Christophe wrote:
b) on the other hand, all the fossil energies reject, in addition to the nasty bad CO2 (that one tends to demonize or rather to marketise a little too much for my taste now ...) important quantities of water! Example: 1 L fuel will release about 1 L of water. To burn oil or gas is to transform the oxygen of the atmosphere into CO2 AND H2O! In our usual media blindness, we tend to ignore this water. I think it's a mistake!
Indeed: vapor or water in suspension is a greenhouse gas and a much more important and influential "climate gas" than CO2. The only difference is that water condenses much more easily ... but its impact, at least local, should not be neglected!
Christophe, I think that sometimes you reason a little like a drum! It's not enough to make noise around an idea ...
Sorry, it escaped me! (I have decided elsewhere against shouting, insults, etc. on forums - there, this is humor)
Water (visible - liquid) or gas (invisible) and solid (ice), has always been (well for a very long time) everywhere (except deserts - even there, there is). So, roughly, there is a balance, which also leads to rain, fog and other things you know well in Belgium (saturation at a certain temperature) ...
In short, I think that the “waste” water from the combustion of fossil fuels does not weigh very heavily in terms of the global balance sheet! Of course, I put forests, evapotranspiration of plants, etc ... in the "natural stock" of the globe ... And of course the oceans, ice caps ...
Around a cooling tower (not only nuclear power plants), it will probably fall a few more flakes. And there is probably a little more fog ...
I am convinced that it is peanuts, and not even! Plant a nuclear power plant in the desert, it will remain a desert ...
And if you are looking for a "source of heating other than CO²", I will give you one: all the condensations above the towers, have you already calculated what this gives in terms of latent heat of condensation? It is HENORME (at the scale of the plant - roughly the heat used to evaporate the water so twice the useful power of the plant) and peanuts at the scale of the region (otherwise, we would no longer have winter).
So of course, the greenhouse effect has always existed, otherwise we would be in a sacred freezer on earth! Notably thanks to the water vapor (and clouds, so micro-goutelletes liquid water).
What is worrying is not the greenhouse effect (if not, help!) But the'increase the greenhouse effect!
And here, CO² plays. The stock at the beginning was peanuts and it increases, without condensing anywhere, without possible equilibrium (even if the oceans absorb enormous quantities, the biomass where it is growing too - unfortunately, it tends to diminish: deforestation depletion of soils in humus).
On the other hand, the warming of the earth (initiated by CO² among others), can, in certain areas, result in an increase in evaporations by rising temperatures, and therefore increase the quantity of water vapor in the air. There is therefore a "snowball effect" (except that it is hot). But this also results in more significant condensation elsewhere (therefore flooding). This is the "El Nino" system ...
So, in short, your crusade to "rehabilitate CO²" by "wetting" the water vapor seems difficult to me to support ... We must not take the scientists who study THAT for idiots ... Of course, they are subject fashion effects (to obtain funds), etc ...