37 replies to this topic

[Cyo]

redlion, on 27 July 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

Nuclear fusion is a ways away from commercial application I thought. It still isn't an energy efficient reaction. We put more into it than we get from it. But you're right about the consistency issue. That's why I've recently become a fan of tidal power, where the tide (in coastal areas) is harnessed for turning a generator. Solar could be more efficient if we stacked the arrays ten or twenty deep and made the intermittent layers from diamond. But no one does that because the major funding comes from oil companies

Can't really get more from any power source than you put into it. Getting more out of a power source than you put into it is kind of a dealbreaker.

[iargue]

necospes, on 28 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

I'm imagining nuclear fusion batteries that last years, which is not needed but would be really cool to have.

Far to dangerous and impossible for the next few hundred years.

Cyo, on 28 July 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

Can't really get more from any power source than you put into it. Getting more out of a power source than you put into it is kind of a dealbreaker.

Its not breaking any rules. For instance, in nuclear fission, very little power is put into it. Instead it simply uses the energy created by fission. Fusion will work in the same way. If we can properly harness the energy produced by fusion, then we can easily produce much more energy that we put into it. We don't create the energy though, we just "unlock it"

[Maloo]

Bone, on 24 July 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

I don't quite understand their characterizations of the turbines as monstrous and hideous, I find them comparable to a boat on the lake, a pleasant human touch to the natural environment. (which is unharmed by them, thank you very much)

What do you guys think?

I wouldn't say unharmed, as they kill about 10,000 -- 40,000 birds a year in the US (and lots of bats too).I'm not saying I'm against wind turbines, just that they aren't perfect.

[fruityone]

Many, many people in my area aren't a fan of the windmills near our city. The ironic thing is, I live in New 'We Hate Nuclear' Zealand and the people against windmills are generally also against fossil fuels because of global warming, hydo because it's bad for rivers and solar because it's expensive to get it installed.

[Maloo]

fruityone, on 28 July 2011 - 06:59 PM, said:

Many, many people in my area aren't a fan of the windmills near our city. The ironic thing is, I live in New 'We Hate Nuclear' Zealand and the people against windmills are generally also against fossil fuels because of global warming, hydo because it's bad for rivers and solar because it's expensive to get it installed.

Pfft, who needs energy nowadays?
I certainly don't.

Spoiler

[redlion]

Cyo, on 28 July 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

Can't really get more from any power source than you put into it. Getting more out of a power source than you put into it is kind of a dealbreaker.

I wasn't referring to breaking the law of conservation of energy, but rather to the efficiency of the reaction. We would pay for more electricity to get a stable fusion reaction, more than we would get from years of harvesting energy from a single fusion generator. Plus the most readily available fuel, we think, is H-3 from the lunar regolith. Not something just lying around, then.

[lonewolf]

Wind Turbines are great, there are loads in NZ but they are not getting the amount of attention they need. the Do generate a lot of power, yet we are still using coal and gas

[Kyouma]

I saw a 60 minutes episode, (some time ago actually), that talked about Hydrogen Fuel cells.
Apparently they're clean, safe, and many big companies are already using them, powering up to 1/3 of all their main corporate building.
I think this was around a year ago, so maybe its even more advanced now.

[lonewolf]

Kyouma, on 02 August 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

I saw a 60 minutes episode, (some time ago actually), that talked about Hydrogen Fuel cells.
Apparently they're clean, safe, and many big companies are already using them, powering up to 1/3 of all their main corporate building.
I think this was around a year ago, so maybe its even more advanced now.

yeah i learnt something about that in school XD hydrogen cells do not have much downsides. its just that they do not produce enough energy per litre and it is still hard to store them.

[necospes]

Maloo, on 28 July 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

I wouldn't say unharmed, as they kill about 10,000 -- 40,000 birds a year in the US (and lots of bats too).I'm not saying I'm against wind turbines, just that they aren't perfect.

I was watching the Daily Show the other day, and there was a segment on birds getting killed. The Wind Turbine maker people claimed that only about 3 birds are killed each year from each turbine.

Also interestingly enough, this group of duck hunters were protesting the wind turbines. They did not want the ducks to die to the turbines so that they could "harvest" the ducks themselves.

[pyke]

redlion, on 25 July 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

Wind power is fine, but the input-to-output ratio is off. It's just inefficient :\ Not that I'm against it. I'm for anything BUT carbon fuels.

OUt of curiosity, do you know how long it'd take a windmill to pay for itself?

I like the idea of a broad alternative energy effort, through several means. Line costlines with buoys that have generators inside them, put solar panels all over the place, windmills in windy zones, etc.

[lonewolf]

pyke, on 09 August 2011 - 07:18 AM, said:

OUt of curiosity, do you know how long it'd take a windmill to pay for itself?

I like the idea of a broad alternative energy effort, through several means. Line costlines with buoys that have generators inside them, put solar panels all over the place, windmills in windy zones, etc.

i would like to know the answer to that question as well...i imagine not very long though, apparently it creates huge amounts of energy

[chess211]

redlion, on 29 July 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

I wasn't referring to breaking the law of conservation of energy, but rather to the efficiency of the reaction. We would pay for more electricity to get a stable fusion reaction, more than we would get from years of harvesting energy from a single fusion generator. Plus the most readily available fuel, we think, is H-3 from the lunar regolith. Not something just lying around, then.

Where are you getting this information from? The most recent actual test is from JET, and it achieved 70% effeciency of the confinement energy, ~5% of total energy for a test run of about 20-60s, and this was in 1997. The currently being built ITER is expected to produce 10 times as much energy as is put into it, and once these reactors get going they would create the needed fuel source as part of the reaction chain.

H-3 as a radioactive isotope with a half-life of 12.32 years is not something that is mined or really found in nature as it decays very quickly. It is something that is produced, either from Lithium or from H-2, which is common enough in water for use. The needed fuel for a sustained nuclear fusion industry is just water, and there is plenty of water to last a very long time as the reactions only need a small amount. ITER expects a yield of 500 MW sustained for over 1,000 seconds with 0.5 grams of fuel, hardly making a dent in hydrogen reserves.