It's time to move beyond oil and coal.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • evilbutterfly
    FFR Player
    • Apr 2003
    • 5784

    #16
    Re: RE: Re: RE: It

    Originally posted by evilbutterfly
    And I'm still trying to think of the name of that reactor...
    The Tokamok Reactor! Err, Takomak, Tokomak, something like that. It was in my Chemistry book (year ago, 2 years ago? *has bad memory*), and I remembered that it looked like tomahawk at first glance. It's on fusion reactor that doesn't use fission to start the process. As it said in the Chemistry book, it can only generate enough energy to power itself, so it's not much use now.

    And now for a Q-ish moment. If we would all start buying solar cells and gas-electric hybrid cars, companies would put more research into making more efficient stuff. If they see that there's a demand for energy-efficient stuff, they'll supply us with more of it. Kinda like light bulbs. Nobody wants a crazy lightbulb that sucks up electricity, they want one that will last them years and won't cost them much while still providing light. Cars are a different matter, though. People want fast cars, sleek cars, things they can rev the engine and all the ladies suddenly wanna get to know them. Solar cars seem nerdy and nobody wants them, so they don't get bought, so they aren't made as much. If people started making sports cars that are powered with solar panels or something, maybe there would be more of an interest in that sort of thing.

    And running out of space is an option. There may be thousands of square miles now, but people expand. Not only will the space used increase, but the space availble to be used will decrease. Also, you can't just bury it anywhere. We talked about this in AP Environmental Science. You have to bury it in a place where run-off won't occur much. Most deserts have a lot of runoff (which is part of why they're deserts) and aren't proper burial sites. There is one place where they're thinking of taking all the radioactive waste and burying it, and it's pretty big and is a suitable site, and it's far away from any people and water. How long that one awesome place will last...I dunno. If it's known I just can't remember, but sitll, it can only last for so long.

    Proper energy use is not something that can be looked at on the scale of one lifetime. What we do with our resources now can have a huge impact thousands of years from now. May be we forget about the nuclear burial sites decades after the stuff is buried (yet it's still radioactive) and people expand and build on the area. That could harm countless numbers of people. Also, what we're doing to the land and the air from mining and burning of fuels is just terrible, and if we keep it up the Earth and humanity won't last that long. It may all seem harmless now, but in the long run bad things will come. Things must be done and quickly.
    So I've gone completely slack-ass and haven't done any work on creating games. =(

    In less-depressing news, I got a job for an online business (which sells non-electronic games, of all things!) which has taught me a lot about marketing online and all that jazz.

    So now I'm on Twitter @NoahWright.
    And I write the blog for their website.

    Plus I do cool programming in-house that you'll never see. =O

    Comment

    • DracIV
      FFR Player
      • Nov 2003
      • 298

      #17
      RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

      And running out of space is an option. There may be thousands of square miles now, but people expand. Not only will the space used increase, but the space availble to be used will decrease. Also, you can't just bury it anywhere. We talked about this in AP Environmental Science. You have to bury it in a place where run-off won't occur much. Most deserts have a lot of runoff (which is part of why they're deserts) and aren't proper burial sites. There is one place where they're thinking of taking all the radioactive waste and burying it, and it's pretty big and is a suitable site, and it's far away from any people and water. How long that one awesome place will last...I dunno. If it's known I just can't remember, but sitll, it can only last for so long.
      I'm sorry, but did you even read my first post? I spent an entire paragraph explaining how we will not run out of space, thanks to reprocessing and President Bush forcing the storage placement issue. With the massive storage facility they could fit in that area it can easily hold 150 years of reprocessed material, and if we had a second such facility we should not (with proper planning) ever need to expand to another storage facility. You don't just bury radioactive crap in any random desert, you have to build a concrete "bunker" for it. Once we set up those concrete facilities, you could build a house on top of it and suffer no harm from radiation. (Though you may receive injuries from pissed off facility workers who are trying to remove non-radioactive waste and your house is blocking the door). Storage space isn't a problem.

      Comment

      • slimshdy425
        FFR Player
        • Sep 2004
        • 88

        #18
        RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

        Agreed.

        Comment

        • evilbutterfly
          FFR Player
          • Apr 2003
          • 5784

          #19
          RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

          Sorry 'bout that. I didn't feel like reading the first post, which is why so far I've only responded to what others have said and not your original post. I still stand by my point that though nuclear power may be good now, it's not the best thing and it shouldn't be seen as what we'll use for energy forever.
          So I've gone completely slack-ass and haven't done any work on creating games. =(

          In less-depressing news, I got a job for an online business (which sells non-electronic games, of all things!) which has taught me a lot about marketing online and all that jazz.

          So now I'm on Twitter @NoahWright.
          And I write the blog for their website.

          Plus I do cool programming in-house that you'll never see. =O

          Comment

          • DracIV
            FFR Player
            • Nov 2003
            • 298

            #20
            RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

            Evil butterfly, that's exactly what my first post is arguing: that nuclear power is a great thing and should be used forever. Read my first post please before you post any further.

            Comment

            • alainbryden
              Seen your member
              FFR Simfile Author
              • Dec 2003
              • 2873

              #21
              RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

              The Waste to energy converter using plasma technology that I was talking about is technology that is more or less secretly based right now. The only reason I know is that my dad is heading the business part of the company. One such plant has already been built, and it's proven to work. Once the copyright laws have been thoroughly taken care of, because basic copyright is really quite insufficient to for the magnitude of protection an technology like this needs, then the selling will begin. I wasn't told where the first plan was build, but there is already plans to take over about 12 contracts in the US, offers to fund the construction of a converter in china. The big one will be when toronto, with its legendary waste problem contracts a facility. The whole thing is supposed to be released in June of this year, I beleive, then facilities will be constructed and plugged into the grid faster than you can imagine.

              PS this will own nuclear power out of the industry. Think 6 cents per KWH versus this machines 2 cents per KWH plus getting rid of waste, not creating it.
              ~NEIGH

              Comment

              • Cenright
                You thought I was a GUY?!
                • Sep 2003
                • 3139

                #22
                RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

                Tokamaks are good, but that is just another kind of fusion reactor. There is another that uses electromagnetism to contain the reaction, and that it what has actually worked.



                Yes, we all know that a nuclear fusion reactor would be SO much better than a nuclear fission reactor, but there are a few reasons why:

                There are already a good amount of fusion reactors out there, for scientific purposes. The point at which the fusion reactor is self-sufficient is called the sustained burn. They have been able to get just barely underneath that point. In the next 6 to 8 years, they are building one that WILL pass sustained burn, and acutally get extra electricity from it. It was going to be built in either Japan or France.

                But anyway, the person who said, "What about steam?" was actually right, they are using water to cool the electromagnets.
                The steam goes into a steam engine, which is where the electricity is made.
                The water is split. The Oxygen is let go, and the Hydrogen goes straight into the middle of the fusion reactor.
                That all gets fused into helium, which breaks apart:
                * electrons into the current that helps supply the electromagnets
                * protons and neutrons get absorbed into a lithium shield. Which is the only thing.
                But that is all contained by the electromagnets, which heats up the water.

                SO YOU PUT IN:
                Heavy water (an extra neutron on the hydrogen atom)
                Lithium

                YOUR ONLY BY-PRODUCT:
                Radioactive Lithium


                This means you dont have to bring in something radioactive to the plant, such as uranium. You still have to take something radioactive out, but the radioactive lithium is much less dangerous than what fission plants take out.
                http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/...Cube_in_55.mpg

                Comment

                • DracIV
                  FFR Player
                  • Nov 2003
                  • 298

                  #23
                  RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: It

                  That still doesn't help us one bit. So we finally have a sustained burn in 8 years. Then we have 12-22 years to make it efficient enough for commercial use. Then we have 10-20 years of phasing it into the market, making the plants reliable, and making people accept them. Then finally in 50 years we have fusion plants becoming dominant in our society. We can't wait for that to possibly happen. Oil and Coal are poisoning us now, oil is running out, and we have a choice. We can change now and get a solid 45+ years out of fission energy, or we can poison ouselves daily and slowly die while we wait for our future whatever to arrive. We can not afford to wait that long. The same ideas have been bouncing around for decades, and every time people have been saying, "Wait just a bit longer. <Instert "Perfect" Energy Source> will be here in just a few years!" If we completely convert to fission-based nuclear energy now, then we will have a stable, safe system set up that will last us, guaranteed, until we develop that better system.

                  Can you tell me why we shouldn't convert to a system that will give us several billion years to find the perfect energy system? Why should we stick with a system we know is collapsing, one that is poisoning our people, our land, and our society when we have a better choice? All these energy systems people keep promising will not be here soon. We have several decades, maybe even centuries to wait before we have a better choice than fission-based nuclear power. Now is the perfect time to change to an energy system to last us until the world is blown asunder, or, if you so believe, last us until the "perfect" system is availible. Either way, nuclear power is the choice to make now, and it will fit seamlessly with any choices we make later. Oil and coal wait for no man and do their harm every single day we wait.

                  Comment

                  Working...