'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-05-25 10:50am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:*except maybe solar

On a per mega-watt hour basis I wouldn't even be willing to make that claim.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-05-25 11:00am

Meest wrote:Also is there any good use of the helium byproduct?

Depends on the helium. Helium4 is useful in blimps and stuff, but pretty common and not worth a nuclear reactors time. Helium3, on the other hand, is very valuable indeed, and is used in such things as 100mK dillution refrigerators.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-05-25 12:07pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:*except maybe solar

The construction process of solar power cells is extremely toxic and the leftovers arent much better.

I'm confident of human stupidity to cause some death or harm because of this.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 12:30pm

Symmetry wrote:
Meest wrote:Also is there any good use of the helium byproduct?
Depends on the helium. Helium4 is useful in blimps and stuff, but pretty common and not worth a nuclear reactors time. Helium3, on the other hand, is very valuable indeed, and is used in such things as 100mK dillution refrigerators.

He4 is most certainly not common and is infact looking to be exhausted in a few years time. The prices are already high as it is with the US the major disrtibutor of the stuff.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-05-25 12:54pm

I just thought of something....

a big pipe....a BIG one, right? going from near the surface of the earth, going up to waaaaaaaaaaaay up high? just so the atmospheric pressure is way lower than it is on the surface. Yeah, a big, straight pipe. Or tube. whatever. Anyway, both ends are open, like a giant straw. There are turbine blades inside the pipe, attached to a shaft which turns a generator, just a regular conventional generator. After being built, the top of the pipe is "Uncapped", (Sliding whooshy door, anyone?) So, the lower atmospheric pressure at the upper end of the pipe causes the air at the lower end to be drawn up into the pipe and past the turbine blades, turning them very fast. Just like the turbo charger in a car, see? No pollution, few moving parts, infinite amount of fuel, you are simply using pressure differential to turn the blades. and gravity pulls down the "Exhaust" air. Why wouldn't that work? Seems sound enough to me. Simple, too. Wonder if this has ever been kicked around as an energy source?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-25 01:08pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
He4 is most certainly not common and is infact looking to be exhausted in a few years time. The prices are already high as it is with the US the major disrtibutor of the stuff.

Deposites Texas and Kansas are the only significant sources in the world, and they are indeed near exhaustion with many mines already shut down.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-25 01:10pm

Chardok wrote:I just thought of something....

a big pipe....a BIG one, right? going from near the surface of the earth, going up to waaaaaaaaaaaay up high? just so the atmospheric pressure is way lower than it is on the surface. Yeah, a big, straight pipe. Or tube. whatever. Anyway, both ends are open, like a giant straw. There are turbine blades inside the pipe, attached to a shaft which turns a generator, just a regular conventional generator. After being built, the top of the pipe is "Uncapped", (Sliding whooshy door, anyone?) So, the lower atmospheric pressure at the upper end of the pipe causes the air at the lower end to be drawn up into the pipe and past the turbine blades, turning them very fast. Just like the turbo charger in a car, see? No pollution, few moving parts, infinite amount of fuel, you are simply using pressure differential to turn the blades. and gravity pulls down the "Exhaust" air. Why wouldn't that work? Seems sound enough to me. Simple, too. Wonder if this has ever been kicked around as an energy source?

Isn't something like that planned in Australia? Remember reading a few articles on it.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-25 01:12pm

Found some stuff, not quite the same, but the same basic idea:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2628361.stm
http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/faq.php

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-25 01:26pm

Chardok wrote:I just thought of something....

a big pipe....a BIG one, right? going from near the surface of the earth, going up to waaaaaaaaaaaay up high? just so the atmospheric pressure is way lower than it is on the surface. Yeah, a big, straight pipe. Or tube. whatever. Anyway, both ends are open, like a giant straw. There are turbine blades inside the pipe, attached to a shaft which turns a generator, just a regular conventional generator. After being built, the top of the pipe is "Uncapped", (Sliding whooshy door, anyone?) So, the lower atmospheric pressure at the upper end of the pipe causes the air at the lower end to be drawn up into the pipe and past the turbine blades, turning them very fast. Just like the turbo charger in a car, see? No pollution, few moving parts, infinite amount of fuel, you are simply using pressure differential to turn the blades. and gravity pulls down the "Exhaust" air. Why wouldn't that work? Seems sound enough to me. Simple, too. Wonder if this has ever been kicked around as an energy source?

Unfortunately it wouldn't work. You forget, the atmosphere is ALREADY open to space and it naturally falls off. Building a tube around it wouldnt do anything.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-25 01:44pm

Doesn't gravity pull equally much on the air in the pipe, as the air outside the pipe?
Why doesn't our atmoshere fly into space, with all that vacuum up there pulling at it?
Or more acuratly, why doesn't the force of electromagnetic repulsion, manifested in the form of air pressure at sea level cause the air to fly into space?
GRAVITY! The push against the earth's surface is exactly equalled by the force of gravity.
Gravity will stop the air IN the tube from pushing upwards away from sea level, just as it pulls the air everywhere canceling the pressure.
In short, you have proposed a perpetual motion machine, powered by air pressure.
Clue. There must be a difference of energy states, for you to get energy out of something. There is no difference of energy between the air in the pipe, and the air outside the ppe, thus, no work can be done by equalising the difference.

Now if you had some antigravity field under the pipe, the pressure, not having and equal force of gravity countering it's repulsive force, would push against the earth's surface and surrounding air, and take the path of least resistance and go up. The air, now outside of the antigravity field, would then be pulled back to the surface, to start it's journey anew.
All you need is an anti gravity field, and this is a fine idea!

Assuming of course that even if such a field could be generated, it would consume LESS power to generate than the turbines would produce.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-05-25 01:49pm

Chrosta, you are correct. Now, a better idea is digging a big hole down to MAGMA and letting ocean watter fall into it! WOAAAAA!!

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-05-25 01:51pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Doesn't gravity pull equally much on the air in the pipe, as the air outside the pipe?
Why doesn't our atmoshere fly into space, with all that vacuum up there pulling at it?:

minor nitpick. the vacuum in and of itself can't pull at anything because it doesn't generate gravity. basic science tells you that gravity is generated as a result of an object's mass, of which a vacuum has none.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-25 01:54pm

After clicking the link, I see what Chardoc and Sharp-kun are proposing are apples and oranges.
Chardoc's idea is a silly perpetual motion machine, and Shrap-kun's link is a solar powered convection engine, converting solar energy into heat, causing a wind, and harnessing the artificialy made wind for power. THAT will work.
Heating stuff with solar energy, and using the heat for power generation is old proven tech.
The source of heat isn't the issue, just having a differential of it is. Fusion, fission, fire, and volvanos are all the same. Heat is heat.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-05-25 01:55pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:After clicking the link, I see what Chardoc and Sharp-kun are proposing are apples and oranges.

When I said similar I meant it in the fact that they're both using air going up a big pipe thing turning turbines.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2004-05-25 02:05pm

Read the next scentance, after the one you quoted, silly billy!

You know the one that says:
"Or more acuratly, why doesn't the force of electromagnetic repulsion, manifested in the form of air pressure at sea level cause the air to fly into space? "
Yes, yes, I know vacuum doesn't "suck" up soda though a straw in your mouth, the surrounding air pushes it into you mouth.
The phrase "vacuum sucking" is a matter of relative perception, (you don't feel the normal pressure around you because it is equal is all directions) and simple common speach.
I suppose you will correct the sportscaster when he states the home run hit is the ball "flying" out of the stadium, rather than it "taking a balistic trajectory" out of the ballpark. Because flying is a result of airodynamics and lift, and clearly the ball is a ballistic projectile, not a lifting body..

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-05-25 02:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:
He4 is most certainly not common and is infact looking to be exhausted in a few years time. The prices are already high as it is with the US the major disrtibutor of the stuff.
Deposites Texas and Kansas are the only significant sources in the world, and they are indeed near exhaustion with many mines already shut down.

I found out when I went to refill my R/C blimp a few years ago at the local flower shop and was almost robbed. No way am I paying those prices.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-05-25 03:22pm

I did some reading about both fission and fusion, and personally i'm putting my money on fusion for the power source of the future. Various reasons, but the main two is the fact it is safe beyond beleif, and little to no waste. The only problem is money, who will pay for fusion plants around the globe?

But it's extremely safe and very efficient, so i say they should put the money going into current energy into building viable fusion plants, and as many as they can get. It could replace many waste-producing fuel soures, and take care of the energy needs of our civilization. It'll take a while, so we'll still neeed backups in te meantime, but once fusion gets up and running it'll really take off.

Of course, the oil barons and coal kings wont go for it. They'll fuck around with the government and call in favrs, and that'll be the end of that (at least in America, maybe the rest of the globe will be more intelligent about it). But i still hold out hope.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-05-25 03:38pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:I did some reading about both fission and fusion, and personally i'm putting my money on fusion for the power source of the future. Various reasons, but the main two is the fact it is safe beyond beleif, and little to no waste. The only problem is money, who will pay for fusion plants around the globe?

No, the real problem is we don't have a viable fusion plant to build, and the world can't exactly wait to start building fuckload of new power stations. Even once we have a working fusion reactor design it will take many years to start building them.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-05-25 03:45pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
18-Till-I-Die wrote:I did some reading about both fission and fusion, and personally i'm putting my money on fusion for the power source of the future. Various reasons, but the main two is the fact it is safe beyond beleif, and little to no waste. The only problem is money, who will pay for fusion plants around the globe?
No, the real problem is we don't have a viable fusion plant to build, and the world can't exactly wait to start building fuckload of new power stations. Even once we have a working fusion reactor design it will take many years to start building them.

I know, i mentioned that...

It'll take a while, so we'll still neeed backups in the meantime...

So in the meantime, nukes will do, but once we have developed viable fusion plants, then we'll be in a whole new level. At least, thats what i was thinking, correct me if i'm wrong.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-25 10:49pm

I did some reading about both fission and fusion, and personally i'm putting my money on fusion for the power source of the future. Various reasons, but the main two is the fact it is safe beyond beleif, and little to no waste. The only problem is money, who will pay for fusion plants around the globe?

Let us not also forget that fusion fuel is exremely cheap. Hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe.

But it's extremely safe and very efficient, so i say they should put the money going into current energy into building viable fusion plants, and as many as they can get. It could replace many waste-producing fuel soures, and take care of the energy needs of our civilization. It'll take a while, so we'll still neeed backups in te meantime, but once fusion gets up and running it'll really take off.

The problem is we have not yet aciehved the break even condition. Even the best fusion plants today take more energy to operate than they produce. So we cant build a fusion plant today even if the money is available. More time and research is needed before fusion becomes viable.

Of course, the oil barons and coal kings wont go for it. They'll fuck around with the government and call in favrs, and that'll be the end of that (at least in America, maybe the rest of the globe will be more intelligent about it). But i still hold out hope.

If the public can be educated about the benifits of fusion power they would not be a problem.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-05-25 11:08pm

Someone posted on the first page about the "security risks" of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel... I've heard that President Carter did it as some damn "symbolic" act of separating the military and civilian applications of nuclear power.

Hell, I'm not even sure if the US has any remaining facilities with which to reprocess nuclear fuel... I've heard we pretty much have to buy all our RTG fuel from the Russians now, since they're the only ones left who can make the stuff.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-05-25 11:17pm

Except for space craft are there any other uses of RTGs ?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-05-25 11:40pm

evilcat4000 wrote:Except for space craft are there any other uses of RTGs ?

None that I can think of.