183 replies to this topic

[AllStarZ]

Please factor this in: proliferation of nuclear technology may also lead to an increased risk of nuclear material being used for dangerous purposes.

And again, there was more than one Chernobyl.

[Admiral FCS]

So u mean More Nuke Reactor= More Real CoD4??

[Dr. Strangelove]

AllStarZ, on 2 Jun 2008, 0:43, said:

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.

Actually, fast breeder reactors would make waste far less radioactive, and it would only be harmfully so for ~300 years as opposed to 1 or 2 thousand.

The waste problem is seriously overrated. All you have to do is bury the stuff underground. You could use exhausted mines and such to save money. This is infinitely easier to do than sequester a gas like CO2.

Amen at that last part.

FHSSFCS, on 2 Jun 2008, 0:43, said:

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

Mentioning fusion of any sort is akin to wishing for magic. Saying "Well in 20 or 50 years they'll invent fusion" is akin to saying "in 20 or 50 years they'll invent magic". Unless you explain how the technology works it's basically just wishing for magic.

AllStarZ, on 2 Jun 2008, 0:59, said:

Please factor this in: proliferation of nuclear technology may also lead to an increased risk of nuclear material being used for dangerous purposes.

And again, there was more than one Chernobyl.

If put through a fast breeder reactor several times, waste would be useless to any would be nuclear threats.

[AllStarZ]

Dr. Strangelove, on 1 Jun 2008, 23:00, said:

AllStarZ, on 2 Jun 2008, 0:43, said:

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.

Actually, fast breeder reactors would make waste far less radioactive, and it would only be harmfully so for ~300 years as opposed to 1 or 2 thousand.

The waste problem is seriously overrated. All you have to do is bury the stuff underground. You could use exhausted mines and such to save money. This is infinitely easier to do than sequester a gas like CO2.

Amen at that last part.

AllStarZ, on 2 Jun 2008, 0:59, said:

Please factor this in: proliferation of nuclear technology may also lead to an increased risk of nuclear material being used for dangerous purposes.

And again, there was more than one Chernobyl.

If put through a fast breeder reactor several times, waste would be useless to any would be nuclear threats.

300 years is still a long enough time. 300 years is more than the entire history of the United States to this point.

And burying waste underground IS expensive, and CAN cause environmental damage, and CANNOT be put just anywhere. You have to put the waste into lead-lined containers, then you have to build the concrete shell that has to surround them. Furthermore, you have to factor in environmental factors. For example, any sources of underground water, or if the area in question could be subject to earthquakes. The former could be a risk if somehow the shell were to be compromised, in which drinking water may then be contaminated, which is more dangerous than letting it sit in the air, and the latter means that the former is more likely to happen, among other things. And with urban expansion and whatnot, in 50 years time, an old waste disposal site. Furthermore, the highly efficient rebreeder reactors you propose are also next generation technology in themselves.

What I meant was that with more plants active, you're going to have more traffic to and fro those plants. And furthermore, you have not addressed my question of Chernobyls. They can, have, and to a lesser extent, still happen today.

Again, my key solution is to be more efficient. Internal combustion engines are at best 30% efficient on their own. Most of the energy they produce turns into heat, which itself uses up more energy in order to reduce. Perhaps in the future, there will be some means of converting heat directly into energy (instead of using steam to power turbines which then turn electrical generators la di da da dee wastes energy bla bla bla). But there are measures we can take now to make a more efficient world.

Edited by AllStarZ, 02 June 2008 - 04:30.

[Dr. Strangelove]

AllStarZ, on 2 Jun 2008, 4:27, said:

300 years is still a long enough time. 300 years is more than the entire history of the United States to this point.

And burying waste underground IS expensive, and CAN cause environmental damage, and CANNOT be put just anywhere. You have to put the waste into lead-lined containers, then you have to build the concrete shell that has to surround them. Furthermore, you have to factor in environmental factors. For example, any sources of underground water, or if the area in question could be subject to earthquakes. The former could be a risk if somehow the shell were to be compromised, in which drinking water may then be contaminated, which is more dangerous than letting it sit in the air, and the latter means that the former is more likely to happen, among other things. And with urban expansion and whatnot, in 50 years time, an old waste disposal site. Furthermore, the highly efficient rebreeder reactors you propose are also next generation technology in themselves.

What I meant was that with more plants active, you're going to have more traffic to and fro those plants. And furthermore, you have not addressed my question of Chernobyls. They can, have, and to a lesser extent, still happen today.

Again, my key solution is to be more efficient. Internal combustion engines are at best 30% efficient on their own. Most of the energy they produce turns into heat, which itself uses up more energy in order to reduce. Perhaps in the future, there will be some means of converting heat directly into energy (instead of using steam to power turbines which then turn electrical generators la di da da dee wastes energy bla bla bla). But there are measures we can take now to make a more efficient world.

With rebreeding we probably wouldn't need the lead-lined caskets, just the concrete storage space, or possibly even just the earth itself. However, this does need to be tested. While sites may be difficult to find, you'd probably only need one or 2 areas, but it shouldn't be a problem for a large country like the US or Russia. Smaller countries could just export their waste to large ones like the US and Russia. It really wouldn't be that hard to find a place to store the stuff. For every square mile of densely packed metropolitan are there are ten square miles of naturally uninhabitable wasteland. A nice bonus is that wasteland is often times the site of mines, and old abandoned mines make the perfect place to bury nuclear material since the excavation is already done.

Breeder reactors have been around for a long time(they are necessary for the creation of plutonium, and plutonium was used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki). Fast Breeder reactors, while much newer, aren't all that much different.

Chernobyls can happen, but the likelihood is very, very low. If one did happen, it would be very bad, though.

[Noswar]

There is a group, here in the United States, working in New Mexico to develop an alternative fuel using Algae. The plan is to grow farms of algae that produces a form of oil. This form of oil is far more efficient than corn ethanol. If they succeed, which is very likely, they will produce an alternative fuel source that can produce upwards of 200000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Whereas corn ethanol produces only 20 gallons per acre per year. A quarter of the state of New Mexico, about ~15,000 sq. miles, not a lot of space when compared with the rest of the US, would be able to provide enough fuel to support the entire countries energy needs every year. This fuel they believe will burn cleaner and more efficiently as research continues, the only issue is getting investors to broker the idea. This should help slow down the process. Global Warming, however, cannot be stopped. It is a natural course of nature, and when nature does something, no matter how hard we fight, it wins. But this new fuel will solve quite a few problems, like rising oil prices, for instance, and if it does burn cleaner, then kudos.

I also noted that someone mentioned fusion. Fusion is currently being researched by several institutions and energy corporations, the idea is excellent, basically you're forming a super fission reactor. Fusion has been successfully tested in the past, i.e. the Hydrogen Bomb, Tsar Bomb etc. The problem is maintaining that reaction, and controlling it. Fusion could be the future, but for all intensive purposes, Fission is the future of now. We need to get off of our scare for the word Nuclear, and allow the power to flow, as of now, it is our most efficient energy source, so why don't we bloody take advantage of it.

And finally, I need to lay to rest the mentioning of Cold Fusion. There is absolutely no such thing, it is ludicroous and defies all laws of physics, to start a Fusion reaction at a low temperature? Cannot be done, to start a Fusion reaction, a certain threshold of energy must be met before it can start. I know this because a former notable scientist at my University claimed to have discovered Cold Fusion and published all manner of work, until a week later, the scientific community discovered that it was fake, and that it is a ludicrous idea. He was discharged from the University, and remains dishoned from the scientific community to this day. Cold Fusion defies all the Laws of Thermodynamics, and as a Chemist, the thought only makes me chuckle. My University was also the University to discover the threshold energy concept idea way back in the day too. (If you're wondering, it's the University of Utah).

That's all I have to say.
-Noswar

[AllStarZ]

Noswar, on 3 Jun 2008, 1:44, said:

There is a group, here in the United States, working in New Mexico to develop an alternative fuel using Algae. The plan is to grow farms of algae that produces a form of oil. This form of oil is far more efficient than corn ethanol. If they succeed, which is very likely, they will produce an alternative fuel source that can produce upwards of 200000 gallons of fuel per acre per year. Whereas corn ethanol produces only 20 gallons per acre per year. A quarter of the state of New Mexico, about ~15,000 sq. miles, not a lot of space when compared with the rest of the US, would be able to provide enough fuel to support the entire countries energy needs every year. This fuel they believe will burn cleaner and more efficiently as research continues, the only issue is getting investors to broker the idea. This should help slow down the process. Global Warming, however, cannot be stopped. It is a natural course of nature, and when nature does something, no matter how hard we fight, it wins. But this new fuel will solve quite a few problems, like rising oil prices, for instance, and if it does burn cleaner, then kudos.

I also noted that someone mentioned fusion. Fusion is currently being researched by several institutions and energy corporations, the idea is excellent, basically you're forming a super fission reactor. Fusion has been successfully tested in the past, i.e. the Hydrogen Bomb, Tsar Bomb etc. The problem is maintaining that reaction, and controlling it. Fusion could be the future, but for all intensive purposes, Fission is the future of now. We need to get off of our scare for the word Nuclear, and allow the power to flow, as of now, it is our most efficient energy source, so why don't we bloody take advantage of it.

And finally, I need to lay to rest the mentioning of Cold Fusion. There is absolutely no such thing, it is ludicroous and defies all laws of physics, to start a Fusion reaction at a low temperature? Cannot be done, to start a Fusion reaction, a certain threshold of energy must be met before it can start. I know this because a former notable scientist at my University claimed to have discovered Cold Fusion and published all manner of work, until a week later, the scientific community discovered that it was fake, and that it is a ludicrous idea. He was discharged from the University, and remains dishoned from the scientific community to this day. Cold Fusion defies all the Laws of Thermodynamics, and as a Chemist, the thought only makes me chuckle. My University was also the University to discover the threshold energy concept idea way back in the day too. (If you're wondering, it's the University of Utah).

That's all I have to say.
-Noswar

The problem with alternative fuel sources and replacing oil is that if it is likely to happen at all, it will be very slowly. For one thing, there is no existing infrastructure for it. No transports, no facilities to process it.

And also consider this fact: there are thousands employed in the oil industry. If for some reason we decide to suddenly switch fuel sources, thousands of people will be out of a job.

And another fact. Oil is actually much cheaper than it is being sold for in gas stations. The reason why its so expensive is because human factors drive up the price. Driving up the price is also a necessity due to a need to control the supply, but really the supply isn't as scarce as prices make it seem.

[Shirou]

Some new light onto this discussion:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05...-methane-t.html

Accepting that they are right, this would mean absolute apocalypse...

I've never given a damn about human 'economic' interests over the climate, and that attitude of mine is getting harder and harder...

Either way, it's simply not possible to revert climate change without major economic crisis. I expect my lifetime on this planet to be very rumorous, to say the least... I still don't understand why this discovery wasn't made widely public. It only got a little bit of coverage in the local newspaper on some obscure science page. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Edited by Aftershock, 04 June 2008 - 20:16.

[CommanderJB]

Not only that, but as the Stern Report shows, the economic costs of doing nothing are going to be much larger than the economic costs of throwing everything we have at climate change. And as I said, we aren't going to wean the global economy off oil or carbon-spewing sources energy in fifty or probably even a hundred years (though peak oil will force it eventually, by that time it'll be too late), so what we need instead is a programme to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The only viable way I can see of doing that is via plants, as they're naturally-occuring and much more efficient than anythin we've come up with, but of course as people have pointed out the quantities required and problems of trying to force nature to do something are so vast even that's not really very good. How about giant atmosphere processors?

(Mostly a joke by the way.)

[Dr. Strangelove]

AllStarZ, on 4 Jun 2008, 17:02, said:

The problem with alternative fuel sources and replacing oil is that if it is likely to happen at all, it will be very slowly. For one thing, there is no existing infrastructure for it. No transports, no facilities to process it.

And also consider this fact: there are thousands employed in the oil industry. If for some reason we decide to suddenly switch fuel sources, thousands of people will be out of a job.

And another fact. Oil is actually much cheaper than it is being sold for in gas stations. The reason why its so expensive is because human factors drive up the price. Driving up the price is also a necessity due to a need to control the supply, but really the supply isn't as scarce as prices make it seem.

My dad works for Chevron. Well, technically he is a freelance consultant who is self-employed by his own company. However, because he does programming work, should Chevron go out of business, its not his job that will be at risk. Heck, he is even considering quitting because even though the pay is better than what he would get if he quit and was contracted by another company, he thinks that the job isn't demanding enough and he will loose his skills.

[HotSoup]

Actually, we could completely remove, say, all of the United States' use of oil at all, in a rather short time. An area the size of Rhode Island, if it was complete covered in Wind Power Generators, could power all of the United States electrical needs. Now, say, take the area of North Dakota. No one lives there, we might as well use it to power the country. Also add solar power. Epic amounts of energy, we could probably remove anything but electric engines and just run on wind/sun power. And Fill the oceans with them on the US's Continental Shelf. More free energy. I guess transport could be an issue, but we already have oil pipelines stretching 150,000+ miles in the US, we should be able to work this...

Now, getting beyond the massive initial cost and oil lobbies in Congress... Not happening in the scale needed anytime soon. Ah well.

Edited by HotSoup, 09 June 2008 - 18:44.

[Dauth]

HotSoup, on 9 Jun 2008, 19:43, said:

Actually, we could completely remove, say, all of the United States' use of oil at all, in a rather short time. An area the size of Rhode Island, if it was complete covered in Wind Power Generators, could power all of the United States electrical needs. Now, say, take the area of North Dakota. No one lives there, we might as well use it to power the country. Also add solar power. Epic amounts of energy, we could probably remove anything but electric engines and just run on wind/sun power. And Fill the oceans with them on the US's Continental Shelf. More free energy. I guess transport could be an issue, but we already have oil pipelines stretching 150,000+ miles in the US, we should be able to work this...

Now, getting beyond the massive initial cost and oil lobbies in Congress... Not happening in the scale needed anytime soon. Ah well.

Fails the basic requirement of a baseline, want the electricity turning off when the wind stops?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dauth, on 9 Jun 2008, 23:24, said:

HotSoup, on 9 Jun 2008, 19:43, said:

Actually, we could completely remove, say, all of the United States' use of oil at all, in a rather short time. An area the size of Rhode Island, if it was complete covered in Wind Power Generators, could power all of the United States electrical needs. Now, say, take the area of North Dakota. No one lives there, we might as well use it to power the country. Also add solar power. Epic amounts of energy, we could probably remove anything but electric engines and just run on wind/sun power. And Fill the oceans with them on the US's Continental Shelf. More free energy. I guess transport could be an issue, but we already have oil pipelines stretching 150,000+ miles in the US, we should be able to work this...

Now, getting beyond the massive initial cost and oil lobbies in Congress... Not happening in the scale needed anytime soon. Ah well.

Fails the basic requirement of a baseline, want the electricity turning off when the wind stops?

[sarcasm]mountains of batteries[/sarcasm]

[HotSoup]

Dauth, on 9 Jun 2008, 18:24, said:

HotSoup, on 9 Jun 2008, 19:43, said:

Actually, we could completely remove, say, all of the United States' use of oil at all, in a rather short time. An area the size of Rhode Island, if it was complete covered in Wind Power Generators, could power all of the United States electrical needs. Now, say, take the area of North Dakota. No one lives there, we might as well use it to power the country. Also add solar power. Epic amounts of energy, we could probably remove anything but electric engines and just run on wind/sun power. And Fill the oceans with them on the US's Continental Shelf. More free energy. I guess transport could be an issue, but we already have oil pipelines stretching 150,000+ miles in the US, we should be able to work this...

Now, getting beyond the massive initial cost and oil lobbies in Congress... Not happening in the scale needed anytime soon. Ah well.

Fails the basic requirement of a baseline, want the electricity turning off when the wind stops?

The area of Rhode Island can power the US on a normal day. So normal amount of wind. An area the size of say, North Dakota? Even if wind speeds dropped to very low levels.... Well. There should be plenty of extra power. True, theres not a way to really save yourself if the wind stops, so just over-do it for those scenarios. Extra land covered, maybe put most of the wind generators by/in the oceans/great lakes. The wind is almost always going well. Add solar panels to the same land? Plenty of extra power.

The problem with renewable fuel like solar power and wind is, yes, theres no way to power things completely based on them if the force that generates them stops. So, have overlapping Wind/Solar power areas. Wind generators in the oceans, ect. It can't fully power the US, but it can sure as hell help. I'd hate to mention it, since it's already been condemned by sarcasm, but have complexes to "store" power near highly populated areas in case the power fails...

Look, its just an idea. Wind/Solar is probably the safest form of power we can get, and probably one of the cheaper ones.

We could also, if resources were devoted to researching it, use geothermal power to generate energy in some areas, heat water in some areas, and help heat and cool homes in all areas of the United States. I'm assuming this could help a bit, thoughts?

[Dr. Strangelove]

HotSoup, on 12 Jun 2008, 5:49, said:

Look, its just an idea. Wind/Solar is probably the safest form of power we can get, and probably one of the cheaper ones.

Solar is extremely expensive to build. Wind is plain old expensive to build and maintain.

[Dauth]

Storing has a very poor efficiency, best generate as opposed to store.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Dauth, on 12 Jun 2008, 7:07, said:

Storing has a very poor efficiency, best generate as opposed to store.

That too.

Umm, I think it would be helpful if, for the purposes of this thread, we didn't speculate on uninvented technologies. When people start to talk about maglev turbines or cold fusion or microwave solar power because to me it all sounds like "maybe in 20 years someone will invent magic".

[Alias]

If we actually researched more into Solar/Wind we would be able to make them more efficient.

[The Wandering Jew]

Dr. Strangelove, on 12 Jun 2008, 13:57, said:

HotSoup, on 12 Jun 2008, 5:49, said:

Look, its just an idea. Wind/Solar is probably the safest form of power we can get, and probably one of the cheaper ones.

Solar is extremely expensive to build. Wind is plain old expensive to build and maintain.

@Dr.Strangelove:
For once, we have reached an agreement!

Solar energy is very expensive indeed. It will take more than the entire area of Texas to cover with solar cells just to provide daily US power requirements (or consumption). Think of the magnitude it will get if solar energy shall supply the world...

[Shirou]

The Wandering Jew, on 12 Jun 2008, 11:57, said:

Solar energy is very expensive indeed. It will take more than the entire area of Texas to cover with solar cells just to provide daily US power requirements (or consumption). Think of the magnitude it will get if solar energy shall supply the world...

Now we are exxagerating...

[The Wandering Jew]

No, its not.

If we gather all houses/buildings/industrial plants (Remember thermodynamics? Industrial plants have Work in its equation as negative 'cause they do not generate power.), and remove all coal/nuclear/hydroelectric/diesel plants and set solar power as its prime power source, what would be the scenario?

A solar-celled house can generate electricity, let's say, for a day. Multiply it by the number of houses in Texas (or in California, or The Hague, you choose any city you like...)
What figure you'll get?
And what figure you'll get if you get all houses in the US?Or Russia? Or Mongolia?
And how about 40-storey buildings? 50-storeys? 60? Would you take that into consideration?
What about Ford, GM, etc. auto plants? Would we take that also into consideration?

Maybe we can do this way:
Assume a solar cell costs $1.00 per square centimeter.
Assume a 30 square meter roof.
So the cost would be 300k grand (use conversion factor).
And that's a single house. Multiply it by the number of houses....
And do solar cells cost a dollar?
And do houses measure 30 square meters typically?
Capital expenses.

Or maybe this..
Would we install solar-celled roof on a storm-frequented area?
So we take mid-west US (as an example) like Nevada.
Since solar energy is the prime source of electricity, would we think that the size of Nevada would be enough to supply US power needs?

My point is: We have a loooooooong way to go to go Solar.

[Kichō]

Don't know if anyone seen/heard this but I'll post it anyway.

I was watching the Discovery Channel and an advert popped up saying about energy sources and they came up with the answer 'Natural Gas' by combining all of the worlds known resources into one and claimed that it's the safest/cleanest source there may be.

[Dauth]

Natural gas is the gas found above oil fields and is used in the gas mains for the UK. Unless the definition has changed somewhat.

[The Wandering Jew]

Time and again we are looking for alternative sources but current technology (and economics) does not permit so. Development of such technology will take a long time.

And we might not have that much long. We're running out of time.

The best solution I think is this:

Proper and responsible resource management and by-product disposal.

This is the thing we haven't really done much.

Whether it be a power plant (conventional or alternative) or an industrial plant, the objective is all the same.

Sure, we have these cool sources, but we manage 'em irresponsible enough to make Ivan the Terrible abdicate his throne, all would be completely useless.

Dumping wastes on a river, leaking sanitary landfills.....the list goes on an on.

The change will start within ourselves.

What do you think?

[CodeCat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER