Energy Crisis Solved by Science
- Thread starter Leppy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Are there a shitton of methods for obtaining clean energy? God yes. Do they produce ANYWHERE near enough to matter? Not really.jonyboy13 said:
The very highest current theoretical yield of solar cells is about 28-ish% for example, and solar cells are a major source of renewable energy. If only we could get that to 100%. Probably won't happen for another gajillion years, though. SCIENCE IS HARD.
OT: I don't have a problem with nuclear power. It's efficient, easy, mostly clean...provided that the plant has proper maintenance done and security level maintained of course.
Radioactive fuels!
I see no drawback to that at all...
Besides, Hamsters are the energy source of the future!
Hamsters in wheels...
I see no drawback to that at all...
Besides, Hamsters are the energy source of the future!
Hamsters in wheels...
Thorium has a lot of advantages over uranium in terms of safety and waste management, plus seawater is chock full of the stuff.
as a side note, i think a lot of people are overly scared of nuclear power in general because they don't understand it. if a coal plant or oil refinery blows up (which they sometimes do) you can see the smoke, feel the heat, etc. but you're not natively equipped to detect ionizing radiation and dangerous isotopes.
as a side note, i think a lot of people are overly scared of nuclear power in general because they don't understand it. if a coal plant or oil refinery blows up (which they sometimes do) you can see the smoke, feel the heat, etc. but you're not natively equipped to detect ionizing radiation and dangerous isotopes.
I see what you did there!
Anyway, you are greatly understanding the costs of this kind of fuel usage. Although there are little to no greenhouse gas emissions, it still has a terrible effect on the environment. Once the actinouranium, Uranium for those of you slow on the uptake, can no longer be used as fuel we have no real way to get rid of it. While it can't produce any usable energy it is still producing very dangerous levels of radiation and can't be properly disposed of.
I'm not saying that I'm completely against nuclear power, but its risks should be taken into account.
Anyway, you are greatly understanding the costs of this kind of fuel usage. Although there are little to no greenhouse gas emissions, it still has a terrible effect on the environment. Once the actinouranium, Uranium for those of you slow on the uptake, can no longer be used as fuel we have no real way to get rid of it. While it can't produce any usable energy it is still producing very dangerous levels of radiation and can't be properly disposed of.
I'm not saying that I'm completely against nuclear power, but its risks should be taken into account.
28% is fantastic. For a solar cell. It's still not very much energy though (which is why solar fields are so large (side note: a nuclear reactor the size of your average solar field will produce something like 500% more energy. And, nuclear plants work at night too). And, unfortunately, because of that pesky little thing called the First Law of Thermodynamics, the best we'll ever get out of solar cells is put at about 50%.Kopikatsu said:
So we can´t cite Chernobyl as an example of the dangers of nuclear power being handled poorly, because it was actually caused by nuclear power being handled VERY poorly..... thanks for clearing this up.andrew21 said:
I´m actually in favor of nuclear power (though much more in favor of heavily investing in research aimed at making nuclear power redundant), but you can´t just walk around declaring such events irrelevant because the people in charge were morons.
Because according to my very conservative estimate, morons will remain a problem on this planet for QUITE some time.
I was refering to weapons of mass destruction... you know... the OTHER thing nuclear reactors make.RAKtheUndead said:
Or a space elevator.Mr Jack said:
Manufacture the waste disposal ships in space, negates the cost of getting the shit into orbit.
The only viable method we currently have for an immediate energy switch is Natural Gas. It produces far less pollution than coal or oil and the US has absolutely massive quantities of the stuff.
People will not support nuclear power for quite some time. After Chernobyl and the near disaster at the Japan plants, most people don't want a nuclear plant anywhere near them.
People will not support nuclear power for quite some time. After Chernobyl and the near disaster at the Japan plants, most people don't want a nuclear plant anywhere near them.
Questionable. (Scientific) laws are meant to be broken!TheWonko said:
They recently discovered some kind of particle that could theoretically move faster than light for example, and nothing was supposed to exceed that speed. Same with the atom. It was supposed to be the smallest thing in existence, but there are quite a few things smaller than atoms. Laws in science are more...guidelines until we come up with something that fits better.
Oh, I get how this experiment works. Take uranium and use a name most people don't recognize. Then present your clearly unbiased argument about why we should use it, and see if people will listen just because they didn't bother to look it up?
It's like the opposite of what they do in this video:
But if you're trying to prove some point other than "people don't really think" you can't really make it with an argument like that. You're attempting to present uranium without any negative connotation, but that's different from presenting it in an unbiased connotation. While there certainly is a lot of hysteria surrounding uranium, there also are some things we should be genuinely concerned with. If you're trying to suggest that people would want uranium if it weren't for their biases, this isn't a good way to prove it.
It's like the opposite of what they do in this video:
But if you're trying to prove some point other than "people don't really think" you can't really make it with an argument like that. You're attempting to present uranium without any negative connotation, but that's different from presenting it in an unbiased connotation. While there certainly is a lot of hysteria surrounding uranium, there also are some things we should be genuinely concerned with. If you're trying to suggest that people would want uranium if it weren't for their biases, this isn't a good way to prove it.
when it comes to a debate over the merits of nuclear power (for the few who still don't get it, that's what this was about), i find little to no redeeming argument against its use.
consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location. the lesson? nuclear power is certainly dangerous. if you don't know what your doing, you are literally playing with explosives, but if you have a level of competency and aren't struck by the vengeful wrath of Zeus, you basically have access to massive quantities of clean energy. and even if Zeus does have it out for us, as Fukushima has shown us, damage can be mitigated through proper procedures.
Most importantly, danger is implicit in all forms of energy production, save perhaps windmills, which people still manage to be eviscerated by somehow. Unlike other practical means on energy production, nuclear power produces no carbon emissions, making it by a wide margin the cleanest form of energy we have available. consider how many people have died because of pollution, be it bad air or water. consider how many coal plants would be required to compensate for one nuke plant and then consider how much actual damage those coal plants would do versus the speculated danger of a nuke.
furthermore, consider the amount of capital saved through nuclear power. we are only barely emerging from an economic recession, and world population shows no signs of waiting for the money to catch up. those people demand energy, and unless you want to pepper the landscape with smog belching coal plants and pay through the ass for electricity, then your going to need some facilities capable of actual energy production, and until we crack fusion, fission (nuclear power) is all we've got.
and because i know one or two of your are thinking about green energy: windmills are largely recognized as impractical for virtually all developed areas, as are small solar farms which tend to cost more energy to produce than they will create in a lifetime (making them expensive batteries).
TL;DR---- nuclear power is less dangerous, cleaner, and cheaper than all other practical forms of energy production. your fear of it is akin to your fear of a plane crashing. deal with it.
consider this: name 3 big nuclear power plant disasters. if you named Fukushima, 3 mile islanf and Chernobyl, congratulations, you named them all. now consider how each disaster was caused and later panned out. Fukushima was cause by a magnitude 9 earthquake and consequent tsunami, enough to wreak havoc on any facility. Chernobyl occurred 30 years ago due to inept soviet technicians trying to cut corners on safety protocols, and remains a powerful reminder of what happens when nuclear power goes wrong. 3 mile island on the other hand occurred due to a mechanical failure, and was swiftly repaired. the damages of 3 mile island have been regarded by experts as negligible and people continue live within short distance of the location. the lesson? nuclear power is certainly dangerous. if you don't know what your doing, you are literally playing with explosives, but if you have a level of competency and aren't struck by the vengeful wrath of Zeus, you basically have access to massive quantities of clean energy. and even if Zeus does have it out for us, as Fukushima has shown us, damage can be mitigated through proper procedures.
Most importantly, danger is implicit in all forms of energy production, save perhaps windmills, which people still manage to be eviscerated by somehow. Unlike other practical means on energy production, nuclear power produces no carbon emissions, making it by a wide margin the cleanest form of energy we have available. consider how many people have died because of pollution, be it bad air or water. consider how many coal plants would be required to compensate for one nuke plant and then consider how much actual damage those coal plants would do versus the speculated danger of a nuke.
furthermore, consider the amount of capital saved through nuclear power. we are only barely emerging from an economic recession, and world population shows no signs of waiting for the money to catch up. those people demand energy, and unless you want to pepper the landscape with smog belching coal plants and pay through the ass for electricity, then your going to need some facilities capable of actual energy production, and until we crack fusion, fission (nuclear power) is all we've got.
and because i know one or two of your are thinking about green energy: windmills are largely recognized as impractical for virtually all developed areas, as are small solar farms which tend to cost more energy to produce than they will create in a lifetime (making them expensive batteries).
TL;DR---- nuclear power is less dangerous, cleaner, and cheaper than all other practical forms of energy production. your fear of it is akin to your fear of a plane crashing. deal with it.
Personally I'll keep my hopes at cold fusion, but seeing as the first production tests are planned for 2035, it might take some time.
One thing people need to understand though, is that whenever you use energy, it has some effect. At small scales it doesn't seem to do much, but with 7 billion people running at small scale, it adds up and it adds up fast. With fossil fuels there is the fact that carbon emissions occur that will disturb the previous temporary balance (probably back to the era before they were trapped underground to begin with), but also the fact that all that solar energy that was trapped underground is being used in a relatively small time frame compared to the period used to create and store it.
With nuclear power you have the waste you need to store, but again you're bringing energy into a closed system. Cold fusion will be no different, since we'll effectively be making minature suns and will, if the need for energy keeps rising as it does, release an ever growing amount of energy in the system. This will have effects.
Of course, being alive means you affect the world around you and I don't want to go too extreme in this, but we should be working on both ends of the balance. And preferably try to reduce the use of energy as much as possible before producing more.
And green energy, following the same philosophy, will have an influence on the world as well. The more you use, the bigger that influence will be. Whether that influence will be bigger per kWh or smaller compared to the one's mentioned above is, as far as I know, a matter of judgement and research.
You might say the amount of energy we produce is small compared to that delivered by the sun, but every Joule adds up.
One thing people need to understand though, is that whenever you use energy, it has some effect. At small scales it doesn't seem to do much, but with 7 billion people running at small scale, it adds up and it adds up fast. With fossil fuels there is the fact that carbon emissions occur that will disturb the previous temporary balance (probably back to the era before they were trapped underground to begin with), but also the fact that all that solar energy that was trapped underground is being used in a relatively small time frame compared to the period used to create and store it.
With nuclear power you have the waste you need to store, but again you're bringing energy into a closed system. Cold fusion will be no different, since we'll effectively be making minature suns and will, if the need for energy keeps rising as it does, release an ever growing amount of energy in the system. This will have effects.
Of course, being alive means you affect the world around you and I don't want to go too extreme in this, but we should be working on both ends of the balance. And preferably try to reduce the use of energy as much as possible before producing more.
And green energy, following the same philosophy, will have an influence on the world as well. The more you use, the bigger that influence will be. Whether that influence will be bigger per kWh or smaller compared to the one's mentioned above is, as far as I know, a matter of judgement and research.
You might say the amount of energy we produce is small compared to that delivered by the sun, but every Joule adds up.
Yeah, Tachyons (faster than light particles) are thought to have negative mass. Which means that they can't go slower than light. Meanwhile, what Einstein said was that something couldn't reach the speed of light without gaining infinite mass, and therefore using infinite energy. What a tachyon would do as it slows down would be lose negative mass, shedding energy until it reaches zero mass an ceases to exist.Kopikatsu said:
As for the Laws of Thermodynamics, people have been trying to prove those wrong since they were conceived. No luck so far.