Nuclear energy being dispersed

[Renagade 0]

What we need is a perpetual motion device on a planetary scale

I wonder what happens to all the energy that escapes of earth and flys off into space

[FSPilot 0]

@ June 13 2003,02:43)]Our public education system has enough problems without having to deal with two-headed kids lol.

Hey, they're twice as smart.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 13 2003,02:43)]Our public education system has enough problems without having to deal with two-headed kids lol.

Hey, they're twice as smart.

exactly, little bastards are revolutionizing spitwad technology

[Guest]

Just dump it deep inside some cave and it'll be fine  

Did no one read the link I posted?  

The coolant used in nuclear power plants is distilled and wont carry any radiation.(from what I heard, am I wrong?)

There are different types of systems. The open circuit plants run the coolant externally of the reactor tank and hence the water isn't very radioactive. Close circuit systems on the other hand have the cooling system integrated in the reactor core and the water is very radioactive.

Apart from the water used for cooling you have the water deuterium mix in the reactor core itself that acts as a moderator for the nuclear process (no I'm not joking, it's a physical term). That water is extremely radioactive and goes into long term storage with the fuel rods.

Nuclear energy is a fucked up concept where we hide stuff under ther rug for in most cases over 10,000 years. The long term storage facilities are supposed to survive that long. Yeah right.

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to nuclear energy today. And furthermore unfortunately the nuclear technology is not being developed and advanced. What we use now is 40 year old technology. It's not good. More money should be put on development on new realistic energy sources. Wind and solar power are BS. Not enough power/m^3.

[Jinef 2]

Anyway, I don't see a new energy source as a solution to the energy problem.

Ok so you don't want renewable energy sources.

Quote[/b] ]We should invest more in hydrogen cars and cutting down on how much energy we use.

Hydrogen cars? Have i missed something, i'm sure you didn't want a new energy source before.

Quote[/b] ]Then soon we'll be running out of hydrogen.

Yes as Seeker said, when you burn Hydrogen it creates water as it combines with oxygen, thus giving H20, so it is a 'renewable' energy source. I love it when you contradict yourself!

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Wind and solar power are BS. Not enough power/m^3.

Thats what I figured, they are expensive also arent they? (cost/output)

I saw somewere about a solar/steam powerplant that australia is building? It looks like a buegel (A brass instrument SP?) standing on the bell. The "bell" part is glass to heat up water wich makes steam and travels up the virtical tube and spins turbines. The problem with the design was that it has to be 3000 feet tall to be worth the cost/output of electricity. I think some european country made a mini one to test it?

I couldnt find any sites about it, but here is some research facilities for solar power here in the US

US solar research plants

[Jinef 2]

Geothermal is quite efficient, imagine if you got put shitloads of vents in mt st helens, loads of power and it wouldn't have lost it's head.

[Guest]

Wind and solar power are BS. Not enough power/m^3.

Thats what I figured, they are expensive also arent they? (cost/output)

The EU has an insane project in full progress of covering most of the Sahara desert with solar panels. That would be able to compensate for the nuclear reactors in use.

Waste of money IMO. There is a real need for a fundamentally new solution as electricity usage isn't exacly going down. You can imagine the situation once the third-world countries reach our levels of usage.

The money would be much better spent on fundamental physics research that can give real payoffs in 20-30 years.

Quote[/b] ]Geothermal is quite efficient, imagine if you got put shitloads of vents in mt st helens, loads of power and it wouldn't have lost it's head.

Yeah except for there is a 99,9% loss of energy when converting thermal energy to electrical energy.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Quote[/b] ]The EU has an insane project in full progress of covering most of the Sahara desert with solar panels. That would be able to compensate for the nuclear reactors in use.

What, are they just gonna rent it out? I wonder what the going rates are for leasing a hectare of desert?

[Die Alive 0]

Why doesn't the EU just download power off the internet, and for those that don't have internet connection, we can send then CDs full of 700mb of power.

BASTARDS! Hands off my power!

-=Die Alive=-

[Renagade 0]

The solar panels now still aren`t very efficient from what i`ve heard.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

Waste of money IMO. There is a real need for a fundamentally new solution as electricity usage isn't exacly going down. You can imagine the situation once the third-world countries reach our levels of usage.

How well do systems like this work were they heat oil to boil water and turn a turbine?

[earl 0]

I work at a large produce greenhouse where a cogeneration system is being installed. I don't clearly understand the whole project, we don't have much to do with it besides the fact that it's being installed at our site, but it is interesting:

http://www.jxj.com/magsandj/cospp/news/2003_02_03.html

Landfill sites produce a lot of methane gas from decomposing refuse, somehow that gets collected and was once burned simply to get rid of it. Since our site is near the landfill, it will be piped over to the new cogen powerplant where the gas will be burned for electricity, which will be used by the municipality.

So far this has nothing to do with our greenhouse, but as denoir said converting thermal energy to electrical is very inefficient. Instead of burning natural gas to heat our greenhouse, we will use the 'waste' heat from the cogen powerplant, saving money and fossil fuels.

So a byproduct of our landfills will create electricity and save us money, and reduce our dependancy on natural resources.

[FSPilot 0]

Here's my little idea to solve the energy crisis.

Why don't we use the greenhouse effect to heat up a container filled with water (or some other fluid that evaporates more efficiently) to boiling point. Then use the steam (maybe coupled with a venturi for improved efficiency) to turn a generator. My best guess is that it's probably too inefficient. It'd take a lot of time to get water to boil simply with the sun, and by the time you did the sun would set.

[earl 0]

I say we breed billions of hamsters and build billions of tiny generators...

[FSPilot 0]

PETA would never stand for it.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I really think the future is in biogas! To (almost) literally power your car or warm up your house with your own shit sounds like a dream come true!

[CosmicCastaway 0]

The money would be much better spent on fundamental physics research that can give real payoffs in 20-30 years.

At the same time as this, it would also be useful to invest in solar, wind, wave, whatever (alternative sources), for smaller projects such as new residential developments. There is no doubt with current levels of advancement, they are unsuitable for large scale power production. They're seen as a waste of money and time, and thus never get funded to the extent that would be required to improve the efficiency of their associated technologies. No funding, no progress ... no progress, no good results, no funding.  

Edit: Got carried away with the word 'develop'

[whisperFFW06 0]

What I really don't get is that we have the perfect example of continuous energy source, providing our planet with the majority of its energy, just above us, every single day of our life. Futur is not fission, it is fusion. And we have not yet been able to adapt the process, mainly because it seems that no one is interested, so research on it received near zero funding.

Well, I bet working with oil gives you much more money.

When will pple stop thinking with their wallet, I wonder.

Whis'

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]When will pple stop thinking with their wallet, I wonder.

Well I guess never. Some major oil companies are buying patents for alternative energy sources for big money. The buy them to put them into their safe and lock them up.

That´s really sad and should be punished by the government.

Solar power may be limited but it depends on the useage of the system.

We have/had a governmental initiative here in germany that was called the "100.000 Dächer Programm". Germany sponsors solar installations on private houses roofs and the people who have such a system get a guaranteed price for the electricity they contribute to the public electricity system. This installations have a pretty good efficiency and the program that was only thought of for 1 year is still running. A lot of people I know have solar cells on their roofes and are happy with it. Imagine every household in germany having these cells on the roofs. It would certainly contribute to the environment and cut our need to have conventional energy sources like fossile fueled plants or nuclear power plants.

An alternative for countries with coasts are tide plants that use the tides to get energy. I guess the netherlands have such a thing. Any dutch here ?

[whisperFFW06 0]

I was not talking about "solar energy", but nuclear fusion. The opposite of fission (hydrogen, deuterium atoms fusioned together, instead of uranium "broken").

It is what makes the sun shine.

It has better ratio than fission, produces minimal radioactive elements (pure hydrogen fusion doesn't produce any radioactive element, but is veeeery hard to achieve), and use one of the most common element on earth : hydrogen. An easier way is to use deuterium, present in water in big proportions (well, not so big compared to the ocean, but really enough for...phoooo.... a loooong time ).

Whis'

[PitViper 0]

I think that in general, nuclear is considered the most efficient energy when you compare the ratio of energy produced to the waste is generates.  I can smell some luddism when some people start "going off" on nuclear power in general.  That been said, nuclear is not the end all, be all when it comes to an energy source - it is extremely dangerous if not given the proper amount of respect (in as far as managing nuclear power plants). Hopefully we will find a new power source soon from something we have an abundance of, is relatively cheap to derive the energy from, and produces "waste" in very limited qualities.

We have an enormous supply of Nitrogen;  someone needs to figure out how to derive energy from it efficiently.

[BronzeEagle 2]

Sniff sniff. I am so...NOPE. I think that water is the best source of energy available. There is alot of talk about global flooding and things and I just think that there will never be a flood all over the planet but its a neat idea for a 90's movie feature Kevin Costner. We have two huge ice caps full of the stuff. Steam is so nice. Ahhh.

[Warin 0]

Atomic waste is the reason they invented the moon  

Argh!

Not a great idea, storing nuclear waste on the moon!

[Commander-598 0]

Why don't we launch it into the sun then? Just stick it on top a large missile and point it at the sun.