Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob C
OK so I'm no scientist, or even physicist (Failed physics A level). Accepting the E=MC^2 rule, the issue is that uranium contains energy that is contained, pent up, whatever but naturally would be released over thousands of years.
Our nuclear processes release that in hours, or weeks (dunno, the excat time is irrelevant). The point is that we are in a relatively short time releasing a whole load of new energy in0to our planet's system, that nature would not have expected to deal with. Surely therefore Nuclear energy, can contribute to global warming  |
The idea/theory/ laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. All you can do is transform one form of energy into another. We usually burn items to (coal/gas/oil) to create heat which runs turbines that create electricity. But this is all rather inefficient (and depletes resources) Einstein's E=MC^2 says that anything that has mass (weight) has energy that equates to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light (don't ask me...). So everything has a fixed amount of energy. Some forms of creating energy in the way we require contribute to global warming more than others. Nuclear energy atm looks relatively clean (but has its drawbacks in terms of radiation/storage etc.).
Wind/water/solar/tidal energy on the other hand take renewable sources of energy and transform those to the type we require (and generally don't contribute to global warming much