Page 2 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Apr 2011, 4:17 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Because...we haven't put the investment dollars and research that we have put into nuclear. Nuclear technology is more advanced because of research and money alone, that's why we have these elaborate designs. We could do just as much with solar if we worked at it and put the money into it. Plus, it's safer than nuclear and not nearly as complex.


That has yet to be proven. We know we can generate the quantities of power required for an industrial society by using fission reactors. In addition if we deploy breeder reactors we do away with the waste disposal problem. Breeders produce very little waste.

There are some hopeful signs in the area of photo-voltaic conversion. There has been recent progress in photo-voltaic converts that use more of the sun's spectrum than current converts. That means for a given surface area, more energy can be extracted.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

The real problem is baseline power production. Fission plants run continually (except when taken down briefly for mainttaining or fuel-rod removal/replacement). Solar plants can only run by day. That means auxiliary power must be produced to be used at night or when the sun is blocked by weather. This means less net output to do useful work.

ruveyn



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

01 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:

It says lead can be used as a coolant. That doesn't mean the thorium will be rendered into lead. Thorium -232 produces Uranium-233.

I am still holding out for the hydrogen economy. I think it's possible. One day.

It sounds like a money making venture. These nuclear heads want plenty of Uranium-233 to sell so they want to install these thermal breeder reactors everywhere.
It's dangerous to have even more depleted uranium than what's already there.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

01 Apr 2011, 11:35 pm

Everything is possible, that is the problem.

I favor breeders as we have a lot to dispose of. The mad bombers of the cold war were secret over producers, and the final product is huge, and nearly new.

It was not us, Japan gets it's fuel from France. Of course they kept the good stuff, bomb grade, and made fuel rods of the byproducts.

We store it forever, or find a way to dispose of it, and reduction through breeder reactors seems best.

Better designs for plants have developed since 1970. Earthquake zones on the coast are not a good site choice.

We are disposing of coal and oil, and Acid Rain and CO2, are a problem.

Other methods do work, but wind farms are killing the bats. We need the bats. Solar works during the day in sunny places. We need lights at night.

Natural gas would make a better car fuel, Ethanol from corn is burning food. Gas costs in that we export money, lots of money.

We have an Atomic Demon, retired warheads do not go away. Oakridge and Hanford are already contaminated, and would make good breeder disposal sites.

Hydrogen works, but is hard to store. It is also an explosion danger. Producing it takes excess power, from somewhere, so it is not free energy. It is clean, but with unsolved problems. Natural gas would be easier to convert to.

When cars get better mileage, people drive more, when houses are better insulated, people build larger houses. Reducing energy costs have other effects on use.

Cheap food leads to a growing population, and oversize people. Cheap money, easy credit, leads to funding bad choices. A McMansion in Aspen with a heated pool, uses more capital and energy than several Amish farms. It is enough to build and run a small factory that employs people and produces something useful.

Strip mining coal does produce cheap energy now, with long term cost. Air, water, land, will be degraded forever.

Choices and returns, problems, we should retire the Atomic Era, the leftovers from the bomb crazies, There is enough to kill everything on earth ten times over. Making lead may take a while, but is a worthy cause.

Oil and coal would be useful in the future. Oil makes plastic, drugs, and is good stuff. The future would likely be shocked that coal was burned, as they will develop better processes.

Support the first child, do not support the second, and tax the third.

Fund transportation, first 10,000 miles a year, cheap, the next at cost, and over use will cost you. The same for houses, per person per square foot, 500 square foot per person, cheap, 750 at true cost, and over, taxed.

We need to build incentives into the system that people will plan on using the least, the cheap, and not the current drive a hundred miles to work in an SUV. Most cars have one person, fuel rations would double that. Most houses are heated and cooled, and no one is home. A meal, shower, bed, is all they use.

A 1500 square foot city house well built with a couple and one child on public transportation allows all costs to go to raising and educating the next generation. Rental golf carts and trailers could take care of occational large loads, a new sofa, or moving.

They are not consumers to send into debt to drive the economy and sell more Hummers. They are the most common form of livestock, and need to be raised to produce a better breed.

With livestock it is overall cost to produce a better breed. No 42" Plasma screens in the milking stalls.

A very good quality of life, enough food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, can be provided cheaply. Their productive ability is of higher value. Raising one generation of only child minimal consumers, without debt, would change the world.

We are wasting more than half of energy produced, perhaps three quarters. The consumer economy leads to indebted consumers, and cheap products.
It also leads to continuing atomic plants for long years beyond their designed lifespan. Designed for twenty year service, now extended to forty.

Japan is facing catchup costs of over $330 Billion, and the loss of the plants. Restoring power levels will take years, cost a Trillion, and as they are in debt for 200% of GDP, they will have to sell US Treasuries to cover it. The next meltdown will be in the bond market.

Deflation in consumption would solve most problems.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

02 Apr 2011, 12:47 am

Inventor wrote:
It was not us, Japan gets it's fuel from France. Of course they kept the good stuff, bomb grade, and made fuel rods of the byproducts.

France does a lot of recycling so it figures they would have enough left over to sell to Japan. If we get some breeders in this country, we might be able to make a profit off of it, too. We can always sell to places too earthquake prone to have breeder reactors, maybe?


Quote:
Other methods do work, but wind farms are killing the bats. We need the bats. Solar works during the day in sunny places. We need lights at night.

Wind energy is awesome and powers skyscrapers so they can go off the grid. You could power your own house with a windmill, generator and a battery and not have to pay a dime to the electric company. Solar requires a battery for night time, but there's more than enough energy left over to sell back to the power company and make a little extra on the side.
Quote:
Natural gas would make a better car fuel, Ethanol from corn is burning food. Gas costs in that we export money, lots of money.

Ethanol is bad for engines and takes too much corn from livestock so food prices skyrocket. Not a good choice. Of the two, natural gas is better. Maybe one day, we will have twin ion engines in our autos, lol. That will solve everything :roll:

Quote:
Hydrogen works, but is hard to store. It is also an explosion danger. Producing it takes excess power, from somewhere, so it is not free energy. It is clean, but with unsolved problems. Natural gas would be easier to convert to.

We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.

Quote:
Oil and coal would be useful in the future. Oil makes plastic, drugs, and is good stuff. The future would likely be shocked that coal was burned, as they will develop better processes.

Better processes being the key. We could perfect solar and wind power. They would be the better option. But, since there's more money in uranium and plutonium, that will get the most attention, even if it might not be the best option.



Quote:
A very good quality of life, enough food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, can be provided cheaply. Their productive ability is of higher value. Raising one generation of only child minimal consumers, without debt, would change the world.

The problem is, they wouldn't be able to support the generation before them. They would be outnumbered and since they are, they would be lacking in resources. The looming previous generation would consume everything out of fear of having nothing leaving the only child generation with nothing.

Quote:
Japan is facing catchup costs of over $330 Billion, and the loss of the plants. Restoring power levels will take years, cost a Trillion, and as they are in debt for 200% of GDP, they will have to sell US Treasuries to cover it. The next meltdown will be in the bond market.

It would be strange if they put a series of breeder reactors on Fukushima Dai-ichi. It's doubtful though, since Tsunamis are such a risk near their subduction fault.
In this country, inflation is considered a viable near future threat. It's supposed to wreck havoc on the economy sometime soon.



ZeroGravitas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: 40,075 kilometers from where I am

02 Apr 2011, 1:05 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.


This made me giggle and I am not that proud of it.


_________________
This sentance contains three erors.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156929.html - How to annoy me


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

02 Apr 2011, 1:17 am

ZeroGravitas wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.


This made me giggle and I am not that proud of it.

Just wait and see. Cars will run on liquid hydrogen which only emission will be water.

Here's something to savor:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/liquid-hydrogen.htm

Question is, how much will they charge us to fill up the tank :chin:

No matter what, they will find a way to overcharge the consumer. If all the cars on the road suddenly converted to natural gas tomorrow, the cost would be fifty bucks or more to fill up your tank.

As far as combustibility goes, gasoline and natural gas, both are highly flammable. Both are quite hazardous, require special handling, cannot be exposed to sparks, heat, or fire. It's not like they are safe products by any stretch of the imagination. It's a myth that hydrogen is more dangerous than either one of those and we use both of them all the time.
Folks, it's time to get rid of the pollution by switching to the cleaner fuel.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

03 Apr 2011, 1:01 am

Switching to a cleaner fuel costs. Natural gas is an easy conversion for cars, Hydrogen calls for a new design, new fuel stations, before it can be used.

Then there is the problem of supporting the past. Lots of existing industries would close. An only child living the simple life would not support two aging parents.

A government funded breeder program would bankrupt the power industry. Cheap power would make Hydrogen possible, That bankrupts oil and gas.

The best answer is breeders feeding an underground power grid, supercooled with Hydrogen. We could not afford the transition cost, and and would have to give free energy to the unemployed.

With the ability to pump water where it is needed, farming would become more productive. With food, and unemployed, birth control would have to be mandatory. The incentive to produce less children is based on a better economic future, and a sameness for everyone will lead to unintended results.

We have created a nightmare system. We ride the tiger.

Japan does have to secure the power plant, no matter the cost. There is also the disaster that killed 25,000 and made many more homeless. They have a long term power shortage now, and will for years. Rolling blackouts are here for a while.

The power company stock dropped by 80%. They will not fund the cleanup. The evacuation zone will grow. Chernoble lost one reactor, the other three are still running. This plant is a total loss, and not located far from anything, but in densely populated Japan. A lot of land around Chernoble is uninhabited now, and for hundreds of years to come.

It is worse than they say. The fuel rods have melted in the reactors and in the pools. Worse case is China Syndrome, it all melts into one puddle, sinks into the earth, and creates an atomic volcano.

During WWII Japan launched baloons that dropped fire on the northwest. Japan is under the Jet Stream. What goes up there falls over north America.

At Chernoble the reactor blew up, scattered a lot of dirty bomb stuff, it was ugly, but dispersed. Japan has a contained system, the rods melted in place, forming a denser reactor.

Spacing the fuel rods, water cooling, keeps it down to steam generation. Hotter it breaks water into oxygen and hydrogen, which explodes, which is what has been happening.

Regaining control may not be possible. Once it reaches a high enough heat, water cooling just causes more explosions. It is contained in six inches of stainless steel, which will melt. The area is flooded, there are leaking pools of spent fuel, a series of explosions and it all sinks into one hole, and hits ground water. I doubt the eruptions can be contained with concrete. Dumped into the hole, it would explode.

This is the nightmare of atomic energy, a runaway reactor. Here we have six with pools of spent fuel rods. The news has not been telling the whole story. Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown, Chernoble a reactor blown apart, we have never had a total meltdown, and it could not happen in a worse place. China Syndrome was about the worst case outcome.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Apr 2011, 2:05 am

Question is, if it has happened, not once but six times, what are they going to do? It's going to be scary, for sure.
Chernobyl reactor core also melted into the ground.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Apr 2011, 8:06 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ZeroGravitas wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.


This made me giggle and I am not that proud of it.

Just wait and see. Cars will run on liquid hydrogen which only emission will be water.

Here's something to savor:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/liquid-hydrogen.htm




From where shall we get unbound hydrogen to liquify. There is very little unbound hydrogen on earth. Hydrogren is a very reactive element and most of it is bound into compounds -- hydrocarbons for example.

ruveyn



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

03 Apr 2011, 3:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ZeroGravitas wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.


This made me giggle and I am not that proud of it.

Just wait and see. Cars will run on liquid hydrogen which only emission will be water.

Here's something to savor:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/liquid-hydrogen.htm




From where shall we get unbound hydrogen to liquify. There is very little unbound hydrogen on earth. Hydrogren is a very reactive element and most of it is bound into compounds -- hydrocarbons for example.

ruveyn

We would need to figure that out, but, it can be done, I am confident! Anything is possible, that is what studying the universe has taught us thus far!
Before Einstein's TOR did mankind think it possible to split an atom? Did people realize matter and energy are one in the same? They needed Einstein to come along and tell them that. Same with figuring out how to multiply our hydrogens so they are pure and unbound, releasing no hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. We need to find the process.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

05 Apr 2011, 11:42 pm

We have the process, take water, add energy, Oxygen and Hydrogen.

Releasing the Oxygen is a good idea, as it varies from 15% to 22%, and is consumed by other processes. 15% is where there are a lot of people, cars, and a coal fired plant just sucks it up.

Problem one, energy can be produced and sold, so no second stage use. We could convert the grid to Hydrogen production, then use it in fuel cells, for home and car. Aside from the coal plants, gas fired turbines, and breathing, the byproduct is water.

Problem two is the more produced, the more is used. Better building standards were supposed to reduce our oil imports. It lead to more and larger buildings. Better fuel mileage lead to SUVs.

Look around, the main infastructure we have are roads and parking lots. Cement is made by burning limestone in a kiln, with natural gas.

There are natural limits, try driving in LA. It is a gridlock of traffic burning fuel and going nowhere. They invented Smog. The sky is gray to orange.

With breeders and hydrogen producing pure water, the sky would be clear, and there would be a constant flood. Here along the beach they are always running out of water. The southwest has been sucking all supplies dry.

We are like the species that lived on earth before free Oxygen, they made it as a waste product till it killed them.

We live in a narrow range, and do our best to kill it.

I live in a rotting swamp. South of that is salt marsh. It comsumes Oxygen, and with the runoff from the mississippi, which produces blooms of life, that consumes Oxygen when they die and decay, forms Oxygen free dead zones. Besides that we have cars and breath.

Going north sixty miles into the pine forests, I get an Oxygen high, it goes from 15%, with refinery wastes, to 22%, and I feel great.

We do need a new fuel supply, also we need to have high quality Oxygen rich air, and pure water. We do live somewhere, and should be able to find what we need close. Towns of 25,000-30,000 are large enough to have it all, and small enough for walking, biking, with a good green space all around.

Mega cities are a blight on the land. We have not designed for people, and how people change to adapt is not good.

It reminds me of the old zoos, large animals in small cages, compared to the new zoos, with habitats for each, and people walking above, just out of reach. The old zoos had nothing but concrete and steel bars. The new a wall, but plants within, real dirt, and room to walk around.

LA is not a natural habitat for humans. The zoo changed for the better, the zoo keeper's life changed for the worse.



ZeroGravitas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 499
Location: 40,075 kilometers from where I am

06 Apr 2011, 12:08 am

Most elemental hydrogen is extracted from hydrocarbons via steam reforming, not from splitting water.

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

The process of extracting hydrogen from water is a net energy loss. It takes more energy to split water, then the elemental hydrogen provides. It also in almost all cases produces toxic byproducts. Ironically, one promising avenue of thermolytic water splitting is via the use of nuclear power.

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


_________________
This sentance contains three erors.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156929.html - How to annoy me


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

07 Apr 2011, 12:22 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ZeroGravitas wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We might be able to find a way to produce unlimited hydrogen once we figure out it's complex relationship with planet earth. Liquid hydrogen is more stable.


This made me giggle and I am not that proud of it.

Just wait and see. Cars will run on liquid hydrogen which only emission will be water.

Here's something to savor:
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/liquid-hydrogen.htm




From where shall we get unbound hydrogen to liquify. There is very little unbound hydrogen on earth. Hydrogren is a very reactive element and most of it is bound into compounds -- hydrocarbons for example.

ruveyn

We would need to figure that out, but, it can be done, I am confident! Anything is possible, that is what studying the universe has taught us thus far!
Before Einstein's TOR did mankind think it possible to split an atom? Did people realize matter and energy are one in the same? They needed Einstein to come along and tell them that. Same with figuring out how to multiply our hydrogens so they are pure and unbound, releasing no hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. We need to find the process.


OK but there's a whole conservation problem to consider.

We can neither create nor destroy energy (or matter). Watts out can never be greater than watts in. Reality is that watts out isn't even going to be all that close to watts in.

How are you going to unbind that hydrogen bond - a bond that requires energy in some form to break - without using more energy than you could possibly get back out of it when you oxidize it, or whatever.

It's one thing to hope for a breakthrough and something else entirely to hope for someone to overcome a solid law of nature.

Unless someone thinks up a way to collect unbound hydrogen without using as much energy as you get from oxidizing hydrogen (and really, look at the molecular structures and count the electrons), hydrogen fuel is an energy storage medium, not an energy source.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

07 Apr 2011, 6:03 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We would need to figure that out, but, it can be done, I am confident! Anything is possible, that is what studying the universe has taught us thus far!
Before Einstein's TOR did mankind think it possible to split an atom? Did people realize matter and energy are one in the same? They needed Einstein to come along and tell them that. Same with figuring out how to multiply our hydrogens so they are pure and unbound, releasing no hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. We need to find the process.


Beqerel and Curie (nee Skledovska) knew that certain atoms were disintegrating and releasing energy (in the 19th century) before Einstein every published a word. The underlying process was no well understood until the development of quantum theory. Both published in the late 1890's.

ruveyn



Raymond_Fawkes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,208

07 Apr 2011, 2:25 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00nkteczgUk[/youtube]

Here's a short clip of Japan's "GreenPeace" measuring out radiation. It's so high in some places, the geiger counter wouldn't work. The Japanese government needs to extend the evacuation zone.



MotherKnowsBest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,196

07 Apr 2011, 2:41 pm

You guys might be interested in this blog:

http://markforeman.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... o-the-sea/

It's someone I know who is a Chemistry Prof in Industrial Recycling. He's got info on all sorts and he is more than happy to discuss and answer people's questions. His blog is primarily for his students, but I asked him if it's ok to link it to you guys and he says yes, the more the merrier.