183 replies to this topic

[Futschki]

I dunno if anyone talked about producing electricity using water ...
Ive read an article that if niagara falls (if exploited correctly) can produce 7.2 times the need of electricity in all of the earth ...

AFAIK, BMW and Toyota began to manufacture cars that run on hydrogene and that in california there are 4 stations for "re-fueling" these types of cars ...

[Dauth]

Yes, but the greenies will get in an awful tiz if you stick a damn huge generator on Niagra/Horseshoe falls.

How is the hydrogen made for hydrogen cars?

[Futschki]

I dunno what u mean dauth ... as far as i can understand ur question its made out of water

[Dauth]

What is used to get the hydrogen out of water, electrolysis, and how do you produce the electricity?

[Futschki]

yeah electrolysis

[Chyros]

^yes, electrolysis, but how to generate the electricity for it?

[Cuppa]

You can burn coal, oil, natural gas you can also use wind or solar power, but those don't make much electricity.

Oh, hahah.

[Chyros]

Cuppa, on 16 Jun 2008, 21:11, said:

You can burn coal, oil, natural gas [...]

And then we've arrived at using up solid fuels to generate power to generate hydrogen to generate power again ...

[BeefJeRKy]

In the very long term Nuclear Fusion will be the power source to be used. For the short term however I see a variety of solar plants, wind plants and soon Hydrogen plants replacing the thermal plants we use now.

[Futschki]

electrolysis using solar energy

[Dr. Strangelove]

Abourror, on 16 Jun 2008, 20:33, said:

electrolysis using nuclear energy

phix'd

[̀̀̀̀█]

As stranglove..... said..... ?

But yea, think of it, if the fusion is going already, there is high heat and..... well... light.

And remember, the amount of hydrogen you can get from electrolysis can, and will, exceed the actual energy need to power the electrolysis.

It still leaves the question of what water would if thrown at the fusion reaction.... The only thing that I see is extreme heat..... Sure it would evaporate, but wouldn't the radiation from the process screw with that big time? I would like to think that it just breaks it apart, isn't it considered a plasma after all?

[Dr. Strangelove]

̀̀̀̀█, on 17 Jun 2008, 4:49, said:

And remember, the amount of hydrogen you can get from electrolysis can, and will, exceed the actual energy need to power the electrolysis.

Nonononononononononononononononononoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

---VIOLATION OF THERMODYNAMIC LAWS---
23b-Conservation of energy and mass.

[Dauth]

Strangelove is correct in this case, however the energy from fusion would be more than sufficient to electrolyse hydrogen from water.

[Shirou]

Well, if we get it done right..

One good solution to make electrical fusion work better might be to find a superconducter on room temperature..

But well, that's about winning the all time nobel prize if you get that, because we have already found out so many compounds, and how big is the chance of finding a superconductor at our normal temperature.

I don't even know the theory behind superconductors, how they work, and even if according to theory there could be a material to superconduct under 'warm' temperatures.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Dauth, on 17 Jun 2008, 5:16, said:

Strangelove is correct in this case, however the energy from fusion would be more than sufficient to electrolyse hydrogen from water.

That's basically what I said, though rather archaically... The fusion process of the hydrogen of course.. What else would it do, rub against each other in a sexual manner? It was saying that the amount of energy that you used is immediately made up from the power you would get from a correctly utilized fusion reaction...

[CommanderJB]

So this is basically coming down to a 'will nuclear power solve global warming?' thread, am I right? Because it won't. It will help reduce reliance on fossil fuels - which is not the same as solving global climate change, I wish to stress - but it's only ever going to be a stop-gap solution because of immense social and political pressure against it. It's safer now than it ever has been, and I for one doubt we'll ever see another accident on the scale of Chernobyl, but you can't rule out the possibility and that's the only thing that will convince the majority of the public that nuclear energy is the best possible source of electricity for the future. Not only that, but nuclear energy on a mass scale would be simply unfeasible - never mind the immense start-up costs of building a reactor complex from scratch, there's only so much uranium in the world, and it's already extraordinarily expensive, more so than platinum. Power prices would skyrocket and you'd be faced with magnified versions of the food riots we're already seeing today.

I'm not saying nuclear power is wrong, unfeasible, unhelpful and/or unsafe - provided it's managed properly, it's perfectly feasible, helpful, and safe, as the hundreds of safely operating plants around the world today prove. It's just not the solution to global climate change (the amount of carbon produced in building the reactors is actually astronomical, mostly coming from the toxic and power-gulping process of refining uranium and all the material required to shield the reactor in the first place) on its own. It will help, and it could help a damn sight more than it's currently doing, but it won't solve the problem. Save removing civilisation as we know it today, no single thing will solve the problem. I mean, the richest companies in the world are employing huge numbers of people to research this sort of thing, and if they haven't come up with a 'silver bullet', I doubt this forum will...

What I think would be the biggest single help to fossil fuels use is to begin outsourcing power generation on the maximum possible scale. By this I mean basically governments and corporations pouring money into rebates on home or area solar/wind/geothermal systems as appropriate given local resources; though this is as people have stated numerous times in this thread not a fantastic method of generating electricity, it works, works well, and works reliably. Storage for off-peak is an issue, but it can actually be done quite efficiently by pumping water back up cliffs into hydro plants, storing in the form of heat in carbon blocks, and several other methods currently under development. Obviously you'll still lose energy as no system will be 100% efficent or even close, but it's better than simply saying 'solar is useless for baseline, therefore it's useless overall'. And wind farms are actually quite good for baseline supply so long as you pick the right spot. Off-shore wind farms could actually procude a lot of reliable energy, as could tidal turbines etc. All of these are situational, but with a combination of many small, independent systems, you'd both reduce vulnerability and gain the maximum possible amount of energy from the environment.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 18 Jun 2008, 5:13, said:

So this is basically coming down to a 'will nuclear power solve global warming?' thread, am I right? Because it won't. It will help reduce reliance on fossil fuels - which is not the same as solving global climate change, I wish to stress - but it's only ever going to be a stop-gap solution because of immense social and political pressure against it. It's safer now than it ever has been, and I for one doubt we'll ever see another accident on the scale of Chernobyl, but you can't rule out the possibility and that's the only thing that will convince the majority of the public that nuclear energy is the best possible source of electricity for the future.

EPIC WORDS:

Cornelius Vanderbilt said:

Damn the public!

[The Wandering Jew]

All types of power plants, if improperly used, would make us kiss the Devil and go Down Under.

Why are we always sticking on "We should find this, find that, use this 'cause it's environment-friendly, use this 'cause its economical, blah, blah, yada, yada"?

Kindly tell me what's the difference:
1. having a new energy source and improperly managing it
2. having a conventional source and improperly managing it

See the difference?

It is totally irrelevant on the source. Proper usage will do the trick.

If we do not change our resource consumption, in the future we would experience far worse than the obese people in The Chubby Chasers.

[CommanderJB]

At least if you improperly manage solar energy then all you'll get is blackouts. If you improperly manage fossil fuel energy like we have for the past two hundred years then what you'll get is global economic collapse and a global environmental catastrophe to boot.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 19 Jun 2008, 8:16, said:

At least if you improperly manage solar energy then all you'll get is blackouts. If you improperly manage fossil fuel energy like we have for the past two hundred years then what you'll get is global economic collapse and a global environmental catastrophe to boot.

Whoever said it's impractical to screw over the environment?

[CommanderJB]

Most people who think a healthy biosphere and ecological stability and diversity are good for the planet, because they provide all our food, all our air, and nearly all the other conditions that make us able to live on this Earth?

[The Wandering Jew]

Dr. Strangelove, on 20 Jun 2008, 7:00, said:

CommanderJB, on 19 Jun 2008, 8:16, said:

At least if you improperly manage solar energy then all you'll get is blackouts. If you improperly manage fossil fuel energy like we have for the past two hundred years then what you'll get is global economic collapse and a global environmental catastrophe to boot.

Whoever said it's impractical to screw over the environment?

Ah, there. I hope CodeCat won't read this post.


@ topic:
Manage now the current resources.
Plan solar power in the future.

So we do not screw up this time around.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CommanderJB, on 20 Jun 2008, 0:41, said:

Most people who think a healthy biosphere and ecological stability and diversity are good for the planet, because they provide all our food, all our air, and nearly all the other conditions that make us able to live on this Earth?

Hydroponic farms...genetically engineered crops...playing god with nature...

[Shirou]

Oh I am sure theoretically you can play god....

But practically.. humanity is way too stupid to understand nature, hell, even control it. Maybe after the next two of three Ice Ages, if humanity is still there by then, we might understand the Entire earth to try and control it a bit more. Screwing things over if you do not have the practicalities yet to make up for what you lose, a livable environment... is bad...

Need more definition? :S

Some new light (xD) into the discussion, which has evolved mainly into a 'solve energy problem, forget global warming', discussion.

Sterling Dish

I want some opinions from mainly Dauth and everyone who thinks qualified enough, on the viability of crowding the american deserts with these things.

Edited by Aftershock, 22 June 2008 - 16:02.