nuclear power

[BardSeed]

I'm glad somebody mentioned Tesla, few people actually know of his tower. I read about a group that will install Tesla towers for you when they get a million people to sign up. Not sure how that would work exactly though.
Could you PLEASE change the name of the thread? It's annoying enough when you hear Americans, especially Bush, pronounce it wrong without misspelling too.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

I heard/read about a new technology that brings solar energy very close to the point where it becomes a viable economic alternative to fossil fuels, with the added benefit of being able to use the panels as regular windows.

There is also fusion power to consider, but I don't think that's going to be viable for a very long time, which is a shame really, as the way I understand it, the downsides of fusion power are fairly few in number

EDIT: Oh, and Toastmaster, please try harder with your opening posts in future please.

 

[SilentHunter7]

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun

NO! A star will collapse if an element heavier than (I think) iron forms in its core, as fusion of heavy elements absorb energy rather than release it.

 

[SimuLord]

I'm completely in favor of nuclear power. Sure, the waste it produces is a nasty mess but even if we just decided to find a "dead zone" (being from Nevada myself I'm plenty familiar with that debate) or shoot the stuff into space, it's carbon-neutral and what's the point of saving the planet from nuclear waste when we're just going to cook it with global warming?

Lesser of two evils, because it's either that or we just renounce the whole idea of civilization, and then who will Yahtzee have to rant at?

 

[absinthe21]

"I like nuclear power except for we have several of the same reactors used in Chernobyl O_O"

There wasn't actually a hardware problem with Chernobyl. The meltdown was caused by workers there pushing the limits of the security system to see how far it could go without breaking.

 

[SilentHunter7]

"I like nuclear power except for we have several of the same reactors used in Chernobyl O_O"

There wasn't actually a hardware problem with Chernobyl. The meltdown was caused by workers there pushing the limits of the security system to see how far it could go without breaking.

I'd say mission accomplished

Actually, there were design flaws, like how the SCRAM process actually boosted the reaction for a few seconds before stopping it, and using a coolant that had to stay hot to keep liquid.

 

[Fineldar]

Solar is the way to go. The earth gets more energy from the sun in one hour than humanity uses in a year.

But that would require coating the entire earth with solar panels.

Until we get solar panels on everyone's roof, Nuclear is defiantly the way to go. Or Telsa Coils, because I really like those things.

 

[The Wooster]

[But yeah, I'm all for nuclear power myself if the waste becomes a problem we could just shoot it into space.

I'm all for dumping it all on Venus. The planet is uninhabitable anyway.

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun so NASA gets to feel like they are accomplishing something and possibly if they get to charge and the government makes it mandatory can stop costing tax dollars.

Do you know how much it costs to send one ton of matter into space?
Do you know how many tons of waste you get from nuclear reactors?
Not viable.

I'm talking 50-100 years down the road, after we build the space elevator.

Plus what happens when we get another challenger situation? Green rain. That's what.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Solar is the way to go. The earth gets more energy from the sun in one hour than humanity uses in a year.

But that would require coating the entire earth with solar panels.

Until we get solar panels on everyone's roof, Nuclear is defiantly the way to go. Or Telsa Coils, because I really like those things.

No it wouldn't. Note how I said the earth gets MORE energy in a SINGLE HOUR than all of mankind uses in A YEAR.

I'll do the math, just because I'm bored.

360 days a year x 24 hours a day = 8640 hours a year.

So judging by that figure (which I got from one of those modern marvels blubs they play before commercials, btw), we'd only need to capture 1/8640 of the total amount of the energy the earth gets from the sun. Or a little more than 0.01%.

That's definitely feasible, especially considering that improved manufacturing processes are estimated to be able to increase photovoltaic efficiency to near 60% or beyond. That's up from 10% today.

 

[Davinas]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html read a bit and actually get some facts...

Over 75% of France's electric generation comes from nuclear. France is also the worlds largest exporter of electricity due to the low cost. They use a closed fuel cycle with reprocessing of the used fuel in Normandy which recovers about 99.9% of the uranium and plutonium, leaving only 3% of the used fuel material as high level waste to be disposed.

If the US had gone in the nuclear direction back in the 70's as France did, we would be enjoying extremely low energy costs and be exporting electricity to Canada and Mexico

 

[howard_hughes]

Do you know how much it costs to send one ton of matter into space?
Do you know how many tons of waste you get from nuclear reactors?
Not viable.

There have been several research programs conducted on light gas guns. One of the most significant was led by John Hunter of the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Hunter is now promoting a commercial scheme for a light gas gun, appropriately named the Jules Verne Launcher, for delivering small payloads to orbit.

The techs been there since the 60's, it's not viable for humans since it exerts thousands of G's but it's perfect for sending up equipment and anything a base might need in the future.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/05/980500-bull.htm

Solar is the way of the future. They recently discovered a way to effectively store it, so expect that to be the direction we head towards.

I've seen that article, they use electrolysis to make hydrogen and then store that for later consumption. It's not that cost effective though if I remember.

 

[SilentHunter7]

If the US had gone in the nuclear direction back in the 70's as France did, we would be enjoying extremely low energy costs and be exporting electricity to Canada and Mexico

Oh delicious irony, are you're saying the anti-nuclear hippies are partly to blame for the climate and energy crisis today?

 

[howard_hughes]

If the US had gone in the nuclear direction back in the 70's as France did, we would be enjoying extremely low energy costs and be exporting electricity to Canada and Mexico

Oh delicious irony, are you're saying the anti-nuclear hippies are partly to blame for the climate and energy crisis today?

I think that's exactly what he's saying

[http://s132.photobucket.com/albums/q18/ralley99/?action=view&current=fight-club-old-motor-oil-fertilizer.jpg]

 

[Kraj]

If we were to have most of our nuclear power plants where life aint gonna happen anyway the environmental impact would be moot. There is an energy crisis, we do need to cut down our consumption however we should not need to reduce our output.

We could also launch our nuclear waste into the sun so NASA gets to feel like they are accomplishing something and possibly if they get to charge and the government makes it mandatory can stop costing tax dollars.

uhm. no. definitely not.

Do you know how much it costs to send one ton of matter into space?
Do you know how many tons of waste you get from nuclear reactors?
Not viable.

There have been several research programs conducted on light gas guns. One of the most significant was led by John Hunter of the US Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Hunter is now promoting a commercial scheme for a light gas gun, appropriately named the Jules Verne Launcher, for delivering small payloads to orbit.

The techs been there since the 60's, it's not viable for humans since it exerts thousands of G's but it's perfect for sending up equipment and anything a base might need in the future.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/05/980500-bull.htm

Solar is the way of the future. They recently discovered a way to effectively store it, so expect that to be the direction we head towards.

I've seen that article, they use electrolysis to make hydrogen and then store that for later consumption. It's not that cost effective though if I remember.

i see someone else knows what their talking about thankyou. you saved me a few moments of typing. ^_^

 

[toastmaster2k8]

dont say throwe it in to the sun
because if you get radio active matreal in to the sun. sun rays become nuclear and when you get sun tans you will mutate or die or both

 

[SilentHunter7]

dont say throwe it in to the sun
because if you get radio active matreal in to the sun. sun rays become nuclear and when you get sun tans you will mutate or die or both

;

I really hope you're just trolling...

 

[BardSeed]

dont say throwe it in to the sun
because if you get radio active matreal in to the sun. sun rays become nuclear and when you get sun tans you will mutate or die or both

Srs. Listen to this guy..

 

[Anarchemitis]

Wind and Solar Power!

 

[The Iron Ninja]

Hamster wheel powered energy!

 

[Dah big bad wolf]

"Nucula!" Isn't that what your Pres calls it?
Listening to a local Science radio show a caller said, and I quote" Why don't we jus dump it (the Waste) in a Black-hole?" Serious.
My point is, very few people knew all the facts on Nuclear power and I'll reserve judgement till I know more about it.
One think that maybe possible in the NTD future (when Space-flight is cheaper) is to dump it some-where remote, useless and un-affected by Man like say, on Jupiter or Uranus.(Maybe that's the Black-hole "he" was refering to! ha ha ah!

You CAN'T dump it on the Sun because the Space-crafts heat sheild (or is that space garbage Scowl?) would melt long before it even got close to Sol! Then the material would be blown back by the Solar wind towards Earth, possibly dropping a % on the upper atmoshere! ...Nothing to do with the Suns Nuclear radiation Poisoning Earthlings! The suns rays are already radio-active and dumping a few tonnes on it wouldn't make a micron of difference. The Sun is HUGE!!! (It makes up 99.99% of the Sol systems Mass) Remember the Sun burns 1,000,000 Tonnes of hydrogen every second.
When I complete the building of My House, I will be installing solar energy collecters on the roof but also wind Turbines to help take up the Slack!
The real answer to the Earths Power/pollution probs is to put a cap on Population. (Not just My Opine, David Attenbourgh ( The most respected Media Biologist on the Planet) agrees.
Think about it, when is enough People on this Planet enpugh? 8 Billion (close to what we hve Now!) 16 Billion? Or We just keep breeding till there is NO wilderness or ground left Not under-cultivated left at all?
What happens to Bio-diversity then? (let alone Oxygen produced by Plants,.. we'd choke!)
Will we share the Planet with only Dogs, Cats and cock-roaches?
I couple, 1 off-spring is the Only sollution to the worlds Woes. At least till we develope inter-stellar travel so we can rape another Planet for it's resources but that's too long away and the probs we have Now, they need to be solved,... NOW!
"Halving Le Mondes Population would solve many probs very quickly!"