EVE Search - Bored? EDUCATE YOURSELF about Nuclear Power

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Bored? EDUCATE YOURSELF about Nuclear Power

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2010.08.25 02:50:00 - [1] Edited by: Slate Shoa on 25/08/2010 02:55:29 Hello, I am a nuclear engineering student in my senior year at my college. Too often I am disappointed by the extent to which people are uninformed about nuclear power. My reason for posting here is to spread information aimed at allowing people to have informed opinions about the topic of nuclear power. To that extent, I am linking an article which describes the role nuclear power should have played in recent history, and the role it must play in the future, with respect to energy sustainability and growth. As far as I am concerned, by reading and understanding the first half of the article, you have become informed on the topic of nuclear power. Originally by: Slate Shoa Please read this article: A Second Look at Nuclear Power by Paul Lorenzini, "a retired PacifiCorp executive and former general manager of contract operations at DOEÆs nuclear defense facilities in Hanford, Washington." If you don't trust my link, search google for the article. Summary: Paul Lorenzini starts out discussing the outcomes of the renewable energy source movement. Paul shows that the renewable energy source movement has made worse the problems which it aimed to erase, and actually increased the use of fossil fuel energy sources. An estimate of the public fatalities from the use of fossil fuels is given, and then a comparison to nuclear power is given. Paul talks about "environmentalists" and their contradictory stance of opposing nuclear power. Mr. Lorenzini then tries to explain the reasons for historically fierce opposition to development of nuclear power in the United States. Paul then talks about the nuclear-power-plant and waste-disposal regulation roadblocks facing the development of nuclear power. Lastly, Paul explains what needs to be done before nuclear power is set for unimpeded development. If you have a question to ask about nuclear power, post it here and I will try my best to answer it. If I can not answer it, I will talk to one of my professors and get an answer from them. All legitimate questions will respectfully be answered. Remember: Everyone is entitled to express their INFORMED opinions, not all their opinions. Educate yourself.
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.08.25 02:54:00 - [2] Edited by: Akita T on 25/08/2010 02:54:21 Originally by: Slate Shoa Too often I am disappointed by the extent to which people are uninformed about nuclear power. Nuclear power : fancy way of saying steam engine (well, turbine, whatever) powered by uranium instead of coal (with no smoke but other kinds of yucky residues) P.S. Between coal and uranium, I'll always pick uranium. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
So Sensational GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.08.25 03:06:00 - [3] Originally by: Slate Shoa If you have a question to ask about nuclear power, post it here and I will try my best to answer it. If I can not answer it, I will talk to one of my professors and get an answer from them. All legitimate questions will respectfully be answered. Oh no! You've been exposed to radiation, and a mutated hand has grown out of your stomach! What's the best course of treatment? 1 A bullet to the brain 2 Large Doses of anti-mutagen agent. 3 Pray, Maybe God will spare you in exchange for a life of pious devotion. 4 Removal of the mutated tissue with a precision laser.
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.25 03:10:00 - [4] Originally by: So Sensational Originally by: Slate Shoa If you have a question to ask about nuclear power, post it here and I will try my best to answer it. If I can not answer it, I will talk to one of my professors and get an answer from them. All legitimate questions will respectfully be answered. Oh no! You've been exposed to radiation, and a mutated hand has grown out of your stomach! What's the best course of treatment? 1 A bullet to the brain 2 Large Doses of anti-mutagen agent. 3 Pray, Maybe God will spare you in exchange for a life of pious devotion. 4 Removal of the mutated tissue with a precision laser. damnit, thats my line! Originally by: CCP Shadow Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
So Sensational GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda	Posted - 2010.08.25 03:34:00 - [5] Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: So Sensational Originally by: Slate Shoa If you have a question to ask about nuclear power, post it here and I will try my best to answer it. If I can not answer it, I will talk to one of my professors and get an answer from them. All legitimate questions will respectfully be answered. Oh no! You've been exposed to radiation, and a mutated hand has grown out of your stomach! What's the best course of treatment? 1 A bullet to the brain 2 Large Doses of anti-mutagen agent. 3 Pray, Maybe God will spare you in exchange for a life of pious devotion. 4 Removal of the mutated tissue with a precision laser. damnit, thats my line! He he. But you didn't properly quote it
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.08.25 03:38:00 - [6] Edited by: Akita T on 25/08/2010 03:38:48 Originally by: So Sensational Oh no! You've been exposed to radiation, and a mutated hand has grown out of your stomach! What's the best course of treatment? 1 A bullet to the brain 2 Large Doses of anti-mutagen agent. 3 Pray, Maybe God will spare you in exchange for a life of pious devotion. 4 Removal of the mutated tissue with a precision laser. 5. Sweet, I always wanted an extra hand ! _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Lance Fighter Amarr	Posted - 2010.08.25 04:08:00 - [7] Originally by: So Sensational Originally by: Lance Fighter Originally by: So Sensational Originally by: Slate Shoa If you have a question to ask about nuclear power, post it here and I will try my best to answer it. If I can not answer it, I will talk to one of my professors and get an answer from them. All legitimate questions will respectfully be answered. Oh no! You've been exposed to radiation, and a mutated hand has grown out of your stomach! What's the best course of treatment? 1 A bullet to the brain 2 Large Doses of anti-mutagen agent. 3 Pray, Maybe God will spare you in exchange for a life of pious devotion. 4 Removal of the mutated tissue with a precision laser. damnit, thats my line! He he. But you didn't properly quote it yeah was doing it by memory :\ Originally by: CCP Shadow Have you ever wished you could have prevented a train wreck before it actually happened? I need to stop this one before the craziness begins.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.25 05:23:00 - [8] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 25/08/2010 02:54:21 Originally by: Slate Shoa Too often I am disappointed by the extent to which people are uninformed about nuclear power. Nuclear power : fancy way of saying steam engine (well, turbine, whatever) powered by uranium instead of coal (with no smoke but other kinds of yucky residues) P.S. Between coal and uranium, I'll always pick uranium. that is pretty true. Really when you think about it the most powerful warships on the ocean(US Super Carriers) and the most powerful ships below it(US Submarines) are nothing more than high tech steam boats. a Sub and a Carrier both have in theory the same drivetrain as an Iowa Class Battleship, just that instead of 8+ boilers burning oil to feed a steam turbine there are nuclear reactors. but in the end the reactor is a glorified furnace heating water.
Zeba Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company	Posted - 2010.08.25 06:19:00 - [9] Atomic power is rad but what about the short supply of fissionable material and the horrible vulnerability to sabatoge if it spreads to underdeveloped countries with crazy people who would blow them up because the wrong tribe is in power? Coal is safe and clean as long as the local government makes them use the latest scrubber tech. Originally by: CCP Oveur My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard. Originally by: CCP Adida Moved from missions and complexes. All other game discussions are only aloud in OOP.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:00:00 - [10] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 07:04:21 Some problems with nuclear energy are: - Nuclear energy "burns" non renewable substances. As such its use is finite. - Substances required in Nuclear reactors can be used for weapons production. (Iran) - Nuclear waste storage is not solved. - Melt downs in nuclear power plants have proven to be very hazardous. - Concentrated power generation is a tempting war target. (Especially if its destruction not only halts power output, but also causes large damage to the surrounding area - examples are the destruction of hydro dams, which happened in war time to halt power generation as well as cause flooding) Most importantly, just looking at the words "non-renewable" and "renewable" and their implication it should be fairly obvious which choice is better in the long run. Anyways, there is another thread here which discusses coal vs nuclear, maybe you want to check that.
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Fyretracker Heavy Industries	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:05:00 - [11] any future wars likely wont put any western power plants in direct danger, any war that big will likely involve a far less useful version of Nuclear Power(as in the big badda boom kind)
Jack Airron Gallente Wrecking Shots -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:20:00 - [12] Edited by: Jack Airron on 25/08/2010 07:21:20 Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 07:04:21 Some problems with nuclear energy are: - Nuclear energy "burns" non renewable substances. As such its use is finite. - Substances required in Nuclear reactors can be used for weapons production. (Iran) - Nuclear waste storage is not solved. - Melt downs in nuclear power plants have proven to be very hazardous. - Concentrated power generation is a tempting war target. (Especially if its destruction not only halts power output, but also causes large damage to the surrounding area - examples are the destruction of hydro dams, which happened in war time to halt power generation as well as cause flooding) Most importantly, just looking at the words "non-renewable" and "renewable" and their implication it should be fairly obvious which choice is better in the long run. Anyways, there is another thread here which discusses coal vs nuclear, maybe you want to check that. 1, there is enough Nuclear material to sustain us untell we can attain fusion power, Think of it as a way to stave off the destruction of our planet untell we have the technology for a self sustaining fusion. 2.Weapons grade and Reactor-Grade are different things you should educate yourself about which is which before you cry "the sky is falling" 3. it is, if you watch a TED talk with Mr. bill gates he solves the problem of storage (we get double the power by utlizeing the nuclear wast for reactors) 4. Melt downs occurred in Soviet Russia because of poor maintenance conditions and the effected area was relativity small. 5.War right now is fuled mostly by resources if we utlized Clean energy and nuclear energy that would minmilze the threat of wars. Nuclear energy is our last hope of securing our future if we continue to pollute our planet and destroy our environment our civilization and evey thing countless generations have worked,fought and died for will be rendered meaningless all because of fear mongering by the fossil fuel oil tycoons.
Lia'Vael Caldari Migrant Fleet	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:32:00 - [13] Edited by: Lia''Vael on 25/08/2010 07:35:43 Originally by: Zeba Atomic power is rad but what about the short supply of fissionable material and the horrible vulnerability to sabatoge if it spreads to underdeveloped countries with crazy people who would blow them up because the wrong tribe is in power? Coal is safe and clean as long as the local government makes them use the latest scrubber tech. Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Some problems with nuclear energy are: - Nuclear energy "burns" non renewable substances. As such its use is finite. - Nuclear waste storage is not solved. - Melt downs in nuclear power plants have proven to be very hazardous. - Concentrated power generation is a tempting war target. (Especially if its destruction not only halts power output, but also causes large damage to the surrounding area - examples are the destruction of hydro dams, which happened in war time to halt power generation as well as cause flooding) Principally just looking at the words "non-renewable" and "renewable" and their implication it should be fairly obvious which choice is better in the long run. Anyways, there is another thread here which discusses coal vs nuclear, maybe you want to check that. Two birds one stone U-235 the main fissile material in use for nuclear reactors is without a doubt a limited resource along with all uranium isotopes in general in nature but, there is always a but now isn't there, a material that is significantly more abundant is my beloved thorium. If you haven't heard or read by now thorium was used in an experiment which took place in 1964-1969, for 5 years in a retrofit aircraft nuclear reactor test facility was the MSRE (Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment). A test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of an inherently safe epithermal thorium breeder reactor. Three fissile materials where used, U-235, Pu-239, and the one fissile material here which makes the biggest difference, U-233 more specifically uranium tetraflouride which resulted from the thorium breeding. You may ask what does this have to do with all the above, as in availability, waste factor, the ability for the reactor to meltdown, and the likelihood such a facility would be targeted in war? First availability, Thorium by current estimates is at least 4-5 times more abundant than all isotopes of uranium with close to equal distribution over our planet with Russia having the largest supply. Nearly all countries have a large supply. Not to mention it take less natural material and much less time and resources to process thorium for use in a reactor than uranium. Thorium has a unique signature and we have identified "hot spots" on both the moon and mars for potential supplies of thorium. Waste factor, since the MSRE proved the fuel cycle of thorium with use in this breeder reactor significantly reduces the amount of waste produced when compared to the use of uranium. The likelihood of a liquid fluoride reactor or molten-salt reactor reaching the point of meltdown and causing another tragedy like Chernobyl is severely limited, Chernobyl was cause by many factors most of which were poor design, poor safety culture, and deviation from test procedure, with anything involving something which can be dangerous deserves respect and caution. We have a greater understanding in this age and a greater respect to nuclear engineering to not half-ass it not to mention the design has safety in mind. The likelihood of an attack from a foreign threat? As long as we keep in mind it is a valuable resource that we need to protect the chances are slim at best. Everything can be a target by terrorists, it does not mean we should back down, and if there is a big enough war which allows their destruction that that war will have escalated to a point where weapons of mass destruction would be used, mutually assured destruction is better then a loss if such a war would break out. Now keep in mind thorium itself is not fissile but the product of breeding the thorium is U-233 which is. word
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:48:00 - [14] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 07:49:15 I have to admit I am getting slightly tired of this discussion - so you will get short answers. For more info, check the coal vs nuclear thread. Originally by: Jack Airron 1, there is enough Nuclear material to sustain us untell we can attain fusion power, Think of it as a way to stave off the destruction of our planet untell we have the technology for a self sustaining fusion. Proof? Originally by: Jack Airron 2.Weapons grade and Reactor-Grade are different things you should educate yourself about which is which before you cry "the sky is falling" I was wondering if I should mention that Weapons grade and Reactor Grade are different things in my above post, but decided not to since I thought everyone knows that. You can educate yourself a bit further on why there is a problem here anyways by looking at the current Iran situation. Originally by: Jack Airron 3. it is, if you watch a TED talk with Mr. bill gates he solves the problem of storage (we get double the power by utlizeing the nuclear wast for reactors) I will check that out, and see how it was implemented (if it has been). Originally by: Jack Airron 4. Melt downs occurred in Soviet Russia because of poor maintenance conditions and the effected area was relativity small. Frankly it is besides the point what caused the melt downs. Fact is they are dangerous. Originally by: Jack Airron 5.War right now is fuled mostly by resources if we utlized Clean energy and nuclear energy that would minmilze the threat of wars. Very much agreed. Still, a nuclear power plant remains a strategic target in wars. Originally by: Jack Airron Nuclear energy is our last hope of securing our future if we continue to pollute our planet and destroy our environment our civilization and evey thing countless generations have worked,fought and died for will be rendered meaningless all because of fear mongering by the fossil fuel oil tycoons. Fossil fuel, coal AND nuclear are resource bound. When you talk about the fossile fuel tycoons, why not mention current and future uranium etc. tycoons? Decentralization (as you inderectly mentioned in 5.) is desireable for various reasons. Currently most would agree that a mix of energies is probably best. That mix today does include coal and nuclear, but shifts more towards various renewable energy sources.
Jack Airron Gallente Wrecking Shots -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.08.25 07:59:00 - [15] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 07:49:15 I have to admit I am getting slightly tired of this discussion - so you will get short answers. For more info, check the coal vs nuclear thread. Originally by: Jack Airron 1, there is enough Nuclear material to sustain us untell we can attain fusion power, Think of it as a way to stave off the destruction of our planet untell we have the technology for a self sustaining fusion. Proof? Originally by: Jack Airron 2.Weapons grade and Reactor-Grade are different things you should educate yourself about which is which before you cry "the sky is falling" I was wondering if I should mention that Weapons grade and Reactor Grade are different things in my above post, but decided not to since I thought everyone knows that. You can educate yourself a bit further on why there is a problem here anyways by looking at the current Iran situation. Originally by: Jack Airron 3. it is, if you watch a TED talk with Mr. bill gates he solves the problem of storage (we get double the power by utlizeing the nuclear wast for reactors) I will check that out, and see how it was implemented (if it has been). Originally by: Jack Airron 4. Melt downs occurred in Soviet Russia because of poor maintenance conditions and the effected area was relativity small. Frankly it is besides the point what caused the melt downs. Fact is they are dangerous. Originally by: Jack Airron 5.War right now is fuled mostly by resources if we utlized Clean energy and nuclear energy that would minmilze the threat of wars. Very much agreed. Still, a nuclear power plant remains a strategic target in wars. Originally by: Jack Airron Nuclear energy is our last hope of securing our future if we continue to pollute our planet and destroy our environment our civilization and evey thing countless generations have worked,fought and died for will be rendered meaningless all because of fear mongering by the fossil fuel oil tycoons. Fossil fuel, coal AND nuclear are resource bound. When you talk about the fossile fuel tycoons, why not mention current and future uranium etc. tycoons? Decentralization (as you inderectly mentioned in 5.) is desireable for various reasons. Currently most would agree that a mix of energies is probably best. That mix today does include coal and nuclear, but shifts more towards various renewable energy sources. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last I have answered the rest of your questions but as they say "you can lead a donkey to water but you cant make him drink" You must be a avid fox news watcher.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:01:00 - [16] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 08:02:51 Originally by: Jack Airron ...I have answered the rest of your questions but as they say "you can lead a donkey to water but you cant make him drink" You must be a avid fox news watcher. Sorry to say, but you just disqualified yourself for any serious discussion. Frankly, over emotionalized people like yourself are what makes the energy topic a difficult one to adress rationaly.
Jack Airron Gallente Wrecking Shots -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Originally by: Jack Airron ...I have answered the rest of your questions but as they say "you can lead a donkey to water but you cant make him drink" You must be a avid fox news watcher. Sorry to say, but you just disqualified yourself for any serious discussion. Says the person who was not so much having a discussion as much as he was putting his fingers in his ears and screaming "LALALALALALAL IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT LALALAL" Good day sir and enjoy Mr glen beck.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:04:00 - [18] Originally by: Jack Airron Says the person who was not so much having a discussion as much as he was putting his fingers in his ears and screaming "LALALALALALAL IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT LALALAL" Good day sir and enjoy Mr glen beck. Ah, you are a troll. Nevermind then, sorry I bothered with you.
Jack Airron Gallente Wrecking Shots -Mostly Harmless-	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:08:00 - [19] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Originally by: Jack Airron Says the person who was not so much having a discussion as much as he was putting his fingers in his ears and screaming "LALALALALALAL IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT LALALAL" Good day sir and enjoy Mr glen beck. Ah, you are a troll. Nevermind then, sorry I bothered with you. was about to say the same thing to you.
Lia'Vael Caldari Migrant Fleet	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:09:00 - [20] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Fossil fuel, coal AND nuclear are resource bound. When you talk about the fossile fuel tycoons, why not mention current and future uranium etc. tycoons? Decentralization (as you inderectly mentioned in 5.) is desireable for various reasons. Currently most would agree that a mix of energies is probably best. That mix today does include coal and nuclear, but shifts more towards various renewable energy sources. Uranium is a limited resource but thorium has proven to be abundant and viable for nuclear energy. Thorium is even considered a waste product of rare earth mining. China going to far as ordering mining companies to report thorium finds to the government. As for mixing energy producers it is generally a good idea.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:26:00 - [21] Originally by: Lia'Vael Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Fossil fuel, coal AND nuclear are resource bound. When you talk about the fossile fuel tycoons, why not mention current and future uranium etc. tycoons? Decentralization (as you inderectly mentioned in 5.) is desireable for various reasons. Currently most would agree that a mix of energies is probably best. That mix today does include coal and nuclear, but shifts more towards various renewable energy sources. Uranium is a limited resource but thorium has proven to be abundant and viable for nuclear energy. Thorium is even considered a waste product of rare earth mining. China going to far as ordering mining companies to report thorium finds to the government. As for mixing energy producers it is generally a good idea. Actually I had not heard much about thorium as a fuel for reactors. Going to read up on that a bit more.
Lia'Vael Caldari Migrant Fleet	Posted - 2010.08.25 08:45:00 - [22] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Actually I had not heard much about thorium as a fuel for reactors. Going to read up on that a bit more. I can tell you it is very interesting for its potential and the amount of it we estimate is available on this planet alone. The main thing that separates thorium-232 from uranium-235 is that much like uranium-238 it is fertile material which can produce fissile material but the process for preparing uranium isotopes compared to thorium is for uranium it takes more time and money. Uranium does have the ability to produce material for use in nuclear bombs while products from a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor tends to have an undesirable isotope waste (which completely escapes me atm) in the uranium product which limits its desirability for nuclear weapons.
edtheshed Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.08.25 09:43:00 - [23] looks to me as if nuclear power is the only way to go renewable energy sorces like solar, win, tide etc. are preferable, but the costs involved seem to be holding them back so the only thing i want to know is the way nuclear fission works, cooling processes and other such technical things. i will now google it as for the arguments in this thread against nuclear power, they just don't compete to the arguments for it
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2010.08.25 11:44:00 - [24] WOW! I posted this topic with the expectation that only a few replies would have been made. There are tons so far! I do not have the time right now to respond to questions, so I'll get to that later today when I can sit and research a little. For the most part, I know how to answer all the questions posed so far. BTW, I'd appreciate it if accusations of "your an idiot/troll" were removed from the discussion on both sides. My answers will not have that tone, fyi. Reserved
Slate Shoa	Posted - 2010.08.25 11:48:00 - [25] Reserved
Xirin	Posted - 2010.08.25 12:11:00 - [26] CANDU reactors...nuff said? It can apparently accept thorium, plutonium (from nuclear weapons), uranium waste from normal nuclear plants, and even natural uranium. Only problem is when we sell it to stupid countries that then turn around and use the tritium by-products to make H-bombs...
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 13:39:00 - [27] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 13:46:19 Originally by: Lia'Vael I can tell you it is very interesting for its potential and the amount of it we estimate is available on this planet alone. The main thing that separates thorium-232 from uranium-235 is that much like uranium-238 it is fertile material which can produce fissile material but the process for preparing uranium isotopes compared to thorium is for uranium it takes more time and money. Uranium does have the ability to produce material for use in nuclear bombs while products from a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor tends to have an undesirable isotope waste (which completely escapes me atm) in the uranium product which limits its desirability for nuclear weapons. I did read up on thorium a bit. Molten-salt reactors seem like an interesting and somewhat safer and cleaner alternative to conventional reactors. Also, the higher availability of thorium compared to reactor grade uranium is nice. What confuses me a bit is this: "When used in molten-salt reactors ... all thorium and fissile uranium is consumed and any undesired gasses and uranium/plutonium isotopes are flushed out as gasses (e.g., as uranium hexafluoride) as the hot, liquid salt is pumped around the reactor/exchanger system." - quoted from wikipedia Does this mean molten-salt reactors create eventaully the same type of waste (uranium hexafluoride) as conventional reactors? If yes, that is not optimal, sine uranium hexafluoride is a pretty nasty substance and not unproblematic to store. - Here is some more info on Uranium hexafluoride and its storage. But besides that, yes, thorium seems interesting.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 13:44:00 - [28] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 13:49:23 Originally by: Slate Shoa I do not have the time right now to respond to questions, so I'll get to that later today when I can sit and research a little. For the most part, I know how to answer all the questions posed so far. What would interest me is nuclear powered cars. IF nuclear is safe than this must be possible. What are your opinions on this? How could this be achieved?
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2010.08.25 14:48:00 - [29] Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 13:49:23 Originally by: Slate Shoa I do not have the time right now to respond to questions, so I'll get to that later today when I can sit and research a little. For the most part, I know how to answer all the questions posed so far. What would interest me is nuclear powered cars. IF nuclear is safe than this must be possible. What are your opinions on this? How could this be achieved? Nuclear reactors have a minimum size since you need enough mass to sustain a chain reaction. And then there's all of the cooling and control infrastructure needed to keep things balanced. So having a reactor under the bonnet isn't really practical. What you could have though is electric cars powered from a battery which is charged from nuclear power stations. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Phosphorus Palladium	Posted - 2010.08.25 15:06:00 - [30] Edited by: Phosphorus Palladium on 25/08/2010 15:11:56 Originally by: Rodj Blake Nuclear reactors have a minimum size since you need enough mass to sustain a chain reaction. And then there's all of the cooling and control infrastructure needed to keep things balanced. So having a reactor under the bonnet isn't really practical. What you could have though is electric cars powered from a battery which is charged from nuclear power stations. That's the thing Rodj, the problem with electric cars are the batteries. So it is preferable to have the electricity generated on board of the car. That is the reason for hybrid cars - where a gasoline or diesel engine produces the electricity for the e-motor. Obviously that is only a temporary solution, since it needs fossile fuels. Fuel Cells are better, they also generate electricity on board of the car, and do not need fossile fuels, but use hydrogen instead. But Fuel Cell technology is not ready for large scale use in cars yet. Even when it is, this is not optimal either, since hydrogen takes a lot of energy to produce.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.