FAQ Search
Memberlist Usergroups
Profile
  Forum Statistics Register
 Log in to check your private messages
Log in to check your private messages
Moonpod Homepage Starscape Information Mr. Robot Information Free Game Downloads Starscape Highscore Table
nuclear weapons (are bad)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General View previous topic :: View next topic  
 Author
Message
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Icarus, please.

You can make hydrogen by running an electric current through salt water. (And as a nice bonus, you get the oxygen needed for the reverse process too! How about that?)

Pebble beads are impossible to melt down, you say? Well, you know what they say about idiot-proof devices, right? Make something idiot proof, and they'll make a better idiot. Trust me, your vaunted pebble beads are not the final solution.

Things like fusion and antimatter are all still pie in the sky right now. God knows how long it will be (if ever) before they become commerically applicable technologies. Who knows, we may have entirely new forms of power generation by that point, thus rendering the billions of dollars invested in fusion research an effective waste, as far as power generation goes. Myself, I would put money on direct electrical power generation. Getting away from turbines and the classic 'fuel->heat->mechanical motion->power generation' paradigm will be the biggest step yet since alternating current.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

no pebble beads are idiot proof cause its physacly imposable for the reactor to get hot enough to melt the graphite

pepple working on a prototype evean tured of the cooing mechinism and let the reactor cool itself off (the kind of thing that doomed chenoybl)

in the countrool room thare is only one boutton
the on of swich
it is inposable to accdently melt it down infact its inposable to intentanly melt it down its like trying to melt a brick by leving it out in the sun
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is some info on Icarus's super reactor https://www.pbmr.co.za/2_about_the_pbmr/2_about_the_pbmr.htm it sounds pretty cool really. Sadly there are still a few issues:

1. two working reactors were built in Germany, but this is still relatively new technology so it is a bit early to say it is foolproof. They were both shut down after chernobyl when the public turned against nuclear energy in general.

2. depleted uranium fuel is generated just like in any other nuclear reactor although not as much, this has to be kept on site for 40years before being moved to permanent storage.

3. you cannot enlarge this technology without encountering problems, so it is ideal for low power applications typically 10% of a normal nuclear power plant. So if you want to use them nationally then you would end up with one near every town and 4-5 near cities. Is that going to be acceptable to people - I doubt it.

4. any large scale deployment would also require a large scale uranium fuel production and delivery and removal infrastructure. Do you really want truck loads of refined and spent uranium moving around the country?

5. once a nuclear infrastructure like this is in place it isn't much more effort to start using/converting these materials for weapons. Not something you want to get too wide spread really.

I think the most likely application would be in the 3rd world where they have lower power requirements and are fully intent on developing nuclear power anyway. This seems a safer avenue to go down in that situation.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
r000000b
Starscape Jedi
Starscape Jedi


Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 63
Location: Staffordshire



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Antimatter cant be used to make energy. As you cant mine antimatter you have to create it, which involves using at least as much energy as you are going to get back. At best you could use it as a very compact battery or as propulsion http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop12apr99_1.htm

Fusion looks like fun tho doesnt it, cant wait for ITER to be built, it might even create more energy than it uses,
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yay fuision Mr. Green

but in the meen time lets snap together a bunch of pebble bead reactors
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting link. Admittedly, PBMRs sound much safer to use than traditional reactors, but reading things like '... a core melt scenario is not possible and can be ruled out.' and 'The PBMR does not require any of the traditional nuclear safety systems that actively guard older generation reactors against radiation release.' just makes me twitch instinctively.

No-one's going to actually deliberately sabotage one of these things just to see how well it would react in the event of Depressurised Loss of Forced Cooling, and in theory the graphite spheres can't break down, but they're also claiming those spheres would keep the radioactive materials isolated for over a million years.

Uhh...how long ago did they find out Chernobyl's sarcophagus was breaking down? (a bit of a fallacious argument considering those circumstances, I admit, but it demonstrates just how wonky these estimates can be)

No. Just...no. Nuclear power is bad, mmmkay?
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

do you work for any large oil company
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What, you're implying that I'm trying to protect the fossil fuel industry out of self interest? Icarus, mate, I think your tinfoil hat's on a bit tight. I work as a meat cutter for a small market about five minutes walk up the road from where I live, for your information.

I happen to be very interested in alternative energy. I've researched small-scale power generation because someday I'd like to be totally independant of the power grid. I won't bother linking to specific pages, although Googling Francis and Kaplan water turbines makes for fascinating reading. Wind turbines and solar panels...I'm sure you can find plenty on those yourself. Heck, Strath Steam in Australia produces 5 and 8-10hp steam engines for power generation and operating machinery.

There's more to electrical generation than national scale coal and nuclear power plants, y'know.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

solar and wind cant produce enough power
hidro might but you have to build a big dam and flood entire towns

moast of the bad stuff you hear about nukes are from the oil companys
the sad thing is libarals are to easy to muinipulate

the biggest problem about nukes is storing the waist beacuse evryone is selfsh and doesint want it burreyd in thare backyard
but personaly i wouldent mind having a few tonnes under my house (provided thay pay me first)


also you cut meat K001 what kind? beef, chicken, lamb, pork....

Ps. i do not whare a tinfoil hat
tinfoil is to thin to stop the alien minc countrool rays i just insulate my house whith 2 inches of lead
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Degraine



Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 27



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

*eyerolls*

First paragraph is the sort of attitude that stops a lot of people from going and even just purchasing some solar panels to put on their roof when they live in a suburban area. You can offset your electricity costs or even start getting money back if you've got electricity going into the grid.

Obviously there's not many large-scale hydroelectric schemes that don't cause a lot of devastation to local areas. However, plenty of people in rural areas have a stream that they can divert a small portion of into a hydroelectric generator. And return the water back to the stream. Wind and solar are more feasible from a general perspective, though.

Frankly, Icarus, I think you're the one who's been manipulated, into thinking that nuclear power is safe for everyone. No, it isn't. If you'd be willing to take nuclear waste (not that it'd happen), then more fool you. Hope you weren't planning to have kids. Or not worry about cancer. Try doing some research via Google. Shouldn't be hard to find plenty of articles about the effects of living near nuclear power plants, let alone nuclear storage facilities. Not In My Backyard factor? Hell yes. You're not putting nuclear waste anywhere NEAR where I live.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

first you are more likley to get cancer in a coall mine than a nukeuler power plant and if i have 50 rods of uneaniem bureyd in lead casket 20inches thick which has been pored into a large concreate box which is burreyd 20ft below my house will not efect me

do you know that the avrige home bcemet is radioactive
radiation doesint just come from nukes it comes from the rocks
my house is built on an island of solid granite and that is pritty radioactive


also i am not aggenst putting a few solar panels on your house to cut costs but anyone who thinks solar and wind can slove our energy crisis is a fool

and noboddy told be nukes wer good i grew up being told that nukes wer bad
and i know relise that this is propaganda spred bu the oill companys
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Darth Dallas



Joined: 18 Oct 2003
Posts: 411



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With nuclear, there's too much wasteful byproduct and its harmful to boot should anything go wrong. Besides, you'd be surprised how much research is being done to make solar and wind power more efficient lately. The trouble I have with wind power however, no matter how efficient it could be is that you need quite a lot of real estate (at first anyway, research can reduce this possibly), not unlike oil rigs, spread out all over the place.

Nuclear power may be the cleanest power around right now, but its got one hell of a dark side to it.
Back to top
View user's profile
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

with solar and wind you are at the mercy of the elements if it gets cloudy you solar cells are useless and if the wind stops your wind plant stops working

hydro plants require you to flood thousands of acres of land but produce a lot of power and are very clean
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Poo Bear
Pod Team
Pod Team


Joined: 14 Oct 2002
Posts: 4121
Location: Sheffield, UK



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are novel ways of using hydroelectric power that don't require flooding.

1. you can use areas of shoreline that have a high tidal flow i.e. in some places the water level changes by a few feet every day. You can use that to generate power or just use the actual wave action far out at sea instead.

2. in Wales they dug a tunnel inside a mountain from a high lake to a lower lake. During the day they let a small amount of the lakes water fall through turbines into the lower lake generating power. At night when we have excess power (you cannot turn off a lot of power stations) it is used to pump the water back up. Everything is hidden underground so there is no impact on the countryside at all. Although I'd expect the odd fish gets a nasty surprise.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
icarus
Troll
Troll


Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Location: Olympia Washington



PostPosted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i know about the wave power

but how can the tunnle hidro plant pump watter back up perptual motion micheens are inposable pluss how would it genarate surpluss power if it has to sue it to pump the watter back up
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Discussion Pod Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group