I don't think the GP is bemoaning how "natural" the process seems, but how inefficient it is. It's pretty much the best we've got currently, given the choices we've made (including those broadly detailed in The Fine Article). That said, there's an aesthetic level at which you kinda have to look at the thermal efficiency of a nuclear power plant — which is, AFAIK, like 30-some percent — and wish we could somehow do better, given all the infrastructure and risk involved.
So has anyone ever calculated the effect of the heat output if all of our power consumption were supplied by nuclear power? (at 30% conversion efficiency). Would the earth just radiate that extra heat off, is it negligible for all practical purposes?
Probably not much different. I'm pretty sure most fossil fuel power plants have comparable efficiencies. It's not like the steam produced by burning dinosaurs is somehow less capable of driving a turbine than what comes from splitting atoms.
