Energy Crisis Solved by Science
- Thread starter Leppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, this definitely won't solve the energy crisis. Don't get me wrong, science WILL solve the energy problem, but give it several decades.
I'll give you a better example to prove me point. Algae farming, an alternative oil producer. Unlike the OP's suggestion, it doesn't involve nuclear materials. It's relatively harmless if it spills. It doesn't produce as much carbon dioxide, because the process requires that CO2 is taken in. It takes up less space than ethanol farms take up. Actually, the only reason you've never heard of it is because of fairly simple economics, in that it costs more to produce than oil right now. But once oil costs more to produce, which is the whole point of the energy crisis, then you start seeing commercial investment in this. At first, it will be the oil companies investing in this to compliment their conventional process - a few of them already have labs on the side. Then this process slowly evolves to overtake conventional oil drilling.
So what is it? It's biology. All you're doing is creating and feeding a genetically-modified form of algae that rapidly lives its life, reproduces and dies. In 3 days, you can bypass 3 million years of history and just create your own small oil supply in a lab. The reason the oil companies love it is because it's a brilliant compliment to what they already have - the farming process requires a LOT of concentrated carbon dioxide going into it. So the oil companies attach these labs onto the side, pump a good portion of their CO2 into the lab instead of out into the atmosphere, and create more oil off of the byproduct of their conventional process. Once conventional oil starts declining, you see more sections of refineries turning into algae labs.
THIS is the future of oil companies. The same people can be in business, working with a solution that will by then be more cost-effective (because mining oil becomes less cost-effective). So they won't mind, because this isn't them going out of business, this is merely them evolving. Gone will be the days of oil platforms, arriving will be the days of farming labs. Same people, different method.
So yeah, science. That's just one example too. Don't get me talking about structures such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, which is designed to have wind turbines supplying 20% of its own power, or of vertical farming, which is exactly what you think it is.
I'll give you a better example to prove me point. Algae farming, an alternative oil producer. Unlike the OP's suggestion, it doesn't involve nuclear materials. It's relatively harmless if it spills. It doesn't produce as much carbon dioxide, because the process requires that CO2 is taken in. It takes up less space than ethanol farms take up. Actually, the only reason you've never heard of it is because of fairly simple economics, in that it costs more to produce than oil right now. But once oil costs more to produce, which is the whole point of the energy crisis, then you start seeing commercial investment in this. At first, it will be the oil companies investing in this to compliment their conventional process - a few of them already have labs on the side. Then this process slowly evolves to overtake conventional oil drilling.
So what is it? It's biology. All you're doing is creating and feeding a genetically-modified form of algae that rapidly lives its life, reproduces and dies. In 3 days, you can bypass 3 million years of history and just create your own small oil supply in a lab. The reason the oil companies love it is because it's a brilliant compliment to what they already have - the farming process requires a LOT of concentrated carbon dioxide going into it. So the oil companies attach these labs onto the side, pump a good portion of their CO2 into the lab instead of out into the atmosphere, and create more oil off of the byproduct of their conventional process. Once conventional oil starts declining, you see more sections of refineries turning into algae labs.
THIS is the future of oil companies. The same people can be in business, working with a solution that will by then be more cost-effective (because mining oil becomes less cost-effective). So they won't mind, because this isn't them going out of business, this is merely them evolving. Gone will be the days of oil platforms, arriving will be the days of farming labs. Same people, different method.
So yeah, science. That's just one example too. Don't get me talking about structures such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, which is designed to have wind turbines supplying 20% of its own power, or of vertical farming, which is exactly what you think it is.
What the hell are you talking about? Cold fusion is purely hypothetical. How could something like it happen "all over again" if never did in the first place. Plus, if cold fusion did work, it would be virtually the best form of energy possible. Nuclear power plants work on fission while cold fusion is essentially the idea of nuclear fusion occurring at not mind numbing temperatures. If we could get fusion to work at reasonable temperatures, it results in no Co2 emissions, waste material that naturally decays completely overtime (and doesn't take that long), and produces more energy by far than anything we do right now.topwomble said:
People really don't know much about nuclear power plants. They hear "nuclear" and think "OH MY GOD WE GONNA DIE!" Nuclear power plants CAN'T explode. They can however, release clouds of radiation, which happens very rarely. The only times it's happened is from very stupid decisions (like having the core placed in a shed...) They do produce radioactive waste material that decays quite slowly. Currently we don't have good methods of storing or eliminating such material, but that's partly because at least here in America, we don't focus on ways to improve the energy source. Everyone's so God damn scared that it's pretty much shunned here. The fact of the matter is when used properly, it's more efficient and considerably safer than coal mining/fossil fuel energy productions.
Oh yeah. You know those stacks? Those are filled with water. Not glowing radioactive material. You can think cartoons for that one.
Nuclear power of any kind, although playing a big role, can't solve the energy crisis on its own because you can't power vehicles (except boats) with it. Without most modes of transport, there will be no global food and goods network, and no country is anywhere near being self sufficient at this point.
Sure it's safe as long as there isn't a disaster, but there will inevitably be some kind of accident around a nuclear facility. If you have an earthquake near a coal plant it isn't going to irradiate the surrounding area for generations. It's hydrogen powered cars, right? It's very environmentally friendly and efficient, but the problem is that if you get into an accident it will probably explode. It works well by itself, but it's like playing with a loaded gun.kokoska said:
Again, I am still pro-nuclear power, but it does carry far greater risks than other forms of energy when accidents or acts of nature happen.
The funny thing is that this is not about what I expected this to be about.
I don't remember exactly, but what I thought this was about was that a company discovered how to create fuel out of genetically engineered bacteria. Not sure how "green" it is, but it was also claimed to solve all the fuel problems for good.
I don't remember exactly, but what I thought this was about was that a company discovered how to create fuel out of genetically engineered bacteria. Not sure how "green" it is, but it was also claimed to solve all the fuel problems for good.
Personally I see this as the future of energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module
It is "capable of supplying 25 megawatts of electric power, weigh 18-20 tons, measure approximately 1.5 meters in diameter, be mass-produced on an assembly line, and be capable of unattended, unrefueled operation for up to seven to ten years at a time". The design is also inherently safe and can power about 20,000 typical U.S. households. Overall a much more preferable alternative to fossil fuels and standard nuclear power.
It is "capable of supplying 25 megawatts of electric power, weigh 18-20 tons, measure approximately 1.5 meters in diameter, be mass-produced on an assembly line, and be capable of unattended, unrefueled operation for up to seven to ten years at a time". The design is also inherently safe and can power about 20,000 typical U.S. households. Overall a much more preferable alternative to fossil fuels and standard nuclear power.
So let me understand this. A nuclear power plant is like a lightning rod, but for disasters? Really? REALLY?! And btw, there is inherent danger in ANY form of generating electricity, ANY. Nuclear disasters are bad, but have you ever seen a coal fire? Thought not. Go check out Centralia, Pennsylvania sometime. I hear its lovely this time of year. Yea, the place isn't irradiated, yay! Good luck breathing copious amounts of carbon monoxide.ajemas said:
Would you care to retract that statement?DracoSuave said:
Solar:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/S_OSUTHGpcI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/AWMQ3e6zZ2k/s320/SEGS-I-fire_caption.png
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/AV-explosion.html
Wind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfHxINzGeo
http://whenwindturbinesgobad.blogspot.com/
You want to argue about land contamination? Okay, let's. The fossil fuel industry results in 1/3 of all CO2 emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/ES7-7.gif
Burning coal emits 100 times the radiation of a similarly sized nuclear fission plant. http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
A typical 500kw Coal plant generates approx 26.5 tons of waste every month. Not counting waste water discharge. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html
The environmental impact of coal production is well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_coal_mining_and_burning
List of coal mine related accidents, coal plant accidents not included. http://www.usmra.com/saxsewell/historical.htm
Nuclear waste production roughly 20-30 tons/month per reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_nuclear_power#Radioactive_waste
Approximately 488 sqkm of radioactively contaminated land has been reclaimed from the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl by wildlife. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_after_the_disaster
Fukashima exposure levels comparison to other sources. http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Total list of all civilian nuclear accidents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents
And finally a cost comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources
That's right. Nuclear plants cost as much as coal, produce roughly the same amount of hard waste, are virtually twice as safe, and are in fact LESS RADIOACTIVE THAN COAL PLANTS.
Absolutely false? Are you that poorly informed? Yes, you are evidently.
http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/recycling.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
Consider yourself schooled.
Uranium 238 becoming plutonium is not renewing uranium 235.Grospoliner said:
Nor is it renewable at all, once you have plutonium, you don't go back to u-235.
I know a little concept like 'Conservation of mass' and 'energy' is rough, so I'll explain what happens when you use fission on Uranium 235 which is NOT Uranium 238.
U-235, when hit with a neutron, becomes U-236, which in turn is unstable. This causes it to become two other elements, along with a release of great amounts of energy, and some neutrons. This process is irreversable, as those elements... if they could combine... would require great amounts of energy and some neutrons... and would become U-236. U-236 is unstable, and would simply fission again.
Now, if the neutrons hit U-238 (which again, is NOT U-235), then it will undergo decay that will change it to Plutonium, which is also a fissionable material like U-235. However, that doesn't make this a renewable reaction... it only means that one reaction, in a breeder reactor, will create another fissable material out of material that is otherwise useless.
The problem is... once fissile material is used it's done for permanently... there exists absolutely no way to undo the reaction, from fission to fusion, and even if you could, it'd be an endothermic reaction... it would require as much energy to undo as it took to do.
But good on you posting on breeder reactors, because it makes an excellent rebuttal to:
See above about breeder reactors being used to turn u-238 into plutonium, thusly allowing for more fissile material that can be used to make fission bombs.Loop Stricken said:
Well funny enough, it potentially could. The coming decades will need to see transport almost entirely revamped, and a huge amount of automobile traffic in the world could be replaced by trains, which could easily be electrified and run off of nuclear power. You've also got the potential for electric cars, which could make up almost everything that legitimately needs personal automobile use. Also, the global food and transport network is a bit shoddy in it's basic idea; you could save a lot of energy by just making things close to you rather than shipping it halfway around the world.Quijiboh said:
Uranium can easily be bred so that almost no significantly radioactive material remains, raising the efficiency of uranium fuel a shit ton. Only, no countries fully breed nuclear fuel, and some of the biggest users don't do it at all.ajemas said:
Chernobyl was in fact a meltdown. The core melted down and got into the water, which ended up creating all that steam. But you're right, Chernobyl shouldn't be anymore representative of the Nuclear industry thanVersuvius said:
Most experts agree that 100% renewable-based energy would be quite easy to obtain, given time to shift from fossil fuels and the will to do so.Kopikatsu said:
/posts stupid less-clever-than-he-thinks-it-is picture that reads "I see what you did there."Leppy said:
Are you asking us to take this grand revelation and embrace nuclear power on a grander scale?
First reaction to the thread title: No fuckin' way! (that's sarcasm for those of you who can't differentiate irony from redundancy from confusion
)
Also: would that stigma be the ease of which nuclear power could erase us from the planet and forever render it uninhabitable?