183 replies to this topic

[Mortecha]

 Dauth, on 27 May 2008, 22:36, said:

Half the renewable stuff cannot be used as a base line power source.

Take my last post as an equation and you'll get exactly what your post just said.

[Kichō]

 Dregan, on 27 May 2008, 13:35, said:

The best bet we as humanity can do, is provide the cleanest sources of energy whilst maintaining its cost effectiveness. Replacing older solutions with newer cost effective plans.

I agree with you, we should think of people and provide the most sufficient cleanest as possible energy source.
Btw the Chinese Nation + Other Nations have come up with the 'Kyoto Protocol' which is an organisation to combat Global Warming/Climate Change, though nothing has been discussed lately.. Only solution for now was Nuclear.

Who knows maybe a new energy source may popup later?

[Dauth]

Kyoto protocol is a load of bullshit, at best it shunts global warming back 10 years while crippling economies for 50. If we have a working economy we can investigate what humanity is doing since we don't even know if it's down to us.

[Mortecha]

Ultimately, unification is your goal?

[CommanderJB]

The real trouble with solar, other than its inability to provide a baseline supply, is its inefficiency and therefore its cost; a photovoltaic cell only converts something like 10% of solar radiation into electrical power, so solar panels are so expensive that they're really not viable and won't be until either oil and coal goes up so much people have no alternative, or they make some big refinements to photovoltaic cell design.

[Crazykenny]

And then there is the very experimental Cold Fusion. IIRC they got a prototype Tokomak in French somewhere? But to produce energy for electrolysis; you could perhaps cover the roof of the structure with solar panels, or windturbines. Hell, every renewable source that can produce considerable amounts of power.

[CommanderJB]

Cold fusion has never been replicated, and most people believe that the two guys who supposedly did it made it up (or if you're a conspiracy theorist were kidnapped by a dark military force). Normal nuclear fusion however has been demonstrated on multiple times, but at the moment we still need more energy to create the reaction than we get out of it, so it's not viable at present. Maybe in the future though we'll see some breakthroughs, in which case it could prove very important to energy supplies, hopefully from about 2050 onwards. It also depends on how well explorations of the Moon go - certain helium isotopes found there and nowhere else are the ideal fuels for fusion, so if we're able to get materials from there efficiently with electromagnetic accelerators or something then hopefully that'll ease pressure on energy supplies as well.

[Dauth]

 CommanderJB, on 30 May 2008, 8:24, said:

certain helium isotopes found there and nowhere else are the ideal fuels for fusion,

You best be able to back this up.

Helium is not ideal for fusion, in fact the formation of Helium 4 from Deuteron is the most effective reaction per atom. Sure you can add helium nuclei to other atoms but that's heavy.

Found nowhere else? This ought to be good.

There are 2 stable Helium isotopes, He3 and He4, He4 is hugely abundant, He3 not so much, and He3 is harder to fuse because it has a higher charge/mass ratio. Anything else decays in fractions of a second and can be safely ignored.

[CommanderJB]

Well, gee, sorry if I don't have an extensive, detailed university knowledge level of physics with which to detail every single post I make. If I was wrong, which I may have been - I never claimed to be an expert, merely outlined the facts as I knew them - then at least you don't have to be so acerbic about it. Nonetheless, having done a good thirty seconds of research I maintain that Helium-3 is sought after for fuel in fusion reactions thanks to both a memory I have of a TV documentary regarding ownership of the moon and Helium-3's article on Wikipedia. (Excuse a quick side-track; which is in my opinion no less reliable than Encyclopaedia Britannica I might add, save the odd, increasingly rare and almost instantly reverted case of vandalism which is offset by the better-quality content in every other area. I reference a test done by the BBC Focus magazine for this statement; if you debate Wikipedia's reliability, then I would kindly ask you go look up the article yourself as I don't have access to the magazine at the moment). While there are drawbacks it is nonetheless a preferable fuel source for whatever reasons you outlined; and while it may not be available only on the moon, it's more abundant and accessible there than any other option we have for sourcing it from.

[Dauth]

I don't dispute Wikipedia being useful, I will also point out in the opening post that any solutions suggested better be backed up with a reasonable scientific footing.

And using the same article I have found it's a second generation fuel. Something that will run on the products from the first fusion reactors, it has an even higher coloumb barrier than the Hydrogen fusion reactions, which currently don't work so it's not a viable solution.

In 40 years it may be powering a house, but that's not use if humanity is already wiped out.

[Mortecha]

Looking at the moon may be too ambitious at this stage. The costs of extraction and transport will heavily out way the return. Also we have no way of bringing effectively large amounts of helium on the larger scheme of things.

And I agree with Dauth, wikipedia isn't an accurate or viable source for information such as this.

[Dauth]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't dispute wikipedia, this means I agree that it is a useful source and indeed the one I used to check the proposition.

[CommanderJB]

 Dauth, on 30 May 2008, 23:35, said:

In 40 years it may be powering a house, but that's not use if humanity is already wiped out.

 CommanderJB, on 30 May 2008, 17:24, said:

Maybe in the future though we'll see some breakthroughs, in which case it could prove very important to energy supplies, hopefully from about 2050 onwards.

I agree, it's not a viable short- or medium-term solution. I also agree that looking to the Moon for resources is unrealistic in the short and medium term as well. All I was saying is that Helium-3 provides an attractive fuel for future fusion generation that would be possible for humanity to access given sufficient technology, incentive and time, say seventy years or so. The Moon is going to be mined sooner or later, it's just a question of when.

[Mortecha]

 Dauth, on 30 May 2008, 23:51, said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't dispute wikipedia, this means I agree that it is a useful source and indeed the one I used to check the proposition.

No probs, that was unintentional. If we really wanted to get technical here the wiki isn't really a reliable source, hence why nothing can be referenced from there from assignments for uni etc. But since this is just a discussion as we are in no position to plan, and implement such tasks it will suffice:P

[Rumpullpus]

i dont think there is anything we can do to stop global warming i read a article (btw i cant find it now sorry) that said that only 25% of the worlds CO2 gas actually comes from human development and the other 75% is coming from the worlds oceans through vocanic ativity and large amounts of methane gas ( methane btw is much MUCH worse then CO2) so the way i see it sure you can probably slow it down a little but its never going to stop.
that and the ice caps are already melting you see it on the news everyday. so instead of the sunlight being reflected off into space by the ice its being obsorbed into the water like a spunge raiseing water temperatures and melting more ice.

i dont think its going to be the end of the world ether though. even if all the ice in the world melts and temperatures go up 7 degrees world wide really all that means is about 30ft in sealevel rise and alot less seafood.

so i guess if you wanted to spend 100 trillion dollars on new inferostructure so you dont feel bad about your 25% i think clean coal is the way to go (atlest in US it is) we have more coal then the arabs have oil. you can also MAKE oil from coal. its probably the best since it would be the easiest to replace arab oil with. and while the government does that they can GRADUALLY change the system to be more diverse to other cleaner power ideas.

[Chyros]

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

methane btw is much MUCH worse then CO2

Actually CO₂ promotes the greenhouse effect three times more than methane.

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

i dont think its going to be the end of the world ether though. even if all the ice in the world melts and temperatures go up 7 degrees world wide really all that means is about 30ft in sealevel rise and alot less seafood.

And half my country drowning - the Netherlands is located beneath sea level .

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

you can also MAKE oil from coal.

Oh really? Do you happen to know how? I'd like to read up on that. Chemically coal and oil are rather different structures, so I'm interested.

[̀̀̀̀█]

I loled.

Or I didn't, turns out he was right. I could have sworn it was h-3....

NASA said:

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin's Center for Space Automation and Robotics, one of 16 NASA Centers for the Commercial Development of Space believe the future of energy production lies with helium-3. One ton could supply the electrical needs of a city of 10 million people when combined in a fusion reactor with a form of hydrogen.

Too tired to type out the rest of this post.

[Rumpullpus]

 Chyros, on 31 May 2008, 1:45, said:

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

methane btw is much MUCH worse then CO2

Actually CO₂ promotes the greenhouse effect three times more than methane.

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

i dont think its going to be the end of the world ether though. even if all the ice in the world melts and temperatures go up 7 degrees world wide really all that means is about 30ft in sealevel rise and alot less seafood.

And half my country drowning - the Netherlands is located beneath sea level .

 Rumpullpus, on 30 May 2008, 18:42, said:

you can also MAKE oil from coal.

Oh really? Do you happen to know how? I'd like to read up on that. Chemically coal and oil are rather different structures, so I'm interested.

Quote

While Americans rely on coal for 50 percent of our electricity, coal does not help contribute to our needs for transportation fuel. As a result, America is forced to get most of our transportation fuel from politically volatile parts of the world such as the Middle East.

Coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology is not an immature field. Germany and South Africa have been gasifying coal and turning it into low-sulfur diesel and jet fuel for decades.

Based on an U.S. Department of Energy formula, it would be economical to produce fuel from coal when the price of a barrel of crude oil is at least $54.

With oil hovering near $100 per barrel, we hope that America can roll out its first commercial-scale CTL refineries soon so that we can ensure our energy independence.

thats from http://www.americasp...sk-The-Experts/
WW2 germany also used coal liquifaction for much of its petrol needs.

on the methane i looked a little deeper into it and found that there is a dabate wether methane is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2. so i might be incorrect on that. i know i watched a thing about methane that said methane was more potent then CO2 by the ton when it came to greenhouse gases.

and since i live a good 600ft above sealevel i guess i should have said that im not worried about it my bad lol.
also probably not a good idea to build a city let alone a country below sea level.

Edited by Rumpullpus, 31 May 2008 - 06:19.

[Chyros]

Thanks for the info .

 Rumpullpus, on 31 May 2008, 8:11, said:

on the methane i looked a little deeper into it and found that there is a dabate wether methane is a worse greenhouse gas then CO2. so i might be incorrect on that. i know i watched a thing about methane that said methane was more potent then CO2 by the ton when it came to greenhouse gases.

Per unit of weight, methane and CO₂ are somewhat equal in greenhouse potency since methane is a lighter gas than CO₂. Per unit of volume though, CO₂ causes three times more change of net irradiance than methane does.

[Dauth]

*Quotes opening post*

Quote

What solutions are there to the problem of global warming (given that the globe is warming up and it is the fault of humantiy, beyond the norms of temperature change in recent history)?

I don't want dogmatic preachings I want an actual sceintifically viable solution.

I should also ask, for ones which don't cripple the economy, and may well be implemented by a Government.

So far I haven't seen anything viable.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 Dauth, on 31 May 2008, 12:15, said:

*Quotes opening post*

Quote

What solutions are there to the problem of global warming (given that the globe is warming up and it is the fault of humantiy, beyond the norms of temperature change in recent history)?

I don't want dogmatic preachings I want an actual sceintifically viable solution.

I should also ask, for ones which don't cripple the economy, and may well be implemented by a Government.

So far I haven't seen anything viable.

 Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Mar 2008, 9:46, said:

You know-there's been a technology around for about 50 years that could have solved this already.

Most people don't realize that nuclear power is really a wonderful energy source. For the same amount of energy the waste that nuclear power provides is much easier to deal with. Think about it-you could vhoose between having to bury a boxcar full of a very heavy metal for 500 years or somehow recapture 1,000,000,000 cubic meters of CO2 and somehow stop it from reaching the atmosphere.

A not-so-new technology called fast breeder reactors could make nuclear power even more efficient.I'm going to skip all of the technical speak and just ay it makes unusable portions of uranium-i.e. depleted- usable and this can be done several times until the sample is fully tapped out.THis has several advantages.It allows the same fuel to be reused many times thus saving tons of money and natural resources.THe waste that cannot be reused anymore is a huge amount less toxic and therefore doesn't need to be stored as long.

Nuclear Power is the only "green" techology that can provide enough power for a first world country.France gets 75% of its power from nuclear power plants and Japan gets 2/3s.America only gets 10% from fission.

If all of the globe's power needs were provided for using nuclear power, fuel supplies would probably last a century or wo.With fast breeders, it could be a millenia.

[AllStarZ]

Of course, with nuclear power plants, there is the problem of nuclear waste. You can rebreed the material for sure, but eventually it will cease to be effectively fissile but still remain dangerously radioactive for centuries to come. If people do switch over to nuclear to fuel most of our electricity needs, the waste will build up, even if the material is recycled. Plus nuclear reactor plants are expensive to build and maintain, and enough accidents happen over the years to make the choice slightly edgy. I remember reading that some technicians in Japan fairly recently screwed up on waste disposal and ended up killing 4 people.

Also remember that nuclear accidents can render entire areas of land uninhabitable for at least a century. And there was more than one Chernobyl. If you are ever in Eastern Europe driving, and there is a sign telling you to roll up your windows, you'd better do what it says.

My best solution is to make more efficient use of what we already have. Many appliances generate waste heat that is never utilized, and even use even more energy to rid themselves of that heat. Stand near a photocopier at work, and you will see what I mean.

Edited by AllStarZ, 01 June 2008 - 23:45.

[Admiral FCS]

The solution to global warming... Nuclear Winter. -E.V.E.

SERIOUS: Use Nuke Reactors instead of Coal Power Plants, Cold Fusion Reactor is the best.

MORE SERIOUS: Umm... Yeah use Solar Reactors, Wind Reactors, Nuclear Fusion Reactors, etc. environmental-friendly ones. Wash clothes use cold water. Ride bikes Friday-Sunday

[Dauth]

Nuclear would work, however very few governments can stomach the voter backlash due to poor understanding of reactors.

They don't go wrong any more, and the ADV CANDUs (Canadian design) can run on anything, weapons grade, waste, recycled waste, unprocessed uranium, processed uranium.

Edit

Quote

The solution to global warming... Nuclear Winter. -E.V.E.

SERIOUS: Use Nuke Reactors instead of Coal Power Plants, Cold Fusion Reactor is the best.

MORE SERIOUS: Umm... Yeah use Solar Reactors, Wind Reactors, Nuclear Fusion Reactors, etc. environmental-friendly ones. Wash clothes use cold water. Ride bikes Friday-Sunday

The big font doesn't impress.

Cold fusion is not a short term solution
The sources from Solar and wind cannot form a baseline and thus are just for PR, thanks for being sucked in to it.

Yeesh, if I had a pound for every damn stupid poorly understood branch of science I've had to correct, I would be able to buy a new computer every single fucking year.

Edited by Dauth, 01 June 2008 - 23:49.

[Admiral FCS]

Use few-by-products or good-by-products or no-by-products materials, as many as possible.

Nuke Reactors are actually pretty good, but nuclear waste, hmm, what can we do about it? Hulk army??

EDIT: Yeah I'm just in secondary soo... Even if I get A I'm not smart as you...

Edited by FHSSFCS, 01 June 2008 - 23:51.