I was thinking the same thing. It’s unfair compare chemical energy to nuclear energy. Coal still kind of sucks, but the hydrogen in the others could definitely be used in fusion…
It is perfectly fair in the context of “fuel”, a resource used to produce energy. Whether energy is generated via chemical or nuclear reaction is irrelavent in this case.
Yup. If, for example, you’re designing a deep space mission, where every gram counts, there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s cost effective (and appropriate risk) to send nuclear reactors and fuel aboard those spacecraft.
Or using modern engineering, whether an aircraft carrier should be powered by nuclear fission or internal combustion of hydrocarbons.
Usually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They’re a pretty common choice for space probes, for example.
That’s true, but there is far more energy to gain by fusing hydrogen compared to carbon. I’m not sure how it compares to uranium though. I suspect it might be similar. (I mean, obviously in practice you wouldn’t / couldn’t actually get the energy from fusing carbon - but we can still compare hypothetically. … also, I’m sure we could get a clear answer by looking it up; but this is one of those things where thinking about it is probably more interesting than knowing the answer.)
I was thinking the same thing. It’s unfair compare chemical energy to nuclear energy. Coal still kind of sucks, but the hydrogen in the others could definitely be used in fusion…
It is perfectly fair in the context of “fuel”, a resource used to produce energy. Whether energy is generated via chemical or nuclear reaction is irrelavent in this case.
Yup. If, for example, you’re designing a deep space mission, where every gram counts, there’s a conversation to be had about whether it’s cost effective (and appropriate risk) to send nuclear reactors and fuel aboard those spacecraft.
Or using modern engineering, whether an aircraft carrier should be powered by nuclear fission or internal combustion of hydrocarbons.
Usually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They’re a pretty common choice for space probes, for example.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/plutonium.png
We’re actually running into shortages of Plutonium 238. Which is seriously compromising deep space missions.
Coal still has carbon in it. Carbon does have a lot of excess energy per nucleus. Just gotta turn it into iron.
That’s true, but there is far more energy to gain by fusing hydrogen compared to carbon. I’m not sure how it compares to uranium though. I suspect it might be similar. (I mean, obviously in practice you wouldn’t / couldn’t actually get the energy from fusing carbon - but we can still compare hypothetically. … also, I’m sure we could get a clear answer by looking it up; but this is one of those things where thinking about it is probably more interesting than knowing the answer.)
Carbon and uranium are pretty comparable. Look up binding energy per nucleon.