The Impending Energy Crisis - Page 2

ZERO. · 10-12-2006, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Althane

Actually, a new nuclear reactor is being created, called a FAST reactor, that will be able to use practically all the energy that we can suck from uranium, leaving very, very little enriched behind, and that wouldn't be of the quality needed tor dirty bombs. So, that's a good way to do power.

Of course, we could also bend our research towards perfecting fusion, because once we get that down, there's enough energy to power the world, and then some.

I always thought being able to create a mini-star to power a planet was a bad ass idea.

The only problem with it is in order to create a fusion reaction we need to compensate for the loss of gravity that would normally be present in a fusion reaction with more heat.

That means that we would need to produce more heat than what would normally occur in a star, which needless to say is a whole fucking shit ton.

I�m thinking that maybe because the star will be only a fraction of the size of our sun we would only need a fraction of the heat needed to make a star.

Once we get around that though it�s all good from there.

Azisien · 10-12-2006, 11:29 PM

Well, we've had thermonuclear bombs for 50+ years, creating a fusion reaction isn't the primary problem. The problem is creating and containing that massive fusion chain reaction (MUCH bigger than our nuclear ones). Check out the Wiki article on Tokamaks (sp?) for some good reading on what'll probably be future fusion reactors.

steve11 · 10-13-2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

Well, we've had thermonuclear bombs for 50+ years, creating a fusion reaction isn't the primary problem. The problem is creating and containing that massive fusion chain reaction (MUCH bigger than our nuclear ones). Check out the Wiki article on Tokamaks (sp?) for some good reading on what'll probably be future fusion reactors.

Ummm speaking from somebody who worked with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the warheads on those are nothing close to a nuclear reactor.

But we can contain fision (fusion is old) we already have in plasma plants, it's just not cost effective now. And to make it so would require kicking the EPA in the nuts and forcing it. Our own policies prevent us from using it to break us from oil. Go Clinton, and go Bush, both had an equal hand in it and shock.......... both got money from oil.

The ability is there, problem is both parties have to much oil money in their pockets for us to use it, it's a shame.

greed · 10-13-2006, 02:27 AM

Uhh tokamak, not tomahawk Steve. You use that to contain a sustained fusion reaction (also called a star) and prevent it from just dispersing into the atmosphere(also called a fusion bomb). And what do you mean by fusion is old? It's a newer technology than fission both in explosives and power generation (still explerimental and theoretical in power generation as opposed to working fission reactors since the 70s).

steve11 · 10-13-2006, 10:19 AM

doh my bad, need to work on not speed reading

Sithdarth · 10-13-2006, 01:35 PM

Ok the only Uranium Isotope that can really be used for fission applications is U-235 and naturally occuring uranium doesn't contain near a high enough percent to make a bomb. Heck it doesn't contain enough to even power a light water reactor. Now naturally occurring Uranium can be used in heavy water and graphite reactors. These are the ones that tend to worry military types by producing Plutonium 239. So while you have to use slightly enriched Uranium for a light water reactor, 3% which if I recall correctly still isn't enough for a bomb, it ends up better in the long run as its harder to make weapons grade Plutonium 239. (Read it'd take the resources of a country to refine it.)

As for any concern of bad people getting ahold of waste; its darn near a very large steaming pile of crap. When you properly dispose of it no one can ever get to it again. Now their could be concerns over foreign countries selling it but its not to hard to tell if highly raidoactive material is in the truck you are standing next to, even if its lined with lead. Not to mention its very easy to know how much fuel a plant is using and how much waste should be at the disposal site.

Now Tokamaks are neat my money is on Pulsed Laser Fusion. Its generally considered cheaper, easier, and more effiecient. Plus they've built a laser with enough power now they just need to make the pulse last longer. (That and really huge lasers are freaking cool.)

Lockeownzj00 · 10-13-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

However currently the cost to change over is prohibitively expensive, or in some cases (such as nuclear power) people tend to be skittish about comitting to it.

Basically, this is the same argument a horse-drawn carriage business would use against the large-scale implementation of cars. Perhaps it would be grating and difficult at first to create all them parts and wheels, but eventually, it's for the better.

Mannix · 10-14-2006, 08:29 AM

My money is on water powered cars that undo global warming. That alone in the US would cut, what, 80% of our petrolium consumption? This could also be used to rig up generators for home power. Infrastructure conversion wouldn't really be all that hard anyway. Any tank that can hold gas can hold water I'd wager. It's an easy, cheap fix that could be implimented worldwide within a couple of years tops. It's too bad the most companies could charge for providing water would be cents on the gallon, thus cutting big time into profits and making it highly likely that corporate ninja lawers keep that shit on lockdown.

ZERO. · 10-14-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve11

Ummm speaking from somebody who worked with Tomahawk cruise missiles, the warheads on those are nothing close to a nuclear reactor.

But we can contain fision (fusion is old) we already have in plasma plants, it's just not cost effective now. And to make it so would require kicking the EPA in the nuts and forcing it. Our own policies prevent us from using it to break us from oil. Go Clinton, and go Bush, both had an equal hand in it and shock.......... both got money from oil.

The ability is there, problem is both parties have to much oil money in their pockets for us to use it, it's a shame.

You know, I have always had some thoughts as to what would happen if all the smart people moved to some other part of the world separate from all the other countries.

For some reason I picture the animatrix where the machines all moved and made their own city, but with more people and the machines and the people coexisting.

Magus · 10-14-2006, 11:51 PM

If they could find petroleum on other planets we'd really be in the money. I assume that's the real reason GWB wants to go to Mars, after all. What with all the theories about Mars once having life (which I assume would include plant matter, perhaps), it MIGHT be possible, not to mention that Uranium and other minerals might be able to be harvested.

Other than that, all the other solutions are fine, as long as my car will go at least 65. I don't live near the Autobahn.

You know, I think it would be easier for people to commit to using hydrogen or electric or flex-fuel cars if they didn't look so inane. Why not just invent a hydrogen powered Corvette, after all? Do the cars HAVE to look silly? I'm sure there are few that don't look too bad (some of them look like those ones you see in sci-fi movies, usually with lamborghini doors and such), but most of them look like what the same old stereotypical mini-van meets Honda Civic goofy looking things.

10-14-2006, 08:29 AM	#18
Mannix Tenacious C Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 991	My money is on water powered cars that undo global warming. That alone in the US would cut, what, 80% of our petrolium consumption? This could also be used to rig up generators for home power. Infrastructure conversion wouldn't really be all that hard anyway. Any tank that can hold gas can hold water I'd wager. It's an easy, cheap fix that could be implimented worldwide within a couple of years tops. It's too bad the most companies could charge for providing water would be cents on the gallon, thus cutting big time into profits and making it highly likely that corporate ninja lawers keep that shit on lockdown. __________________ Dangerous, mute lunatic.

10-12-2006, 11:29 PM	#12
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Well, we've had thermonuclear bombs for 50+ years, creating a fusion reaction isn't the primary problem. The problem is creating and containing that massive fusion chain reaction (MUCH bigger than our nuclear ones). Check out the Wiki article on Tokamaks (sp?) for some good reading on what'll probably be future fusion reactors.

10-13-2006, 10:19 AM	#15
steve11 Troopa Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Washington DC Posts: 91	doh my bad, need to work on not speed reading

10-13-2006, 01:35 PM	#16
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Ok the only Uranium Isotope that can really be used for fission applications is U-235 and naturally occuring uranium doesn't contain near a high enough percent to make a bomb. Heck it doesn't contain enough to even power a light water reactor. Now naturally occurring Uranium can be used in heavy water and graphite reactors. These are the ones that tend to worry military types by producing Plutonium 239. So while you have to use slightly enriched Uranium for a light water reactor, 3% which if I recall correctly still isn't enough for a bomb, it ends up better in the long run as its harder to make weapons grade Plutonium 239. (Read it'd take the resources of a country to refine it.) As for any concern of bad people getting ahold of waste; its darn near a very large steaming pile of crap. When you properly dispose of it no one can ever get to it again. Now their could be concerns over foreign countries selling it but its not to hard to tell if highly raidoactive material is in the truck you are standing next to, even if its lined with lead. Not to mention its very easy to know how much fuel a plant is using and how much waste should be at the disposal site. Now Tokamaks are neat my money is on Pulsed Laser Fusion. Its generally considered cheaper, easier, and more effiecient. Plus they've built a laser with enough power now they just need to make the pulse last longer. (That and really huge lasers are freaking cool.)

10-14-2006, 11:51 PM	#20
Magus Archer and Armstrong vs. the World Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 7,164	If they could find petroleum on other planets we'd really be in the money. I assume that's the real reason GWB wants to go to Mars, after all. What with all the theories about Mars once having life (which I assume would include plant matter, perhaps), it MIGHT be possible, not to mention that Uranium and other minerals might be able to be harvested. Other than that, all the other solutions are fine, as long as my car will go at least 65. I don't live near the Autobahn. You know, I think it would be easier for people to commit to using hydrogen or electric or flex-fuel cars if they didn't look so inane. Why not just invent a hydrogen powered Corvette, after all? Do the cars HAVE to look silly? I'm sure there are few that don't look too bad (some of them look like those ones you see in sci-fi movies, usually with lamborghini doors and such), but most of them look like what the same old stereotypical mini-van meets Honda Civic goofy looking things.