Alternative Energy

[wolfuncle]

resources as in energy is not by any stretch of the imagination limited. From nuclear power alone we have energy for thousands of years even with exponential increase in consumption. If we get fusion working we have by all means unlimited energy. If that wouldnt be enough we have all the energy the sun radiates at us.

Ah yes the magical and as of yet untapped boundless source of energy, I guess some person in the future will grab a hold of that and unleash it for humanity and in the meantime your recommendation of for us to consume like there is not tomorrow?

I know you don’t like to provide source material but when making the thousands of years of nuke energy reference one would think that is based in science and you could provide a supporting source, or did that come to you in a dream?

With more energy aviable we will be able to go away from this planet. If mines run out on earth we can begin to mine asteroids. If we can produce enough energy we will have acess to the unlimited resources of the entire solar system. If we on the other hand try to restrain ourself now we will find ourself stuck on a barren earth without resources or future. Forced to live as animals again. Maby that is what some eco terrorists wants. But it surely isnt what I or the rest of the world wants.

Sounds like you are buying the global corporatists science fiction story that claims we don’t have to be concerned about destroying earth cause we can just hop onto another planet. Yikes someone has been spiking your tea.

ONLY by trying to limit progress by decreasing energy consumption will we find ourself in a position where we dont have anything. We have to spend energy to find new ways of producing energy!!!

I will repeate. There is NO REASON WHAT SO EVER TO LIMIT ENERGY CONSUMPTION in the long run!!!! Not any enviromental reason(there are plenty of clean chooises), not any logical reason(we will limit our progress), certanly not any humane reason(underdeveloped countries will never increase there standard of living).

Unreal, so I assume you are encouraging everyone to spend all their money and save none cause some magic fairy will come and wave a magic wand and your table will be full, You sound much like Bush accusing those who want to protect this planet of being the ones destroying it, and patting money hungry global corporations that are destroying it as some great savior, wow.

[MASTER]

I cant wait for Johans reply

[MASTER]

Beware he is one of the best when it comes to finding material to back up his claims

[Kärnfysikern]

Ah yes the magical and as of yet untapped boundless source of energy, I guess some person in the future will grab a hold of that and unleash it for humanity and in the meantime your recommendation of for us to consume like there is not tomorrow?

Do a seach for the ITER fusion reactor beeing built in france right now. It will be the first fusion reactor to exceed the break even limit and the next generation fusion reactors will most probably be comercial.
http://www.iter.org/
There are other promising fusion projects on the way aswell that doesnt use a tokamak design.

I know you don’t like to provide source material but when making the thousands of years of nuke energy reference one would think that is based in science and you could provide a supporting source, or did that come to you in a dream?

I can give sources to all my claims so dont try to pull that shit.

First of all here is a link to info on the kind of reactor that uses fissile matter 50 times as efficiently as regular ones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

So we have reactors that can run on uranium, plutonium and thorium.
Even when uranium deposits on land gets depleted we havent even tapped the major resource that is seawater. There is incredible ammounts of uranium disolved in seawater.
http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/ff/ff43/topics.html

If all nations take uranium from the sea, calculations inaieate that the balance of uranium concentration in the sea would not change as the amount seawater is estimated at a thousand times that in the earth. It was also proved that insoluble uranium on the sea bottom exceeds that in the water by a thousand times.

Do the maths yourself and you will se my claim is solid.

Here you have a discussion with respected engineers and scientists on how to manage through the oil crisis. Note the nuclear support.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=42564
If you browse that board you will se discussion with acctual nuclear engineers that talks about how SAFE AND EFFECTIVE nuclear power is. But I guess you belive greenpeace over acctual experts in the field

Sounds like you are buying the global corporatists science fiction story that claims we don’t have to be concerned about destroying earth cause we can just hop onto another planet. Yikes someone has been spiking your tea.

You are putting words in my mouth, dont do that. I am just telling you facts. There are for all uses endless amounts of resources aviable if we increase our level of technology. We could use orbital solar powerstations that beams down the energy with microwases and that energy is practicaly endless.
But to reach those resources we need to.................USE ENERGY AND LOTS OF IT!! Asteroid mining would be a CLEAN AND ENVIROMENTALY FRIENDLY WAY OF MINING. But because of your blind hatred against using energy, people like you would rather prevent us from reaching those resources and **** the earth than to support progress.

Im not saying we can screw the earth over and move. Im saying we need to use energy to reach the future energy sources. Never once did I say we could jump to another planet. Your ways is the way that will ruin the earth since you are against progress, forcing people to use the dirty resources we are using now.

Dont patrionize me, I am getting a masters in physics and will continute to a PhD. I have some grasp on what the hell Im talking about.

Unreal, so I assume you are encouraging everyone to spend all their money and save none cause some magic fairy will come and wave a magic wand and your table will be full, You sound much like Bush accusing those who want to protect this planet of being the ones destroying it, and patting money hungry global corporations that are destroying it as some great savior, wow.

You obviously only read what you want. Dont twist around what I say to fit into your uneducated view.
Why limit consumption of a clean almost endless energy resources? you cant even give any rebuttle you just spew out our mindless, unbased bullshit.

Here is another bit of information for you about nuclear waster. Waste with long halflifes arent all that dangerous to be closeby from time to time. High radioactivity and long half life at the same time aint possible. If you had any grasp on how radioactivity even works you would clearly realise that. The highly radioactive, short halflife isotopes can be separated and stored for the short time needed(100 years or so). the long halflife low radioactive waste can be transmutated into short halflife reactor fuel!! So if we use this technology we would hardly have any long half life waste left and only some short half life waste that we only need to store for 100 years we would also use the fuel optimaly and limit the need for mining. But because of people like you that technology isnt even allowed in the USA.
Its funny how treehuggers dont even realise they are hurting the enviroment with there nuclear resistance. Education would solve that issue but its more fun to listen to propaganda.

[needmorestrength]

hehehehehe... Im not tooo fond of nuclear, but I believe with the right amount of environmentally friendly power and nuclear, a fine balance can be attained

[MASTER]

woooo +1....

[Kärnfysikern]

Beware he is one of the best when it comes to finding material to back up his claims

thanks bro.

I dont know where he gets the idea I cant back what I say...Most that I say here in this thread is what nuclear engineers/scientists have told me or that I have read on science forums. But some quick searches proves that what they say are true. Not like I listen to crackpots

Chernobyl ruined the worlds trust in nuclear beeing clean. But if they knew the true story about the chernobyl disaster maby they would realise how safe and reliable nuclear power is.

What is very ironic also is that the chernobyl area is now a thriving breeding ground for animals and plants. Wildlife in the chernobyl area is the richests in the Ukraine. Not trying to say its good in anyway. Just pointing out that even a disaster at that scale isnt the end of life. End of human life in the area yes. But nature as always adjusts and adapts and overcomes.

http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/...life_park.html

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

"Chernobyl, the scene of the world's worst nuclear accident, has defied the gloomiest of prophesies by becoming one of Europe's richest wildlife habitats, teeming with endangered species.

"Although the exclusion zone has been subjected to some of the worst radioactive contamination in history, life in all its forms has proved to be remarkably resistant to the known biological effects of radiation, notably mutations and birth deformities.


"Scientists studying the site from the International Radioecology Laboratory just outside the zone have reported a startling return of many rare species to the area and a general increase in the diversity of many wild plants and animals. (...)


"Large European mammals, such as moose, wild boar, roe and red deer, beavers, wolves, badgers, otters and lynx have become well established within the zone, while species associated with man == such as rats, house mice, sparrows and pigeons - have declined. Michail Bondarkov, the director of the laboratory, said that 48 endangered species listed in the international Red Book of protected animals and plants are now thriving in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

[wolfuncle]

"All who entered the 30 kilometer `dead zone' are either dead or dying from radiation sickness. The sarcophagus built to contain further radioactive contamination is crumbling. And the breakup of the U.S.S.R. has not improved the situation. The fragile economy cannot afford the expense that a massive cleanup would cost, and the emerging nations all require power to survive, power supplied by other Chernobyl-
like reactors. "

http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/188.html

I don't know what I am thinking of course nuclear contamination is healthy for all concerned. It seems that generations will be the real test of genetic effects of exposure of course those with in the 30 km dead zone are all dead or dying, I guess you would refer to that as an unfortunate side effect.

This person’s observations are worth reading.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki.../chapter1.html

I would be interested in a study of the 250,000 workers who were involved in the clean up, who reached their lifetime radiation limit during the clean up.

But am I hearing that radiation has no negative long term effects, opps guess you cant make that statement yet, not enough time has elapsed and the odds of the people involved being tracked long enough to determine long term effects is kinda doubtful. The I can sprinkle radiation on my cereal attitude is one you may want to endorse but I am still hesitant to walk into the Chernobyl dead zone and hug the reactor.

I notice you ignore the problem with the pebble bed reactors, offer no solutions to the storage problems associated with nuke power, offer not link to scientific statement on the amount of usable uranium on the planet, and that outer space stuff, makes a good movie but I challenge you to provide a balance sheet showing cost of production of those magical asteroid mines that will save us all.

[Kärnfysikern]

"All who entered the 30 kilometer `dead zone' are either dead or dying from radiation sickness. The sarcophagus built to contain further radioactive contamination is crumbling. And the breakup of the U.S.S.R. has not improved the situation. The fragile economy cannot afford the expense that a massive cleanup would cost, and the emerging nations all require power to survive, power supplied by other Chernobyl-
like reactors. "

http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/188.html

I don't know what I am thinking of course nuclear contamination is healthy for all concerned. It seems that generations will be the real test of genetic effects of exposure of course those with in the 30 km dead zone are all dead or dying, I guess you would refer to that as an unfortunate side effect.

This person’s observations are worth reading.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/ki.../chapter1.html

I would be interested in a study of the 250,000 workers who were involved in the clean up, who reached their lifetime radiation limit during the clean up.

Typical. Once again twisting my words to hell and back. If you read over my post again maby you would understand what I acctualy wrote. That even a accident on that scale is insufficient to seriously hurt nature in the area. I am fully aware of the people and the suffering. But its no worse then the suffering people go through because we use fossile fuels since greens dont allow nuke expansion. I mentioned it ONLY because I find it ironic that people claim nuclear accidents could be the end of the world.

These kinds of things is what I want to prevent but nuclear oponents make possible.
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssue...baldimming.asp

But am I hearing that radiation has no negative long term effects, opps guess you cant make that statement yet, not enough time has elapsed and the odds of the people involved being tracked long enough to determine long term effects is kinda doubtful. The I can sprinkle radiation on my cereal attitude is one you may want to endorse but I am still hesitant to walk into the Chernobyl dead zone and hug the reactor.

Never made such a statement so stop putting words on my mouth if you want a half decent debate here. Remember you are the one that started with the rude attitude in this thread. I posted as I always do, anxious for a debate. But you started with attacking my credability and spewing bullshit like a manure plant. I can tone it down if you do. But DONT TWIST MY WORDS AROUND. That just clearly shows you dont know what you are talking about and is grasping for straws.

I notice you ignore the problem with the pebble bed reactors, offer no solutions to the storage problems associated with nuke power, offer not link to scientific statement on the amount of usable uranium on the planet,

I dont claim to be a expert on reactor design. But enlighten me on the problems with pebble bed reactors and I will look it up.

For nuclear reactor safety in general.... We have had over 400 nuclear reactors running now for decades with only one serious accident. Dont even mention thre miles island because it wasnt a disaster by any stretch of the imagination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island

. In the end, the reactor was brought under control. No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred (a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one."

But offcourse I guess you dont trust the evil goverment either??

I have offer solution to storage problems if you read what I write. TRANSMUTATION. This is the 4th post in this thread I think where I mention this. It can TURN LONG HALFLIFE RADIOACTIVE ISOTOPES INTO SHORT HALFLIFE RADIOACTIVE FUEL AND WASTE. That waste doesnt need to be store more then 100 years. The contains we have now can handle just about any natural disaster and survive 100 years.

To repeate a link to uranium in seawater
http://www.jaeri.go.jp/english/ff/ff43/topics.html
and here are a few others. What do you consider scientific? Isnt companies that have messured the ammounts and is about to start processing uranium from seawater reliable enough?
Maby this link from STANFORD UNIVERSITY is enough to convince you of breeder reactor efficiency and seawater ammounts?
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
To quote from the page.

How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.

Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.

The main point to be derived from Cohen's article is that energy is not a problem even in the very long run. In particular, energy intensive solutions to other human problems are entirely acceptable.

Ohh gosh only 7 million years of uranium. May we should start getting worried about running out of resources.
Like the comments to the article also mention. HE DOESNT EVEN CONSIDER THORIUM. THERE IS 4 TIMES MORE THORIUM THAN URANIUM ON EARTH.
Can you now for the love of god admit that we could easily run this planet on nuclear fuel alone for thousands and thousands of years or do I need to hammer the point down even further??

and that outer space stuff, makes a good movie but I challenge you to provide a balance sheet showing cost of production of those magical asteroid mines that will save us all.

Kind of hard showing a balance sheet on cost of techologies not yet developed that requires a base on the moon to harvest building material dont you think? The cost of starting such a project would be billions, but when its up and running it would be cheap. To get a asteroide into a near earth orbit we only need to put a small boster rocket on it and nudge it towards earth. Mining could be done automaticly. Getting the stuff down to earth would not be such a huge problem. Just ditch it down on a uninhabitet area in not to large chunks. I cant know for sure but a trajectory that uses maximum air breaking would probably land the chunk in a not to crasy speed.
Maby if you paid attention to my posts you would realise the asteroid mining would be a very long term concept. 70-100 years or so into the future when we easily with lots of nuclear and fusion power produces the energy needed to pull such a thing off.

But instead you fail to adress the core of my posts. The fact that nuclear fuel is safe and effective. You fail to adress my posts about how to deal with spent nuclear fuel, you fail to adress me on how we can go about to get unlimited supply of nuclear fuel. You fail to provide any base for your claim that nuclear power is unsafe. As a industri its probably the safest we have seen. There are far worse things than nuclear power. Just consider the bhopal disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disasterBut I dont se you writing pages witch hunting the chemical industry. Is it because radioactivity is so sexy and mysterious that people need to toss all the shit they can on it without even understanding how it works??

[Kärnfysikern]

Maby this can convince you. The co-founder of greenpeace Dr Patrick Moore himself admits that the evidence for nuclear safety is enough.

http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D151.cfm

a couple of quotes from this intelligent man

Moore, who broke with Greenpeace in the mid-1980s after spending 15 years in its top committee, says energy decisions must be based more on science, and less on politics and emotion. Moore calls nuclear energy “the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.”

“There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice,” Moore says.

“There are simply not enough available forms of alternative energy to replace both of them together. Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither CO2 nor any other air pollutants.”

Is he also like me terribly uneducated and doesnt know what he is talking about? Living in a fantasy world??

[Kärnfysikern]

Information on breeder reactors
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/fasbre.html

Such a reactor can produce about 20% more fuel than it consumes by the breeding reaction. Enough excess fuel is produced over about 20 years to fuel another such reactor. Optimum breeding allows about 75% of the energy of the natural uranium to be used compared to 1% in the standard light water reactor

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2...1000030200.htm

This page was interestin especialy the last part of it
http://www.chemcases.com/2003version/nuclear/nc-10.htm

Both accidents involved human error overriding safety features built into the reactor systems.

I must also add that I am very pleased to se china and india building lots of nuclear plants. They atleast have the comon sense to know that fossiles fuels isnt the future. Such comon sense that a country like the united states should have but doesnt because of scaremongering media. We should all strive for france's example with 70% of electricity coming from nuclear power.

But maby enviromental activists rather se the world under a cloud of pollution then to let the evil radioactive man to spread.
I mean admiting they are wrong. Gosh that is unthinkabel!!! We should all live of the land and abolish that pesky technology that makes life so enjoyable.

[Kärnfysikern]

In the end you and me want the same thing. A nice, green earth for our kids to enjoy.

But you want to achieve that by lowering the standard of living for all people. Something utterly unrealistic since no one would go along with it. You also want to achive it in a way that makes it impossible for developing nations to get developed. Also a impossible scenario since you cant contain the human desire to improve.

I want to do it in a way that will preserve nature while giving us a better standard of living and higher technology.

[Hitman]

Solar and wind powered facilities are FAR from being new .Over Here we have wind farms with single turbines able to power 2,000 houses.I have also read scandinavia is trialling worm like structures out at sea utilizing sea currents that work by friction, they are about 1km long and have many junctions in it.I cant recall what the power production is though.Oh just remembered we got a guy over here that has patents on 2 vehicles powered by waste fat/oils like the stuff your local take away bar cleans out of there vats and cookers, people are always going to eat crap so why not power something with the by product?

[Kärnfysikern]

Solar and wind powered facilities are FAR from being new .Over Here we have wind farms with single turbines able to power 2,000 houses.I have also read scandinavia is trialling worm like structures out at sea utilizing sea currents that work by friction, they are about 1km long and have many junctions in it.I cant recall what the power production is though.Oh just remembered we got a guy over here that has patents on 2 vehicles powered by waste fat/oils like the stuff your local take away bar cleans out of there vats and cookers, people are always going to eat crap so why not power something with the by product?

inovations like that is realy needed. Maby the right path to the future would be to try and use several different propelants for vechiles instead of relying on one(like oil now or hydrogen that is the proclaimed fuel of the future).