Author
|
Topic: The upcoming energy crisis. (Read 32635 times)
|
XR4-IT
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 126

The nuts Androsynth
|
I saw some thing no dangling cables from satellites into earth’s magnetic field to produce power. The show that I saw it on made it some like they got a lot more power then they could handle in the experiment. I guess that the trouble would be getting to power back to work.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GeomanNL
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 167

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|

How expensive is energy nowadays, btw ?
In the Netherlands, one liter of gasoline costs about 1.45 euros (3.7 liters go into one american gallon, and 1 euro is about 1.2 dollars ) .
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
    
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1044

|
And here in Jersey, where it's pretty cheap compared to most of the rest of the US, it's running ~$2.50 - $2.75 a gallon.
And after a quick calculation, I must say I don't envy the European price at the pump. Small wonder the Smart Cars are so popular.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
randy
Zebranky food

Offline
Posts: 14
|
I'm with nuclear energy 100%, no carbon emissions and it can be put in place today which is critical as we should have reduced greenhouse gas emmisions about 30 years ago. There is I believe, enough nuclear fuel in the ground and in the bloody weapons we have, to supply more than enough energy until we actually get fusion working as a feasible option.
Current estimates put that at 2030 at the earliest, so until then, nuclear power is the only way to go. (The costs of setting up renewable energy facilities to meet the world energy demand are astronomical)
Additionally, nuclear power efficiency and safety is incredibly advanced compared to the days of Chernobyl. The Chernobyl incident was caused by politics as much as it was by flimsy construction.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cronos
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Posts: 170

Shofixti Scoutmaster
|
I'm well aware that fusion is a form of nuclear energy as is fission.
You're talking about fusion as if it's progressed as far as it will ever go. Improving techniques and research will make fusion energy not only more efficient but eventually more practicable as a true replacement for our current energy generation methods.
Saying we should give up on fusion because it's not an effective power source currently is absurd. Consider the humble car engine as an example. Modern motors are more energy efficient today then they were say, 30 years ago. Those in turn were more efficient then they were 30 years thence, and 30 years before that people scoffed at motorised transport.
Times change, technology moves forwards. Fusion is the future. And I never said that burning coal and oil were clean alternatives. I was stating that it is easier to put up with a somewhat higher proportion of natural radio isotopes in the atmosphere then it was to deal with thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste that has to be stored for more then three times the length of human history, guarded against corrosion, earthquakes and be checked and rechecked constantly to make sure nothing goes missing in addition to the costs of maintaining a storage facility for that period of time.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
    
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
One tiny little problem with your wonderful solution.
Widespread nuclear energy also means a whole lot of nuclear waste. Nuclear waste last I checked (and depending on the type of waste produced) takes a few thousand years to decay down to safe levels. Not if you use it in a fast reactor. See my posts earlier in this thread.
And XR4-IT wasn't talking about a somewhat higher proportion of natural radioisotopes in the air. He was saying that burning coal releases uranium and other heavy elements into the air, and these elements are, as usual, radioactive... and that, per Joule of energy generated, you get more radiation released by burning coal than you do by running a nuclear power plant. And to boot, this radiation is spread out all over the place rather than kept in an out-of-the-way place. If you're complaining about the radiation hazard of nuclear waste, where it's unlikely anyone is going to actually go there, you should also complain about the nuclear material that is being sprinkled all over the planet by the coal plants.
Lastly, to come in on Cronos' side... XR4-IT, the ITER is expected to run a net energy gain from a fusion reaction, and that's going to be finished next year. Of course, it's not very economical at this point, but we're over the hump and into the 'marginal energy production of running the device is positive' range. Just, it takes a lot more energy to build the thing than it's going to, on net, produce over its lifetime.
But we are getting there. Finally.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
XR4-IT
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 126

The nuts Androsynth
|
Fusion will be good when it gets here, but practical fusion power is still some ways off. Right now we can produce plenty of power from fission reactions.
We do not necessarily have to have nuclear “waste” when dealing with fission plants. The “waste” can be put through a proliferation process that will make useable power cores. Nuclear proliferation has been band in the United States and therefore we have to go about storing old fission rods with less then safe methods.
Sorry wrong waist - waste
|
|
« Last Edit: April 28, 2006, 05:04:48 pm by XR4-IT »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|