65 replies to this topic

[chance]

Post what you think will be used for future power generation, and what you think will be used to mive people and things in 100 years... think 100 years not 2 years

[Eddy01741]

How about fusion? France is making the ITER at this very moment.

[Mathias]

If there is a sudden technological breakthrough, then cold fusion or plasma torus fusion. If not, then probably nuclear fast breeder reactors, and bio-fueled hydrogen cells in common technology. For the foreseeable future.

[Eureka Seven]

anti-matter definatly. Its the prime weapon and prime power, nothing better. 1 drop of this stuff can fuel a car for the rest of your life and more, and the weapon part, well its the opposite of matter so when they hit they destroy each other. Sorry about weapon part couldnt help my self.

[Mathias]

Antimatter power is far further into the future than just 100 years.

[Dauth]

It takes energy = 7 times the mass of a proton to make an antiproton,

p + p -> p + p + p + antip

other reactions can also form anti matter but with a low cross section (i.e. low probability)

If you collide a proton and an antiproton you will get 2 times mass of proton out in the form of energy.

The equation is correct for connservation laws but the first proton should really be at roughly 7 GeV

[Alias]

I reckon once we find an effective & effecient way to extract Hydrogen from water, Hydrogen power will be the way to go.

[Dauth]

Its going to have to come from a renewable source or a nuclear reactor to power the separation of Hydrogen from water. each change of form of energy will cause you to become more ineffficient.

Simple 3 laws of thermodynamics
1) you cant win you can only break even
2) you can only break even a absolute zero
3) you cant get to absolute zero

[Eureka Seven]

you never know cycerin, i mean in 1940's atomic energy was introduced and within 60 years we have almost mastered it with the multi-warhead atomic ICBM's and nukelear power plants, i cant even imagine what will happen in the next 60 years at the rate technology is advancing.

[Dauth]

In tke Uk over the next 30 years, we need to get a new set of nuclear reactors. The Magnox ones still in use are 30yrs old and are in the process of being shut down. The renewable stuff we use cannot replace fossil fuels in time so we need to bridge the gap.

Cold fusion is currently impossible, you cannot get the energies required for fusion without being at either 1million kelvin or approaching the speed of light in an accelerator. We can slow atoms and accelerate them with lasers but it requires 10000 photons to stop an atom at room temperature.

Imo we will have to go renewable.

[Dauth]

Bet the pansy lefties do hate nuclear so, and tbh it is a bugger to deal with the waste

[Eddy01741]

WE havn't even gotten a fusion reactor going, we're far from mastering nuclear physsics and nuclear reactions, especially from harnessing fusion. Anyways, cold fusion was done supposedly by like one group of scientists, but lmao, all other groups that tried failed, so not sure if it's ever gonna work, france is building ITER which is a small fusion reactor, which like Cycerin said is a torus (donut) shaped reactor which uses extremely powerful electromagnets to keep the plasma held inside the torus, the heat from the plasma is is taken through a heat exchanger and obviously, is converted into steam and runs a massive steam turbine.

[General]

100 years later , ( I being realistic ) we will use horsepower .

If a big war not happens :

I don't want to think how the thecnology will rise , we may even see molecular transportation come true .

[Mathias]

If only we had a way to utilize the energy from the heat as electricity without having to use a blocky kinetic energy conversion; the turbine and generator.

[General]

Cycerin, on 18 Nov 2006, 00:07, said:

Antimatter power is far further into the future than just 100 years.

I think someone can see the future unlike us

[Mathias]

What, since when was it sorcery to be able to make deductions based on information you posess?

[General]

I said it because you counter an opinion without a fact and information . You never knew what can be happen in 100 years later , as how in 1900 peoples can't imagine '' computer '' , we can't know if anti-matter can be used as fuel or not , its same for any other opinions .

[Mathias]

Maybe you should read up on the subject before you come stumbling in here and try to make me look like an idiot.

I'll write some arguments to support my earlier statement when I get home from school.

[General]

You just bore me >_>

Its not about proofs or something , if something is possible , you can never know when it can be happen , nobody !

Edited by Azul, 28 November 2006 - 13:14.

[Mathias]

Who says I'm dictating what's going to happen? It was just a hypothesis. To disprove a hypothesis, you require argumentation, and you're just.. I don't even know what you're trying to do.

First you say I should put some weight behind my statements, and then you call me boring because I offer to do so.

Edited by Cycerin, 28 November 2006 - 14:01.

[General]

I not call you boring , its something like annoying , you bore-annoy me with being cocky .

[Mathias]

Antimatter isn't "fuel". It's more comparable to an explosive, to an a-bomb in liquid form which detonates at ANY kind of disturbance, or in contact with a single atom of positive matter. We still aren't remotely near a practical way to harness the energy released by this destruction.

Quote

I not call you boring , its something like annoying , you bore-annoy me with being cocky .

Well, too bad. I suggest you go somewhere else to be "bore-annoyed".

[Eddy01741]

First off, the existence of UFOs is completely unkown, al three 'sightings' have all have 'counter' arguements, so yeah. Anyways, first off, nobody knows what happens in Area 51, alll we know is it exists (or suposedly does from satlallite pictures, for god sake, militarycould just put a fake base in the middle of the desert in Nevada while the real area 51 either doesn't exist or is in a top secret place.

[Moosy Crisp]

If I am not mistaken, doesn't France reuse their nuclear waste? Because there should still be some leftover energy in that stuff.

[Dauth]

The best re-use is about 4% of original. And that doesn't include energy used up in recycling the waste.

most waste ends up as an isotope that has a half life in the order of millions of years mabye as low as tens of thousands of years and this is why it needs to be kept safe either underground or under sea until it decays to background levels. (well actually EU approved exposure levels).