Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Joe Scott" channel.

No. That planet has normal day-night cycle and seasons. It probably only orbits around a variable star, with a cycle of some year.
2
As you said, Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun in a 3:2 spin orbit resonance. Even if that's probably more unusual than the 1:1 lock, that's probably not so much unusual (it only needs a certain eccentricity of the orbit). In a bigger planet than Mercury it means spin and geological activity (due to the same tydal force) needed for a magnetic field. IE, if Trappist D is tidally locked in a 3:2 cycle the time between a "midday" and "midnight" there will be of 4 of our days, that's still pretty comfortable. Probably those would be the "best" planets.
1
Renewables reached gird parity with fossils years ago. Nuclear never did. The cost per kw of solar and wind is descending so fast that, for when the small modular reactors will be ready, they'll be already no more economically viable. That of the size of the solar farms IS A FAKE PROBLEM. There's no need for solar farms at all. A diffused form of energy doesn't need to be collected in a centralised facility. There are roofs, and they are more than enough. It had ben calculated that covering of solar panels 1/4 of the surface of industrial warehouses in Italy, those will produce double the country's need of electricity. The ratio is no really different for other western countries.
1
@andrealazzaro9350 The material needed for nuclear is so hard to find that some engineer, looking at the energy spent in mining and processing uranium, doubts nuclear being a form of energy production at all. The cost of rooftop solar is currently from 3$ to 5$ per installed Watt, so it's already less expensive than the projected cost of advanced nuclear (even not counting the fact that nuclear tendo to overrun the expected costs). Manteinance costs for solar are negligible in any installation. Gas turbines are not needed to balance the grid and provide power at night. flywheel energy storage and lifting water work better, and actually the fluctuations of solar energy production are much more predictable than the sudden shut off of big power plants. Gas turbines are CURRENTLY used to balance the grid and provide power at night in countries that increased the solar production because the same introduction of solar made the already existing gas turbines overabundant.
1
@andrealazzaro9350 The price of uranium had been depressed since the Fukushima incident, for obvious reasons, ad is well below what the mining companies consider to be break-even point. In 2007 the price of U3O8 (so not of pure uranium) was of 251$/kg, despite the extraction being subsided in various ways. Lenzen, M. (2008) “Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review.” "Each kWh of nuclear electricity requires 0.1-0.3 kWh of life cycle energy inputs." (without counting the energy required in waste management and decommissioning of old plants) so, even at "10 times the energy required for their production" solar panels would already be more efficient than nuclear. In reality, depending on technology and location, solar panels produce from 9 to 30 times the energy required for their production assuming a 30-years life span.
1
@andrealazzaro9350 since it's not economically viable, it producing or not greenhouse gasses is academic. The abstract says "in the order, or sligtly lower", but it stated it in 2008. While nuclear haven't changed much since then, solar have. Not only solar panel production is much more efficient now (infact prices have collapsed), but solar panels are increasingly made using energy produced by solar panels. already in 2015 the estimated GHG emission of solar was 20-25 g CO2-e/kWh and descending ( Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development ) For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively.
1
@andrealazzaro9350 As already said: already in 2015 the estimated GHG emission of solar was 20-25 g CO2-e/kWh and descending ( Re-assessment of net energy production and greenhouse gas emissions avoidance after 40 years of photovoltaics development ) "For every doubling of installed photovoltaic capacity, energy use decreases by 13 and 12% and greenhouse gas footprints by 17 and 24%, for poly- and monocrystalline based photovoltaic systems, respectively". Since 2015 the installed photovoltaic capacity TRIPLED. The point is that only one of the sources is economically viable. The other is an economic dead end. It had always been, (and it doesn't produce less waste and pollution than solar, not even remotely).
1
@andrealazzaro9350 BTW, in 2020 China produced 3.5% of its electricity with solar https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2182487-chinas-2020-renewable-energy-output-rises
1
Any impact strong enough to spin a tidally locked planet to an earthhlike day lenght, would destroy the planet as well. As he said, Mercury is tidally locked to the Sun in a 3:2 spin orbit resonance. Even if that's probably more unusual than the 1:1 lock, that's probably not so much unusual (it only needs a certain eccentricity of the orbit). In a bigger planet than Mercury it means spin and geological activity (due to the same tidal force) needed for a magnetic field. IE, if Trappist D is tidally locked in a 3:2 cycle the time between a "midday" and "midnight" there will be of 4 of our days, that's still pretty comfortable. Probably those would be the "best" planets.
1
No. That planet has normal day-night cycle and seasons. It probably only orbits around a variable star, with a cycle of some year.
1