• Screen_Shatter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        So my general understanding is that you can use a magnet to create an electrical current. Its like it pushes the electrons, like a paddle pushing water. So they coil a bunch of wire around a magnet and rotate the magnet, which moves the electrons in the wire and that gets you electrical power. But you need something to push that magnet around, so you attach that to a big ass fan and use steam to push the fan. That’s your turbine. Nuclear power is just using a hot rock to make the steam. Hydroelectric power uses a river to push the turbine. Wind power is doing the same thing, just uhhh, with wind.

        • Vespair@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Jesus christ this comment deserves a noble prize. Incredibly succinct explanation of something I didn’t get before.

      • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not really sure how else you’d do it. The energy we can get out of fission is in the form of heat, and steam isn’t as compressible as just gas and it’s easy to make with just heat. Combine that with electromagnetism giving you electricity by spinning some magnets around some coils, and there you go.

        It’s probably possible to get some air hot enough and do some fancy convection work to get it to spin a rotor, but that’s going to be really inefficient.

        You could also use the heat to make materials glow and put a solar panel nearby, but that’s also going to be pretty inefficient.

      • gens@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Turning heat into mechanical or chemical or electric energy directly is really hard, you know.

        It’s funny that you can get more energy from gas by using it to heat water and using a steam turbine to drive whatever. It’s just not always practical.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I swear Nuclear Reactors were designed by a chemist with a grudge against a physicist and engineer.

  • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Plot twist: In the original timeline, nuclear power generation didnt exist. Some time in the future, OP will become a time traveller and end up getting stuck in the past and therefore brining this idea to fruition, which is why we are on this timeline.

    (OP, got any aspirations got being a time traveler yet? Come on, ya gotta complete the time loop.)

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.

      Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.

      • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s a lie. Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces. They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass. Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.