| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Fyretracker Heavy Industries
   |
Posted - 2010.08.25 15:54:00 -
[31]
Fuel Cells are fully ready for any size car.
But the H2 issue still has not been solved. we need a process that is better than electrical separation of water. and even when that is solved we need filling stations that can safely pump H2. because while compressed gas tanks are in fact safer in an accident than gasoline tanks on current cars you still have to have a transfer of that gas from station to tank.
I remember an episode of Mythbusters where they shut the gas off and got a car to run by blowing H2 into the carburetor lol.
|
Lia'Vael
Caldari
Migrant Fleet
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 17:55:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
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 eventually the same type of waste (uranium hexafluoride) as conventional reactors?
If yes, that is not optimal, since uranium hexafluoride is a pretty nasty substance and not unproblematic to store.
- Here is some more info on Uranium hexafluoride and its storage, dangers, etc.
But besides that, yes, thorium seems interesting.
Where shall I begin.
All the salt has to be reprocessed, but only every ten days. The reactor's total inventory of expensive, poisonous radioactive materials is therefore much smaller than in a conventional light-water-reactor's fuel cycle. A sparge of fluorine to remove uranium-233 fuel from the salt as uranium hexafluoride, which will be accompanied by similarly volatile high-valence fluorides of some other elements. Protactinium is removed from the fuel salt, and for good reason too. Pa-233 is allowed to decay, with a half-life of about 27 days ten months of storage ensures all Pa-233 decays to U-233 the fissile fuel used in the reactor. A vapor-phase fluoride-salt distillation system distills the salts. Each salt has a distinct temperature of vaporization. The amount of waste involved is about 800 kg per gigawatt-year generated, so the equipment is very small. Salts of long-lived transuranic metals go back into the reactor as fuel. With salt distillation, an MSFR can burn plutonium, or even fluorinated nuclear waste from light water reactors.
One way or another there is some waste but in comparison to a light water reactor it is significantly reduced.
|
Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:39:00 -
[33]
Prior to the end of the Cold War, I wrote a Fall Out Shelter guide for a military installation.
Currently, I work in the career field of Emergency Management, specifically making sure equipment used to to detect chemicals, radioactive material, etc, works.
Given a choice between nuclear and ANY other fuel based power, I prefer nuclear, and by a large margin.
On a side note, the SL-1 accident is good reading. The wikipedia account is reasonably accurate (I studied it in a bit more detail when I was active duty, but I'll only cite civil source material here....)
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Fyretracker Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 22:59:00 -
[34]
how many true notable incidents has nuclear had?
i know they have minor ones but afaik the only true hit to the ecosystem has been Chernobyl. Three Mile Island was not that bad really, since PA has not had to be evacuated.
and Both of those where not faults of nuclear power but had lots of operator error. if i remember correctly Chernobyl other than being a not so safe design was running tests with multiple safety systems disabled for some experiment.
|
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.25 23:33:00 -
[35]
Everything else aside there is another reason to not use up all the finite stocks of uranium for domestic power usage when the future of mankind as a whole is going to be dependent on us finally getting into space and exploiting the virtually endless resources that are out there in the void. Coal ain't gonna be of much use on a moon base but a nuclear power plant sure as hell would. Think of it as using up the more abundant but dirtier power source so we can finally get to the bountiful materials of the moons, planets and asteroid belts. Its a long term view of course but a valid one none the less if we are talking about the ulitmate survival of the species.
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.
|
Kungar Lupe
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 00:42:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Zeba
Everything else aside there is another reason to not use up all the finite stocks of uranium for domestic power usage when the future of mankind as a whole is going to be dependent on us finally getting into space and exploiting the virtually endless resources that are out there in the void. Coal ain't gonna be of much use on a moon base but a nuclear power plant sure as hell would. Think of it as using up the more abundant but dirtier power source so we can finally get to the bountiful materials of the moons, planets and asteroid belts. Its a long term view of course but a valid one none the less if we are talking about the ulitmate survival of the species.
This TBH.
If we are not spending Evey single second of Evey single day reaching for the stars and advancingscience and technological boundaries they we as a species are doomed, Why go back to coal when you have such a clear and power full alternative in nuclear?
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 01:45:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 26/08/2010 01:48:18
I have written an explanation to address your concerns that nuclear fuel is a scarce resource. This explanation has now been posted.
Please see the first page, posts 24 and 25.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 01:48:00 -
[38]
Reserved
|
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 02:47:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 26/08/2010 01:48:18
I have written an explanation to address your concerns that nuclear fuel is a scarce resource. This explanation has now been posted.
Please see the first page, posts 24 and 25.
Yes I realise that tech is already available but it still doesn't change the fact you should not be wasting what is still a finite supply even with an extended lifespan for the fuel on domestic power supply. Lobby the companies that make all the wasteful comsumer products to up efficiency and push forward legislation for alternate power sources to ease the burden on the fossil plants and so cut the need for nuclear power as an alternative. Its far too important a resourse to waste on running your central air and entertainment rack.
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.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 03:21:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 26/08/2010 03:24:05
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Post #37
Yes I realise that tech is already available but it still doesn't change the fact you should not be wasting what is still a finite supply even with an extended lifespan for the fuel on domestic power supply. Lobby the companies that make all the wasteful comsumer products to up efficiency and push forward legislation for alternate power sources to ease the burden on the fossil plants and so cut the need for nuclear power as an alternative. Its far too important a resourse to waste on running your central air and entertainment rack.
By your same logic, I could argue that there is no reason to use solar power, because the sun is a finite resource. What would your response be to that? Would you try to argue that we'll be off this planet by the time the sun dies? If so, to that I say we'll be off this planet by the time we run out of nuclear fuel sources (I did say thousands of years endurance for nuclear fuels, didn't I?).
With respect to the 'increase efficiency by lobbying' argument, I can say for a fact that what you are asking is unrealistic, if not impossible. Even if all consumer products on this planet were 100% efficient, the demand for energy would still require the use and development of all possible energy sources. Including coal, including hydro, including natural gas, including solar, including wind, including nuclear, etc...
You evidently place too high a value on nuclear power. If that is the way you see it, then you have the entire world's economies to tell you how valuable nuclear power really is. I'll give you a hint: It's cheaper than coal power.
|
Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 04:15:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 26/08/2010 03:24:05
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Post #37
Yes I realise that tech is already available but it still doesn't change the fact you should not be wasting what is still a finite supply even with an extended lifespan for the fuel on domestic power supply. Lobby the companies that make all the wasteful comsumer products to up efficiency and push forward legislation for alternate power sources to ease the burden on the fossil plants and so cut the need for nuclear power as an alternative. Its far too important a resourse to waste on running your central air and entertainment rack.
By your same logic, I could argue that there is no reason to use solar power, because the sun is a finite resource. What would your response be to that? Would you try to argue that we'll be off this planet by the time the sun dies? If so, to that I say we'll be off this planet by the time we run out of nuclear fuel sources (I did say thousands of years endurance for nuclear fuels, didn't I?).
With respect to the 'increase efficiency by lobbying' argument, I can say for a fact that what you are asking is unrealistic, if not impossible. Even if all consumer products on this planet were 100% efficient, the demand for energy would still require the use and development of all possible energy sources. Including coal, including hydro, including natural gas, including solar, including wind, including nuclear, etc...
You evidently place too high a value on nuclear power. If that is the way you see it, then you have the entire world's economies to tell you how valuable nuclear power really is. I'll give you a hint: It's cheaper than coal power.
wat? There are plenty of alternative sources for energy past nuclear to share the global burden of power distribution. We don't need nuclear power running our domestic power grid when it will be the key to getting off this rock and to secure the future of a highly populated technological planet by getting out there and setting up all the cool space mines we see in the movies. Unless you want us to use everything up and eventually trigger a collaps to back to the population level an agrarian society can sustain. Provided enough people live through the chaos and we didn't glass the planet fighting over the last of the fuel. And as far as the unrealistic opinion on forcing comsumer oriented manufacturers to make more efficient products well if everyone felt that way we would still be driving cars that only get a few miles per gallon and belch visible smoke along with horibly inefficient tungsten filiment light sources in every home. I mean I know nuclear power sounds like the ideal way out of our current energy trap but its just not worth risking the future for running your ipod a little longer.
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.
|
RentableMuffin
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 04:17:00 -
[42]
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.
question, how far down does the hand reach? 
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 17:59:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Post #37
Post #39
Post #40
wat? There are plenty of alternative sources for energy past nuclear to share the global burden of power distribution. We don't need nuclear power running our domestic power grid when it will be the key to getting off this rock and to secure the future of a highly populated technological planet by getting out there and setting up all the cool space mines we see in the movies. Unless you want us to use everything up and eventually trigger a collaps to back to the population level an agrarian society can sustain. Provided enough people live through the chaos and we didn't glass the planet fighting over the last of the fuel. And as far as the unrealistic opinion on forcing comsumer oriented manufacturers to make more efficient products well if everyone felt that way we would still be driving cars that only get a few miles per gallon and belch visible smoke along with horibly inefficient tungsten filiment light sources in every home. I mean I know nuclear power sounds like the ideal way out of our current energy trap but its just not worth risking the future for running your ipod a little longer.
Fair enough. It seems our disagreement is not about nuclear power technology, but is instead an issue about resource conservation. On that note, I am happy that our discussion has reached this point, because it means that we have a mutual understanding with respect to nuclear technology, but simply have different points of view about when the time to use nuclear power is.
There is another reason which I have to support the development of nuclear power; reversing global warming trends. For every nuclear power plant that replaces fossil fuel power plants, greenhouse gasses which otherwise would have been injected into the atmosphere are avoided. Whether or not this is an issue depends on your views on global warming. To be honest, we don't know if this is a minor or major event in our future. It could just mean we're going to live normally in warmer temperatures, or if we're going to live amongst a dead ecosystem.
Avoiding a possible disaster is the reason why I believe nuclear power must be used. It is the reason why I chose my major.
Thanks for your continued discussion.
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.26 21:55:00 -
[44]
I just addressed the topic of nuclear cars. See post 38.
|
Phosphorus Palladium
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 16:14:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
I just addressed the topic of nuclear cars. See post 38.
Thanks, read and noted.
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.08.27 16:43:00 -
[46]
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.
It's GOAT time!
|
Matt Johonson
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 06:36:00 -
[47]
Is it true that a coal powerplant pumps out more background radiation then a nucular plant?
|
Slate Shoa
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 13:38:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Matt Johonson
Is it true that a coal powerplant pumps out more background radiation then a nucular plant?
Radioactive atoms exits naturally throughout the world, which includes in coal. Because of the enormous amount of coal being burned and exhaust being pumped into the atmosphere, the net result is that coal power plants do increase the background radiation around the plant.
Yes, coal power plants increase background radiation more than nuclear power plants do.
|
Feilamya
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 14:54:00 -
[49]
I smell lobbyists.
|
Alexeph Stoekai
Stoekai Corp
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 16:08:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
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.
The cheapest and least cumbersome method for producing hydrogen, by a massive margin, is natural gas - which is a fossil fuel. If we move to rely on hydrogen cells, it will mean a continued dependence on fossil fuel deposits.
A far better option is to research better lithium-based batteries. Lithium can already be extracted from seawater.
-----
|
Matt Johonson
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 17:55:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Slate Shoa
Edited by: Slate Shoa on 28/08/2010 14:55:52
Originally by: Matt Johonson
Is it true that a coal powerplant pumps out more background radiation then a nucular plant?
Radioactive atoms exist naturally throughout the world, which includes in coal. Because of the enormous amount of coal being burned and exhaust being pumped into the atmosphere, the net result is that coal power plants do increase the background radiation around the plant.
Yes, coal power plants increase background radiation more than nuclear power plants do.
Eat that you nuclear-haters out there 
|
ThaMa Gebir
Gallente
SUECHTLER Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.08.30 08:10:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Alexeph Stoekai
Originally by: Phosphorus Palladium
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.
The cheapest and least cumbersome method for producing hydrogen, by a massive margin, is natural gas - which is a fossil fuel. If we move to rely on hydrogen cells, it will mean a continued dependence on fossil fuel deposits.
A far better option is to research better lithium-based batteries. Lithium can already be extracted from seawater.
Not to mention all those crazies in the local nuthouse when they die. I bet they could fuel a few industries with those...
----------------------------
Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........
Hah, no more hijacks here!!!!
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |