roughly 17 degrees f of constant heat. Of course, what he got was even less as otherwise he never would have made it from Acidalia Planitia to Schiaparelli Crater.

But in case you are interested, the total heat transfer from the core to the surface of the planet is around 45 terawatts. Which is really insignificant. Might as well talk about a room fan in a hurricane.

 

I did: the fuel rods in a working reactor are hot.

That's all tangential to the point: nuclear fuel in a working reactor is hot.

No; how much fission goes on in a reactor depends on the control.

How do you think a typical nuclear power plant produces electricity??

That at least you got right.

 

Via nuclear fission, which in itself most should know creates a lot of heat. Which raises the temperature of water past the boiling point and creating steam. Which then powers a turbine.

I have actually been inside a nuclear power plant and had all that explained to me. is not exactly rocket science.

An RTG is something else, however. It really provides very little power, along the lines of a Newcomen steam engine when compared to a later Watt steam engine (and is commonly called an "Atomic Battery"). For the US, they only really saw adoption in the space program, where they power a great many of our more distant probes. However, the Soviets used the damned things everywhere, including lighthouses. But an RTG is not a conventional "nuclear plant", and does not involve fission at all.

So the very fact that you felt the need to inject that immediately after I discussed what an RTG shows me that you really do not know how they produce power. And why the RTG is very different.

 

And for correction, last night I had been consuming a few beverages and could not remember what I was actually trying to reference so said Newcomen engine. When I was actually trying to say it was the Stirling engine.

 

On my property we had a really big Alder tree that towered over our house and was dropping branches that were as big as trees themselves sometimes.

I contacted the city and got permission to have the tree removed but first they send an arborist over to check out the tree because it is important to the city to protect our tree canopy.

The guy they sent over said that not only was it old, it had a disease so it would be good to get rid of it before it lands on the house.

They also require that I replace the tree with another one and I had to put $1000 down until the arborist comes back and agrees that I have replaced the tree.

When we got to talking he told me that due to the climate change over the last 20 years that trees that used to grow naturally here in the Vancouver B.C. area can no longer survive on their own and gave me a list of trees to choose from that he said will be much better suited to growing in the area.

For that arborist, there was no doubt that the climate in our area has changed a lot since he began his career. I have also read that the agricultural options for outdoor farming are changing here too and that within another 20 years we will be able to grow things typically grown further south in California.

Of course, none of this proves anything about climate change but I just find it interesting.

 

It has always been changing. Go back a couple of thousand years, and the only plants that grew there were lichen and moss. And in a couple thousand more years, palm trees will be able to grow there again.