Brainteaserfan
-
Posts
368 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Brainteaserfan
-
-
I did understand all that. And I am personally uncertain how thorium reactors will work in practice. But I don't think they would alleviate all of the problems associated with nuclear power in general. And in the end, you still have the problem of waste (breeder reactors can get rid of high level waste; Its good, but you only shift the problem).
Ah, ok. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, that is correct. However, I will add that with the exception of concentrated solar power, solar and wind do not consume a lot of fresh water. You can always put solar panels on rooftops, and wind turbines take up very little space to begin with.
Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants, however, consume quite a bit of fresh water. And many proposed alternatives, such as biofuels and algae, compete for land too. The food crisis going on all over the world is caused in part by the diversion of crops to fuel production.
How so? The bulk of our power does not come from nuclear to begin with. Barring a break through in fusion, I seriously doubt that nuclear could pick up the slack. Unless, of course, you find a way to significantly reduce demand, or supplement it with renewable energy. Also, the end use of nuclear is electricity; there is still transportation and fuel that you have to worry about. Although, I suppose that transportation could be electrified.
Yes, it reduces those problems, but doesn't do away with them entirely. Although, I will give that this is more of a political problem rather than a technical one; I personally don't think they are that much of an issue provided that everyone is smart.
What I mean is that the energy sector competes directly with both water and agriculture, since they demand pretty much the same resources. Energy, water and food are interconnected. If production in one sector goes down, it will negatively impact the other two.
It does, through evaporation. Hydroelectric in particular is terrible when it comes to evaporation. And you need to find a way to cool down all of those spend fuel rods where nuclear is concerned. The real kicker is that global warming will cause the atmosphere to hold more water, which will make the problem worse.
I suppose it will, either a global pandemic or thermonuclear warfare over what remains. Either of those will put an end to our civilization.
Whatever the outcome, I seriously doubt that there will be billions of us flying around in airplanes, eating lots of meat, and driving really huge cars at century's end.
Read the above.
Firstly, if you understood all my posts, then you would have not implied that there is less potential power from nuclear than fossil fuels.
Secondly, just like you can put solar panels on roofs, you can grow food on roofs.
Thirdly, nuclear power plants do not consume water, they simply use it.
Fourthly, what food crisis? Food production has increased 1,700 times since the 1700's while the human population has grown only a little over 10 times. Source: http://www.learner.o...population.html and Exploring Creation with General Science by Dr. Jay Wile pg 233. (just a book I had sitting around)
Fifthly, I think that whether global warming is happening or not is a different debate, as is hydroelectric. Sorry for bringing in solar panels, as they don't really relate either.
Not trying to sound harsh, just trying to give my opinion.
0 -
29 years is a very short time compared to fossil fuels*, of which conventional oil and gas will be depleted in the next 70-80 years or so. What's more, not a lot of our energy comes from nuclear power to begin with, so it is even more scarce than fossil fuel.
I don't think that you read all my posts. There are other elements that can be used as fuel for the reactors. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_radioactive_element_is_often_used_in_nuclear_reactors_at_nuclear_power_generating_stations
Do a little googling and you will find better sources.
As for disposing of the waste you can put it in glass, or you can recycle much of it. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland
The 29 years was if ALL our power, 100% of it, came from nuclear. However, that was the total estimate for all of Earth's uranium resources,already mined or "unmined".
Interesting quote "energy, food, and water are tied together". I haven't had time to do much research, but I think that it's worth noting that sunlight is required for food also, and solar hijacks that sunlight and actuallly renders that sunlight unusable.
1 -
Is an intercept where the graph meets or crosses the axis? For example, in the function, f(x)=x^2(x-4), is the point (0,0) an x-intercept?
PS- I put this in this forum because I thought it fit best here. I already asked my teacher, but wanted another opinion, as I found conflicting info online. Thanks in advance!
0 -
IMO, I'm just glad to see NASA spending $ on space exploration. We need to keep those people involved in space employed and busy. If not, we will be losing lots of talent. I was just talking about a month ago with a person at a local restaurant who lost his job as an engineer for parts of various things for space, eg sensors on satellites. As a very talented guy, he'll be able to find another job, but he's not planning on getting a job that relates to space at all.
Again, I think that NASA needs to keep spending $ on space technology. Also, NASA's budget is only a few percent of the feds budget. Most is spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
0 -
Electrons do not orbit in the sense that you are describing.
Source?
0 -
Nuclear reactors can't be all that difficult to maintain once they're started. Nuclear subs cruise for months underseas without any trouble.
I suppose the real reason is what you mentioned, the access to highly-enriched uranium. Terrorists could hi-jack a nuclear-powered oil-tanker, get hold of the uranium in the reactor, and use it to make an atom-bomb.
If only these terrorists weren't vexing us! Then we could have fleets of scientifically advanced nuke-powered commercial ships, peacefully plying the oceans.
If only science could be left to improve the world, without interference from politics and religion.
I agree. Also, you probably need all sorts of licenses and the like similar to a normal nuclear power plant. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/licensing-process-bg.html
0 -
The Germans announced a couple of days ago that they are getting rid of their nuclear power stations within 10-11 years .
Good luck to them- if they can quit coal too.
Actually, they have been decreasing their reliance on nuclear for years. (by about 40% in the last dozen years)
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/diermeier/ftp/other/atom.html
0 -
29 years must be a typing mistake. I wouldn't "lump them together" in a general sense. Nuclear doesn't deplete any oxygen or generate hydrocarbon-type emissions. I just note that it's ultimately non-renewable because with any fuel, you have to consider an eventual transition to energy-levels that are available purely from solar and other renewable sources. Nuclear power could last for millenia but assuming human life continues to that point, then you become faced with the issue of how to make cultural-economic transitions to sustainable energy-levels per capita without the kinds of social-political conflicts that have been going on for years over fossil-fuel and especially oil.
29 years of uranium. I believe that there are other elements capable of supporting nuclear reactions. (I got the 29 figure from that NY times link.)
0 -
How is nuclear renewable? It may have a much larger reserve of fuel available than fossil fuel, but isn't it still ultimately limited?
Not quite limited maybe, but please don't lump nuclear and fossil fuels together. There are 29 years of natural uranium if ALL of our power came from nuclear, and if we didn't use breeder reactors. I believe that with breeder reactors it would be limitless (please correct me with a source if I am wrong. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/opinion/20iht-edbotkin.1.17105256.html
0 -
I hear of renewable sources being the energy-frontier because of limitations and problems of fossil-fuels and nuclear.
Nuclear IS renewable. It just isn't considered safe by many people - e.g. the media.
0 -
-
From your link:
"At this point in the discussion, Stuart Kauffman shared a poignant story that supports much of what Schlitz is trying to demonstrate in her research. Kauffman related that several years ago while living in Philadelphia, he had a striking image of his own daughter walking down the middle of a road and being struck by a car that crushed her. It was a stunning image that stopped him in his tracks and made him very concerned for his daughter. About a month later around the time of Halloween, his daughter died in a way that was strikingly similar to the image that he had seen. To this day, Kauffman is not sure how to explain this shocking experience. Was it clairvoyant or telepathic? He is not sure. But what Kauffman did offer is that time might have some kind of structure that we have not even begun to understand.
Kauffman’s story seemed to open up the floor to some wilder explorations. Jenny Wade speculated openly and intuitively that if the quantum realm reveals non-local phenomenon, then perhaps our brains are capable of being quantum processors. We are capable of picking up a small piece of quantum information and then turning that into an image, just as Kauffman had seen the image of his daughter even though it had not happened yet."
Sounds like time travel.
It makes you wonder whether there is a God, or whether we are living in an artificial world like in The Matrix. I guess that isn't the most scientifical explanation though.
0 -
I guess that means your aren't worried about the effect on your house value of having a nuclear power plant next door.
There will be a lot less nuclear power plants next to houses than windmills. I could give you the names of three people who would like to live next to a nuclear power plant. (myself not included).
0 -
If climate control was abandoned, relatively little power would be needed at night. Efficient modern light bulbs and flat screen TVs/monitors draw so little electricity and devices like refrigerators and water-heaters can be well-insulated. I think the small amount of batter-power needed to keep these few things running at night would pale as an environmental harm compared with nuclear waste, plus it is easier and cheaper to recycle batteries than radioactive materials. Nuclear power is only interesting because it offers an approach to energy that is practically infinite. However, global social-economic patterns lean more toward restriction and limitation than toward total liberation of all with infinite power, so renewable sources and conservation fit better with that economic paradigm than infinitely abundant atomic energy, imo.
After being sealed in glass, nuclear waste isn't very dangerous. Most newer technologies have not been implemented as a result of regulation.
Also, it would be easier to build the nuclear plants quickly so that we aren't dependent on fossil fuels. After that is done, we can build wind and solar plants everywhere where they are efficient. Although wind and solar may be able to meet today's energy needs if we invest heavily in them, they may not be able to meet our needs when we use electric transport. Another reason I like nuclear over wind is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/energy-environment/06noise.html. I don't want a noisy windmill anywhere near my house, ruining the view, disturbing my sleep, and causing my house value to plummet.
0 -
It was cotton-cloth, clean with pores in it. It is put on the mud only.
Thanks. My experiment isn't working. It's going about like Capt Panic said it would. Maybe I'll try cotton cloth and dig up that book again. In the meantime, I was wondering also, is your container that is providing the water on the same plane as, above, or below the pots which you are watering?
0 -
This is copied from a post of mine on a different topic. This is how I'd make a generator for waves. I think I prefer the tide idea though.
Something like a funnel floating like a floating dock, halfway submerged though, with a fan/screw, in the skinny part. The big part would have to be able to adjust it's size so that if there were big waves, the funnel would be smaller so that less of the wave was harnessed and vice versa. Also, that would need to be placed where the bottom of the body of water was rising so that the waves would all be moving in one direction.
0 -
Danijel, I agree with almost all you say in your post, but why wouldn't solar or wind energy be green (if applied at a 15 TW scale)? Especially wind energy is just using nature's waste heat.
If we would look at a theoretical case where we would supply all the 15 TW by wind energy (no matter how impractical that would be for certain applications), then we'd need 6 million 2.5 MW wind turbines, which are just very ordinary wind turbines.
6 million sounds like a lot, but if you realize that the earth's land surface is 150 million km2, then we would have only 1 wind turbine in every 25 km2 (1 wind turbine in every 5x5 kilometer block). And if we'd build some at sea, or if we would use larger wind turbines (more power), that area would be even larger.
Honestly, I don't think that that's such a big impact on the environment.
It's worth noting that there would only need to be one nuclear reactor per 10000 km squared though.
I find it sad that "Greens" have prevented newer, safer reactors from getting built to replace the older ones, and then in the rare instance in which an old one has a problem, they point fingers at those who suggested building newer ones and say, "that's why we didn't allow you to build a new one." Also, there are places where it is safer to build nuclear reactors. You are taking a chance if you build on the Ring of Fire. The east coast of the US would be perfect for building one IMO.
BTW, wind and solar aren't so green. You can't make the wind blow or the sun shine when you need energy so you will need batteries which are quite harmful to the environment. Also, wind generally occurs away from cities and places where people live. I'm in favor of wind and solar power, but only when it is cost-effective. Nuclear is a very cheap way, although admittedly more dangerous way, to generate lots of power.
0 -
I have made a similar arrangement for watering my plants automatically when I go out for a week or so!
What material do you use for a wick? And, is it in the dirt, dripping onto the dirt, or touching the roots?
0 -
SMF, I've often wondered about the piezoelectric theory. It strikes me that it seems very reasonable and the "Earthquake Lights" are a form of Aurora caused by localised changes in magnetic field. That they don't show up for every earthquake makes me think that they are also dependent on local atmospheric conditions as well to produce a light show, but the mag field variation should be there almost always.
One wonders if it is possible to predict or at least give warning of an earthquake by measuring localised magnetic field changes from space.
I would think that until the actual earthquake, there wouldn't be a whole lot of detectable changes. Just a thought though, maybe instead of in space, maybe sensors in wells over, say, 300 feet?
0 -
I think that clouds will at least slow down Global Warming. For sure there will be more clouds as the world heats up. However, there will need to be a lot of clouds to make a sizable difference, and we need the sun to grow food. I am glad that the US has not yet gone too far down the road of solar, because we would get less and less energy as the temperture rises (if global warmimg is really happening).
0 -
I cannot answer the question. To me LightStorm's answer is a clever way to say it is that way because it is that way.
I like to question why are there continents at all, and not random points, like polynesia, all around?
Maybe because a Deity created them?
0 -
It's called capillary action.
You cannot put it through a turbine on the way down (well, you can, but it's not gonna do much good).
It requires more energy to get that oil out of the wick than the potential energy it contains. And it will require more energy to get the water out of the paper than the potential energy it has.
The liquid moves up because it is actually attracted to the solid material (the wick or the paper). So, in order to remove it from that wick or paper, you must overcome that additional attraction... and that costs energy.
It's like a magnet that attracts a piece of iron. The piece of iron can move against gravity, up towards a magnet. But since the magnet is able to move the iron up against gravity, you can bet that the piece of iron lost a little energy (it gains a little potential energy, loses some magnetic energy; and the combination will be a net loss). And in order to get the potential energy fromthe iron, you must overcome the magnetic attraction... so you must invest more than you will get out.
Same with a capillary.
Okay. I read in a science book that if you have a cupful of water on a chair, and a one end of a twisted paper towel in that cup and then the other end over the lip and about halfway down the side of a cup on a nearby table (the table is higher than the chair) then gravity would extract the water from the wick slowly until the cup was filled up to the same height as the one on the chair (relative to the wick). I am currently carrying out the experiment and will post the results. I expect the experiment to take a week, but I will also post the progress. Thanks for your input!
0 -
I think you are trying to produce energy from latent things- IE, radio waves, or static electricity.
Light is latent energy, and it is sufficiently concentrated.
There could be some huge source we don't know about, but I doubt it.
Any light that we use here on earth is less that hits the earth to help things grow or whatever else. I've always thought that it would be nice to harness the power of waves. There is a lot of power there. Something like a funnel floating like a floating dock, halfway submerged though, with a fan/screw, in the skinny part. The big part would have to be able to adjust it's size so that if there were big waves, the funnel would be smaller so that less of the wave was harnessed and vice versa. Also, that would need to be placed where the bottom of the body of water was rising so that the waves would all be moving in one direction.
0 -
When an oil candle burns, the oil travels up the wick and to the flame. In the same way, a twisted paper towel wil move small amounts of water 'up'. Since that must take energy, (you could put it through a turbine on the way down), I'm wondering where that energy is coming from. My hypothesis is that that minute amount of energy is coming from the heat in the water because every x amount of feet that water falls down a waterfall, it gains a degree. I think this is due to friction, but at least I can assume that when water goes up, it will do the reverse. Any alternative ways of thinking?
0
The end of nuclear energy
in Engineering
Posted · Edited by Brainteaserfan
Thanks for the source.
Once again, I do not want to debate GW or hydroelectric, or solar under this topic. If you create a new topic, I'll argue it there.
I don't think that I ever disputed that energy, food and water are interconnected. I live in the US, and I think that it is embarrassing for us to burn perfectly fine food. It simply isn't efficient. I think we should only burn the waste. Again, maybe there should be a topic for biofuel and I don't want to argue that here.
This forum is on the END of nuclear energy, not on whether we would "scale it up". However, nuclear power plants right now are using plutonium as given in an earlier source. Here is another, more credible source: http://www.world-nuc...info/inf15.html And I believe that if we stepped up nuclear power, we would mine more fissile elements. Therefore, I believe that even if we did step nuclear up drastically, we would not have a shortage.
A forum is where you present your opinion/ideas. I have researched them, but am more than happy to be proven wrong. What facts were you missing?
Meaning #2: http://dictionary.re...om/browse/forum