Moreno
-
Posts
712 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moreno
-
-
I think that at the present and near future level of technology solar and wind power can be regarded only as a supplemental type of power generation only. First of all, Sun and wind are intermittent and if more than 50% of power will be generated in this way, this intermittence may lead to an unpredictable, possibly even catastrophic consequences. Secondly, it requires too much expensive and sometimes rare materials.
A typical nuclear power plant has 1 GWt output. Usually it includes a few nuclear reactors. And here is the size of a wind turbine which allows to generate just 10 MW of energy.
And you will need to build at least 100 of those monsters to provide 1 GWt. But wind practically never blows all the time with the same strength, so this number will unavoidably grow to at least 200. Possibly even more. And each of this monsters requires tons of copper and neodymium for electric motors, hundreds of tons of aluminum and high grade stainless steel, etc. Some of this materials aren't particularly common. The price of this enterprise will unavoidably start to grow exponentially when all the World will start to build them on mass scale.
0 -
43 minutes ago, studiot said:
You demand some sort of solid state reactor then offer me a liquid fluoride one ??????????????? or a gaseous helium one?
I just suggested different possibilities.
0 -
1 hour ago, studiot said:
Jammed moderator rods / broken/faulty rod control mechanism.
Fluids are used to cool a reactor, how would solid state cooling work?
Fluids are also needed to transfer heat to the generating plant.
Without this transfer what would be the point of the reactor?1) I'm not sure exactly, but accelerator driven and LFTR reactors may not require control rods.
2) Helium can be used to cool reactors. It can't get radioactive. To create danger of contamination outside the plant, liquids need to be lightweight enough and vaporize easily to leak outside power plant. It may not be the case if molten lead or molten salts are used as a coolants. They are heavy and viscose and even if they will leak out the reactor core it's doubtful they will get far and contaminate area outside power plant.
3) I think an attempt to create a reactor without any liquid or gaseous coolant can be made. For example, reactor core can be bricked by boron-10 from inside, maybe in the borosilicate glass form. When Boron-10 captures neutron it converts to Lithium and radiates a proton. Proton radiation can be easily converted to electricity with help of an electrostatic energy converter. This method is already used in some isotopic energy converters.
0 -
5 hours ago, swansont said:
I don't think that has anything to do with it. "Inherently safe" does not mean "foolproof" or "without potential problems"
What about them? Do they make fission products with half lives longer than a few years? If yes, then there are potential issues with waste and contamination.
How would that work? Solid-state refers to atom-level interactions. Fission is nuclear.
The spills, waste and contamination are typically associated with liquid or gaseous substances. If there are solid state substances in the reactor only, with only microscopic amounts of some radioactive gases present, how a dangerous spill can occur?
0 -
On 3/27/2018 at 5:53 AM, swansont said:
Not having to clean up after a solar or wind spill, perhaps?
Do you think all possible nuclear reactor concepts are that much inherently unsafe? What about subcritical reactors? Can there be an all-solid state reactors?
0 -
On 3/25/2018 at 5:30 PM, Endy0816 said:
We've seen battery frauds before.
Could you give some examples? I know about "Eestor", but it was rather a capacitor than battery.
0 -
On 3/19/2018 at 8:43 PM, Outrider said:
Really guys I am much more comfortable with windmills and solar panels
Why exactly?
0 -
57 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:
Yeah, actually went looking for this and hadn't found anything.
Formally, to replicate the results Goodenough have to reveal all the secrets. Who said he did it? So, are you inclined to think it was a hoax? Why would Goodenough do that?
0 -
There are some claims from an authoritative specialist which may sound like perpetuum mobile advancement. John Goodenough definitely doesn't recover all the secrets, but some of his citations sound interesting:
QuoteGoodenough: We’ve found a lot of things you can do with the Braga glass. It’s gone 4,000 cycles with negligible resistance. We have been demonstrating not only can you do that with her glass at room temperature, and in fact we can go well below room temperature. She’s been lighting an LED with this battery charging itself for two years. It runs on ambient heat.
The Braga battery can last 15,000 cycles. If your battery can last 10 years, people will be satisfied. You do need a long cycle life. Because you have self-charge with her electrolyte, and because you have a big window so you don’t need an SEI there, you can get a long cycle life and lower the cost.
https://about.bnef.com/blog/goodenough-making-progress-solid-state-batteries-qa/
QuoteThe publication was initially met with considerable skepticism by other researchers in battery technology, with several noting that it is unclear how a battery voltage is obtained given that pure metallic lithium or sodium exists on both electrodes, which should not produce a difference in electrochemical potential, and therefore give no cell voltage.[4] Any energy stored or released by the battery would therefore violate the first law of thermodynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_battery
I don't know about the first law, but maybe it has to do something about the second law?
0 -
On 3/11/2018 at 7:04 AM, Essay said:
...just to point out there are a lot of different reasons planets don't all behave the same. Heck, just look at the major similarities in formation, yet big differences now, between Earth and Venus. Venus, due to its closer proximity to the sun, should be about 80 degrees warmer than Earth, iirc, and yet it is very different.
Venus is very strange indeed.
QuoteVenus has more volcanoes than any other planet in the solar system. Over 1600 major volcanoes or volcanic features are known (see map), and there are many, many more smaller volcanoes. (No one has yet counted them all, but the total number may be over 100,000 or even over 1,000,000) !!!
QuoteSecond, Venus shows no evidence for plate tectonics. There are no long, linear volcano chains. There are no clear subduction zones. Although rifts are common, none look like the mid-ocean ridges on Earth. Also, continent-like regions are rare, and show none of the jigsaw fits seen on Earth. Thus, where volcanism on Earth mostly marks plate boundaries and plate movements, volcanism on Venus is much more regional and much less organized.
Third, volcanism on Venus shows fewer eruptive styles than on the Earth. Almost all volcanism on Venus seems to involve fluid lava flows. There is no sign of explosive, ash-forming eruptions on Venus, and little evidence for the eruption of sludgy, viscous lavas. This may reflect a combination of several effects. First, due to the high air pressure, venusian lavas need much higher gas contents than Earth lavas to erupt explosively. Second, the main gas driving lava explosions on Earth is water, which is in very short supply on Venus. Lastly, many viscous lavas and explosive eruptions on Earth occur near plate subduction zones. Thus, the lack of subduction zones should also reduce the likelihood of such eruptions on Venus.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/oldroot/volcanoes/planet_volcano/venus/intro.html
0 -
What do you think about particle accelerator driven Thorium reactors? They seem require no Uranium or Plutonium, subcritical (no threat of meltdown) and can burn lot of radioactive waste. It is claimed accelerators with required parameters are on the verge of development.
https://phys.org/news/2011-06-pint-sized-particle-nuclear-energy.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator-driven_subcritical_reactor
1 -
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:
And again...
Where do you plan to get the X rays from?
For example with help of lasers and bacteria:
(don'take it too seriously).
0 -
1 hour ago, swansont said:
It's not a source if you have this external energy input.
In a regular heat pump we also have an external energy input, but still it is worth of.
0 -
1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:
Where do you plan to get them from?
Trying to use deep lying electrons to create useful energy is like trying to use an underground pool to create hydro-electric power.
There's no "down" for the water to go
I've read there exist such a physical phenomena (and I think it is quite a plausible info) that an internal electrons are capable to absorb ultraviolet photon, get excited and re-radiate X-rays. X-rays definitely are of higher energy than UV, so it doesn't look like a miniscule gain in energy.
I thought that external and internal electrons don't exist in thermodynamic equilibrium. They have different energy levels and subsequently absorb and radiate photons of different energies. This is typically external electrons which take part in chemical reactions and release energy when we burn fuel or use some hot substance to bring a heat engine into action. There exist some notable exceptions, such as d-orbital electrons in transition metals. But what if we use some physical effect to bring external and internal electrons into a sort of thermodynamic equilibrium? For example, we may make internal electron absorb UV photon, reradiate X-ray photon of much higher energy and then convert this X-ray photon with high efficiency using some method into many infrared or visible photons which could be readily absorbed by external electrons. When external electrons absorb them it will lead to temperature rise of the substance, and this is what we can use, basically, as an energy source to power a heat engine...
I'm not sure exactly what is the name of this effect, but it maybe related to this:
QuoteInverse Compton scattering is important in astrophysics. In X-ray astronomy, the accretion disc surrounding a black hole is presumed to produce a thermal spectrum. The lower energy photons produced from this spectrum are scattered to higher energies by relativistic electrons in the surrounding corona. This is surmised to cause the power law component in the X-ray spectra (0.2-10 keV) of accreting black holes.[clarification needed]
The effect is also observed when photons from the cosmic microwave background (CMB) move through the hot gas surrounding a galaxy cluster. The CMB photons are scattered to higher energies by the electrons in this gas, resulting in the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. Observations of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect provide a nearly redshift-independent means of detecting galaxy clusters.
Some synchrotron radiation facilities scatter laser light off the stored electron beam. This Compton backscattering produces high energy photons in the MeV to GeV range[8] subsequently used for nuclear physics experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering#Inverse_Compton_scattering
0 -
There is a known physical effect when an excited electron releases a photon of a higher energy than one been absorbed. It happens to both internal and external (valence) electrons. This effect is exploited in Doppler cooling. This is typically external electrons which are engaged in Doppler cooling. What about internal electrons? They seem to be capable to absorb ultraviolet and release X-rays of higher energies.
X-rays contain a lot of energy
Could this effect be exploited practically either for refrigeration/heat pumps or even some useful work generation? For example, we may try to use X-rays to heat some material and use it to bring some heat engine to action...
0 -
13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:
I have to ask, what is your point here?
Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic.
An unsolved enigma.
0 -
Quote
The Galileo craft made six close flybys of Ganymede from 1995–2000 (G1, G2, G7, G8, G28 and G29)[20] and discovered that Ganymede has a permanent (intrinsic) magnetic moment independent of the Jovian magnetic field.[83] The value of the moment is about 1.3 × 1013 T·m3,[20] which is three times larger than the magnetic moment of Mercury.
Despite the presence of an iron core, Ganymede's magnetosphere remains enigmatic, particularly given that similar bodies lack the feature.[4] Some research has suggested that, given its relatively small size, the core ought to have sufficiently cooled to the point where fluid motions, hence a magnetic field would not be sustained. One explanation is that the same orbital resonances proposed to have disrupted the surface also allowed the magnetic field to persist: with Ganymede's eccentricity pumped and tidal heating of the mantle increased during such resonances, reducing heat flow from the core, leaving it fluid and convective.[52] Another explanation is a remnant magnetization of silicate rocks in the mantle, which is possible if the satellite had a more significant dynamo-generated field in the past.
0 -
On 3/14/2018 at 10:43 PM, Endy0816 said:
Can I ask where your interest lies with this?
Are you wanting something better for personal use or just wanting to talk about theoretical ways we might improve COP?
Generally my experience is that there's always some form of resistance to our objectives(whatever they might be). Never seen anything that dictates how much there has to be though, so may be able to improve things until it is arbitrarily small(if still not zero). Heat exchangers, better materials, better collection/utilization of waste heat, etc.
I don't think I would need it for personal use in a foreseeable future. I thought about greener economy and possibility to reduce amount of CO2 emissions. Heat pumps can be helpful to a poor cold countries similar to Russia, Ukraine or Belarus where many people stagger to pay their gas bills. Unfortunately, modern heat pumps loose efficiency in strong frosts typical to these countries and some others similar to Canada or certain regions of US. However, theoretically, efficiency of heat pumps can be much higher even in strong colds.
0 -
On 3/14/2018 at 10:02 AM, MarkE said:
Good point. They're all called "laws", not a-law (absolute) versus r-law (relative), unlike the clear distinction between mRNA (messenger), tRNA (transfer) and ncRNA (noncoding).
22 hours ago, MarkE said:OK, so all of the above statements are correct? I didn’t make any wrong assumptions?
One other question then: if entropy can sometimes be violated, what would be a good example of this happening here on Earth? When and where has it been observed?
On Earth it can be observed occasionally on nanoscopic level. You need an electronic microscope to observe something like this. Hardly on a larger scale.
There is an interesting question regarding Universe heat death and giant thermal fluctuations. How likely is it and how many modern scientists do believe that the observable part of Universe is the result of a giant thermal fluctuation?
0 -
4 hours ago, beecee said:
No, they obviously are not, but it still leaves open a myriad of other explanations and reasons.
It was exactly my point.
0 -
2 hours ago, beecee said:
Once again Moreno, your incredulity in general is unfounded: Besides gravitational interactions, tidal perturbations, radioactivity, thermo-nuclear fusion etc, the Gaseous giants energy output can be explained by continued gravitational shrinking or collapse.
Pluto, Triton and Enceladus aren't a Gas giants. Neither is Earth and Venus.
0 -
On 3/12/2018 at 7:17 PM, Moontanman said:
Yes, I would in fact like a real citation not some anonymous source on another forum... In fact the next anonymous source on your page puts the first in question. I didn't suggest the core reactor was a consensus of mai stream science I was pointing out that other ideas are out there that do not require some mysterious sorce you cannot name, that you cannot even give a coherent account of much less a citation from any science based source that agrees with you.
You do not get to simply piss on established science because you don't "believe" or need to believe some fairy tail...
At present level of science it is practically impossible to know Earth core composition exactly. Wikipedia article about Earth inner core doesn't contain any mention of radioactive elements.
QuoteThe most popular model of radioactive heating is based on the bulk silicate Earth (BSE) model, which assumes that radioactive materials, such as uranium and thorium, are found in the Earth’s lithosphere and mantle – but not in its iron core. The BSE also says that the abundance of radioactive material can be estimated by studying igneous rocks formed on Earth, as well as the composition of meteorites.
https://physicsworld.com/a/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat/
0 -
Does blackbody radiation shows such properties as interference and diffraction? If yes, how can it co-exist with quantum theory?
0 -
5 minutes ago, Bender said:
But we are not discussing an ideal, reversible, carnot cycle.
Why not? I thought to permit the demon to work like an ideal Carnot engine.
0
Fast breeder reactors
in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Posted
I suggested a possibility that fast neutron reactors can be made solid state. For now no such reactor exist.