Nuclear Energy

[mhanimemastr]

Throughout my life, I have always been fascinated with nuclear energy, splitting of atoms, energy, etc. Recently, I had a report to do for summer school, and I got into researching. It would seem that the current method of Nuclear Fission isn't as energy-efficient as it could be, as with all heat-to-energy reactors. I believe there is a way to turn the thermal energy directly into electricity, versus the way they work right now which is:
Thermal Energy from the fission reactor boils water (usually Deuterium, or "heavy water") into steam to power a turbine.
The turbine spins, powering a generator to provide the electricity that we use daily.

However, this seems so highly inefficient because much of the (potential?) energy is lost by converting the thermal energy into steam, then electricity, whereas there is possibly a way to turn the thermal energy directly into electricity.

Your thoughts and comments are welcome, but please remember to follow the rules.

[Hollus]

And the magical way to transform heat directly into energy (presumably electricity) is...?

[GuidoHunter]

First of all, be VERY careful of your terminology here. Heat is just moving energy, so "turning heat into energy" doesn't make a lick of sense. It's okay to say "thermal energy" or "electrical energy", since "heat" and "energy that we use daily" are completely misleading.

Secondly, Nuclear reactors are the most efficient mass-energy producers we have.

Thirdly, yeah, we'd love to have mini nuclear reactors in our homes and get to bypass power plants altogether, but as of right now, that's totally unfeasible.

Fourthly, if any of us could invent a way to directly transform nuclear energy into electrical energy, that person would soon be the richest man in the world. The reason we use thermal energy as the middleman is because it's the product of a nuclear fission reaction.

EDIT (ninja'd):

Originally Posted by Hollus

And the magical way to transform heat directly into energy (presumably electricity) is...?

Uh, you use the heat to boil water, and the resulting steam turns a turbine which pulls a magnet in and out of a wire coil, thus inducing current.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

First of all, be VERY careful of your terminology here. Heat is just moving energy, so "turning heat into energy" doesn't make a lick of sense. It's okay to say "thermal energy" or "electrical energy", since "heat" and "energy that we use daily" are completely misleading.

Secondly, Nuclear reactors are the most efficient mass-energy producers we have.

Thirdly, yeah, we'd love to have mini nuclear reactors in our homes and get to bypass power plants altogether, but as of right now, that's totally unfeasible.

Fourthly, if any of us could invent a way to directly transform nuclear energy into electrical energy, that person would soon be the richest man in the world. The reason we use thermal energy as the middleman is because it's the product of a nuclear fission reaction.

EDIT (ninja'd):


Uh, you use the heat to boil water, and the resulting steam turns a turbine which pulls a magnet in and out of a wire coil, thus inducing current.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I know that. The OP was talking about bypassing the whole steam and turbine area and directly producing usable energy from heat.

[GuidoHunter]

Hollus: note my first point. There was no way I could have known what you were saying since you misused the word "heat".

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[mhanimemastr]

Sorry about my terminology, let's remember though that I'm a sophomore in high school, not a nuclear physicist.

[GuidoHunter]

Very well. Just be sure to know what the words you use mean in the future. The internet has many resources for you to find such things out.

Now, do you understand what the problem is? You made a wildly ridiculous statement without any substantive support. Either support your claim or we can only conclude that, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, you're full of ****.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[mhanimemastr]

yeah i'm aware it probably isn't a very feasible idea at this point, but possibly in the future they will find ways to turn thermal energy directly into electricity, however impossible it seems at the current time. I suppose FFR forums isn't exactly the best place to put suggestions for Nuclear Scientists, I doubt that they play FFR in their spare time.

[GuidoHunter]

That's the thing, though: you don't have a suggestion.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

ITT we make completely unreasonable suggestions.

I think they should make a Grand Unified Theory

[Bahamut-X]

Nuclear FUSION is where it's at.

Too bad we'd create catastrophic explosions and **** if we attempted to manually induce it with the current technology we have. If we could find a way to safely fuse atoms together however, all energy problems would be resolved since (I'm pretty sure) it's completely renewable and waste free.

[soulofcerberus]

Don't worry that said FUSION has to be cold... like an ice cube

Like giant radioactive ice cubes solving the worlds energy problems forever

[ljw5021]

Well I'm not so sure about all that, but I can't wait to at least glance at the Nuclear Engineering facilities at Penn State. I'm Aerospace so I don't get to use them, but I heard they're friggin' awesome.

[Boatz]

Can none of us remember Chernoble? That is nuclear fission screwing up.

Basically, the cons of nuclear energy far outweigh the goods. Nuclear plants cost loads to set up and loads to decomission when their done with. They produce harmful waste, which, try as we might, can't really be disposed of. And plus? Meltdowns are killer.

The only upside is the fuel cost is low.

Now wind power, that's where the future is. You can't run out of wind, they're very cheap, and despite what other people say, I think they're beautiful.

[ShAiOnEi]

Why don't we just harness the energy of the moving earth. I mean how difficult could that really be?

[soulofcerberus]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEi

Why don't we just harness the energy of the moving earth. I mean how difficult could that really be?

Very very difficult, theres no feasible way to harness that energy right now, and probably won't be for a long time.

[Boatz]

Originally Posted by ShAiOnEi

Why don't we just harness the energy of the moving earth. I mean how difficult could that really be?

That does sound really stupid...although theoretically, it's just like harnessing the power of a turbine...

But not for a while. They'll have to find a place to strap a BIG pendulum on the Earth, or something like that.

[GuidoHunter]

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[ShAiOnEi]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Right I guess it's just my imagination when I see a sunrise and different seasons but that wouldn't fit in with the revolution around the sun I guess the earth doesn't move it just magically seems like it rotates and the sun revolves around us?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Relative to us, the Earth's not moving, so what energy is there to harness?

@Boatz: Wind power is terrible because it yields so little energy for the space the turbines take up. On top of that, relatively few places in the country get enough wind to actually use them. The future is most certainly not there.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

You bolded the wrong part, ShAiOnEi.

You can't use something on the Earth to harness the power of Earth's motion, because relative to that object, the Earth isn't moving at all. Because the Earth and the object are traveling at the same speed, the net difference is zero, thus there is zero energy to harness that way. Do you really feel like you're being pulled at 1000 mph every second of the day? No, because relative to you, the Earth doesn't move.

Motion requires a point of reference. My computer screen does not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around it. Likewise, I do not appear to be moving in relation to the objects around me. In relation to the sun, however, everything on the Earth, and the Earth itself, is moving.