[audunw]

In terms of global warming, nuclear energy can never get to zero because they’re thermal power plants that directly contribute to warming of the planet. The effect is surprisingly significant. Though, as long as we’re burning fossil fuels, green house gases will dominate enough that I personally think we can consider nuclear energy as clean. I’m just wary of making it the primary solution.

[danw1979]

The thermal output of any nuclear or fossil fuel power station is not a significant source of global warming.

[fodkodrasz]

I’m happy to inform sounthat the palnet does emit thermal energy via radiation, so we likely won’t ignite it with nuclear/fusion powerplants emitting heat. Also: solar panels can actually get hot themselves. Think about it.

[nonethewiser]

How do they warm the planet? They don’t emit CO2 right? So are you saying its just from radiant heat, or what?

Seems hard to believe the heat it generates actually warms the planet.

[lozenge]

The process of refining ore is energy intensive and probably emits co2 in itself.

[eptcyka]

This is a moot point, if a power plant operates at any significant efficiency, it doesn't matter what the process of generating power is - the generated power will 90% of the time be turned into waste heat anyway.

[zelos]

In the long term, I guess light emitted to space and the embedded energy in spaceships are the only things that don't end up as heat in the atmosphere?

[eptcyka]

Electrically induced chemical reactions would also store the energy in a way that might not be released as heat, I think.

[127]

What's your alternative for cleaner primary solution for base load?