Nuclear Reactors - Not CO2 - Are The Likely Cause of "Global Warming/ Climate Change"

For a long time now we have all been hearing that the sky is falling, the climate is changing drastically, the earth is warming up at an alarming rate and the cause of that is Carbon Dioxide (CO2), in other words, it's man made -bad bad humans. Hence the push toward sustainable energy and banning vehicles with internal combustion engines in the next few decades.

This is not my theory. This is a theory of a family member who has worked in the nuclear industry and that's about all I will say about that, as it is a very small industry and not many people have the knowledge this person has. So I would like to try and keep them anonymous. They are also not aware I am posting this, as I am sure they would personally be put off by this site, but I have spent a lot of time talking to them about this, and to me - it seems to make sense. At least, in the sense that if we are going to entertain the thought that CO2 is the culprit, we should at least be open to this likely cause of "global warming".

Now that said, I am not a scientist. I do not have any expertise in nuclear physics or climate science and I am not going to pretend I have a wealth of knowledge in those departments. However, the person who has shared this theory with me, DOES have a vast amount of knowledge of this topic. So I will do my best to relay it here. By all means I am open to discussion and criticism, which is why I am posting this here. I certainly have not asked all the questions that others may think of.

To begin, we have to understand and agree that CO2 is a self correcting system. We all learned around grade 5 science that CO2 is converted into O2 by plant life, through photosynthesis. This is a fact. We don't like CO2 has humans, we actually exhale CO2 - where plant life inhale CO2 and exhale O2. There could not be a more symbiotic relationship.

Plant life also uses solar energy (heat/ light) to make this photosynthesis process happen. Over time, as the plant goes through it's lifespan, it will eventually decay. For plants and even animals who have consumed the plants, which have gone through their lifespans hundreds of millions of years ago can become fossilized. In the past 100 years we have learned to extract and use these fossils as fuel.

Now, when we burn these fossil fuels, they create not only the CO2 exhaust, but they also create something known as anthropogenic heat.

A quick google search about what anthropogenic heat is finds this:

"Heat released to the atmosphere as a result of human activities, often involving combustion of fuels. Sources include industrial plants, space heating and cooling, human metabolism, and vehicle exhausts"

The reason for this to occur is because the energy trapped inside the fuel is being released when we burn said fuel, so our cars and planes go weee and our lights go on in the kitchen from the coal power plants, etc.

Technically, in the sense of former plant life which is now a fossil fuel, it can be summed up as ancient solar energy. The heat has already been exposed to the atmosphere at one point or another and releasing it back into the atmosphere, should not illicit a drastic change in the stability of the climate. As for the CO2 that comes along with it, well, so long as we have enough plant life on earth, everything should be stable.

In the case of nuclear energy though, the source of energy is not a fossil. The the energy it contains did not come from life on earth which reaped the energy benefit from our sun. Uranium, which is used as fuel in nuclear reactors (U235), was formed in supernovas approximately 6 billion years ago. The radioactive decay in the earths crust can actually account for about half of the earth's heat-flux.

However, the reaction which is caused in a nuclear reaction, like that of a nuclear reactor core, using U235 and tritium (hydrogen -3, a radioactive isotope) then creates a MASSIVE amount of energy (heat) in respect to the amount of fuel used. Only about 30% of the heat is used to heat up water, in the boilers, which then create steam to then power the turbines that create electrical energy. The other 70% of the heat created is either sent directly into the atmosphere as H2O vapor or is transferred into water directly through the cooling systems which are constantly pumping cold water in and sending hot water back out into the water cycle.

This is where things get interesting. The water cycle, for some reason, has been largely ignored by climate science. They seem to have tunnel vision in regard to CO2 being the only and most abundant culprit of global warming/ climate change. In fact, H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Which makes sense, just look out your window and you'll likely see some in the sky, aka clouds. However, if we begin heating up the water cycle with heat that is not origionally from our sun, would we not be putting more heat into that water cycle which is not "natural"?

Let's think about what those impacts could be. The oceans are big Sparkymedic, how on earth could 200+ nuclear power plants make a global impact? Well, "nuclear reactions liberate a large amount of energy compared to chemical reactions. One fission event results in the release of about 200 MeV of energy, or about 3.2 ´ 10-11 watt-seconds. Thus, 3.1 ´ 1010 fissions per second produce 1 W of thermal power. The fission of 1 g of uranium or plutonium per day liberates about 1 MW. This is the energy equivalent of 3 tons of coal or about 600 gallons of fuel oil per day, which when burned produces approximately 1/4 tonne of carbon dioxide. (A tonne, or metric ton, is 1000 kg.)"

www2.lbl.gov...#:~:text=Nuclear%20reactions%20liberate%20a%20large,1%20W%20of%20thermal%20power.

It's worth noting that these nuclear reactors are generally operating 24/7 worldwide. And have been for many decades now.

How could this massive amount of heat impact the water cycle? Well, if you heat up water, it usually turns into a vapor. That part of the cycle is the clouds in our atmosphere, and when they get saturated, it rains, pours and sometimes we have hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, etc. The more you heat the water though, the more of it will be in the atmosphere. The water cycle is fragile. You cannot have too much or not enough water in the atmosphere at one time. Nature has a way of balancing itself. And indeed, CO2 could impact the climate, IF we don't have enough plant life to convert it to CO2.

So, while this nuclear energy waste heat is technically anthropogenic (caused by humans), the source of that fuel is not the same as oil or other fossil fuels. The energy that created that oil came from our sun and at one point or another was exposed to our atmosphere and has laready played a role in the mean atmospheric temperature.

The energy which is released from the nuclear reaction is a totally new source of heat that has never been seen on this planet before. It has never interreacted with life on earth and it has never been exposed to our atmosphere. Therefore, I suggest that this is a true cause of global warming - if it is truly man made and not a natural implication of sun cycles.

Again, if we are to believe that all the cars and such on the planet are making an invisible to the naked eye gas, heat up our atmosphere, thereby causing severe weather, then why would we not consider an unbalanced water cycle caused by nuclear reactor anthropogenic heat?

a reply to: Sparkymedic

I'm pretty sure that the multitude of nuclear weapons tested throughout the cold war didn't help.

As for nuclear power, it makes more sense than any "green" alternative the climate alarmists are proposing right now.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

To begin, we have to understand and agree that CO2 is a self correcting system. We all learned around grade 5 science that CO2 is converted into O2 by plant life, through photosynthesis.

Sorry dude, had to pull up at this point.

CO2 is self correcting in the sense that you mention. But ....... WHEN YOU CUT THE TREES DOWN ....... that idea fails. We've been burning the candle at both ends.

You might want to do a little investigation into actual deforestation rates.

You could start here if you like.

1 ) Learn about nuclear reactions (and reactors)
2 ) Learn how many nuclear reactors there are in the world that are functioning today .
3) Take a flight around the world
4) Come back and have thread pulled.

a reply to: Gothmog

I'd like to add another point.

5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog

I'd like to add another point.

5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.

Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

Have you considered that misplaced solar energy also plays a huge role in heat?

Look at any city from the sky.
Hundreds of acres of black tar roof tops, roads, parking lots.... a nice sunny clear sky day dumps megawatts of energy into those surfaces, which used to be either green plants (absorbing energy) or light colored sand (reflecting energy)

LA is 500+ square miles. 322,000 acres, and almost no unmolested surface area.... absorbing sunshine and converting it into heat, all day every day.

The earth goes thru cycles remember the ice age that was coming in the 70's. The only thing that sickens me more than those who ignore the past are those who capitalize it using fearmongering and lies to twist things to further enslave us.
Where are you going to be in the next few decades when the next cold wave hits? Still claiming "global warming" is caused by nukes while wearing a sweater sweatshirt long underwear and a koozies? I used to be a "global warming" warrior until I researched it, starting listening to the agenda they were pushing and realized it was garbage. Didn't we pass Gore's date (when that shill picked up the cause it really opened my eyes) like almost ten years ago (sorry I don't try to remember lies so I do not know exactly other than it has past) and guess what nothing happened.

Made from carbon...a reply to: Gothmog

Actually the contrails produced by jet aircraft are the cause of global warming. They create artificial clouds, which in turn holds in the natural solar heat that would radiate into space.

Remember at the height of the pandemic, when air travel came to a near stop. World wide weather, became unseasonably cooler. Just my thoughts.

originally posted by: Nickn3
Actually the contrails produced by jet aircraft are the cause of global warming. They create artificial clouds, which in turn holds in the natural solar heat that would radiate into space.

Remember at the height of the pandemic, when air travel came to a near stop. World wide weather, became unseasonably cooler. Just my thoughts.

I really hope that's sarcasm .
Really.

a reply to: Sparkymedic

To me, this sounds highly probable and I would come closer believing this theory over the
BS we have been fed all of these years. The Co2 hype just did not compute, for me.
Good post.

originally posted by: myselfaswell
a reply to: Sparkymedic

To begin, we have to understand and agree that CO2 is a self correcting system. We all learned around grade 5 science that CO2 is converted into O2 by plant life, through photosynthesis.

Sorry dude, had to pull up at this point.

CO2 is self correcting in the sense that you mention. But ....... WHEN YOU CUT THE TREES DOWN ....... that idea fails. We've been burning the candle at both ends.

You might want to do a little investigation into actual deforestation rates.

You could start here if you like.

I don't deny this at all. It's a major factor. But then if this is a factor along side what I mentioned, then really and truly, is the problem CO2 or lack of air filters (Forests)?

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog

I'd like to add another point.

5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.

Where do you think fuel comes from exactly?

originally posted by: Gothmog
1 ) Learn about nuclear reactions (and reactors)
2 ) Learn how many nuclear reactors there are in the world that are functioning today .
3) Take a flight around the world
4) Come back and have thread pulled.

Awesome comment.

Could you be more vague?

I've heard that water vapor is the number one greenhouse "gas", although technically it's not a gas. Water holds a lot of heat in liquid or vapor form.

One of the posters mentioned the heat captured in the asphalt jungles that drives up the temperature in urban areas. Apparently many weather stations are situated in these over heated environments and are inflating the regional averages thus contributing to global warming data. There are efforts to green up city roof tops, but that's an expensive idea that can't be good for a flat roof on an old multi-story building, could be a fire hazard as well.

Plants of all kinds are good at making O2 from CO2. Algae is really good at it and grasslands aren't too far behind forests for sequestering carbon. So let your lawn grow tall, let moss cover your roof and let your pool get green and slimy to help erase your carbon foot print. Maybe stop brushing your teeth until they turn green too.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog

I'd like to add another point.

5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.

Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.

Would love to see that research. Care to share?

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: Gothmog
1 ) Learn about nuclear reactions (and reactors)
2 ) Learn how many nuclear reactors there are in the world that are functioning today .
3) Take a flight around the world
4) Come back and have thread pulled.

Awesome comment.

Could you be more vague?

Only vague to the "uninformed" .

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Gothmog

I'd like to add another point.

5) Learn that fuel doesn't come from fossils.

Agreed .
And there has been some research that "fossil" fuels may well be replenishing between the crust and the mantle. It actually oozes up from below.

Would love to see that research. Care to share?

Check it out .
Drop the YouTube education .
There is a whole IOT ( Internet Of Things) just waiting for you .

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Sparkymedic

I'm pretty sure that the multitude of nuclear weapons tested throughout the cold war didn't help.

As for nuclear power, it makes more sense than any "green" alternative the climate alarmists are proposing right now.

Absolutely, I agree. And nuclear reactors are creating a similar reaction, 24/7, 365 for decades. And even if there are only 150 or 100 out of 200 running at any point, the total heat creation from a significant chain reaction, releasing energy not created by the sun, but similar in strength, I think, would have an effect on the climate.

And on top of all that...nuclear reactors are extremely unsafe, compared to a coal or LNG plant.