Does anyone realise... (nuclear energy)

2007-04-14 19:10:33

#26

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6550|San Diego, CA, USA

herrr_smity wrote:
i think thorium reactors are the way of the future

Someone correct me, but is that Fussion (what the sun does), the answer to almost limitless power?

What about anti-matter (Star Trek Geek anyone?)?

Didn't Tesla figure out a way to harness the power of the differential between the clouds and the ground?

What if we had a modified space elevator that generated electricity? (A wire moving through an electric field generates electricity - they tested this in space)

Last edited by Harmor (2007-04-14 19:11:26)

2007-04-14 19:33:42

#27

herrr_smity: Member; +156|6630|space command ur anus

Harmor wrote:
herrr_smity wrote:
i think thorium reactors are the way of the future
Someone correct me, but is that Fussion (what the sun does), the answer to almost limitless power?

What about anti-matter (Star Trek Geek anyone?)?

Didn't Tesla figure out a way to harness the power of the differential between the clouds and the ground?

What if we had a modified space elevator that generated electricity? (A wire moving through an electric field generates electricity - they tested this in space)

it almost the same as nuclear energy but you don't need uranium to get a nuclear fusion and it cant be used to make plutonium

2007-04-14 19:39:04

#28

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6677|Canberra, AUS

Harmor wrote:
herrr_smity wrote:
i think thorium reactors are the way of the future
Someone correct me, but is that Fussion (what the sun does), the answer to almost limitless power?

What about anti-matter (Star Trek Geek anyone?)?

Didn't Tesla figure out a way to harness the power of the differential between the clouds and the ground?

What if we had a modified space elevator that generated electricity? (A wire moving through an electric field generates electricity - they tested this in space)

Except currently the only way to get any meaningful fusion is through fission.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2007-04-14 19:43:22

#29

Fenix14: scout rush kekeke ^___^; +116|6559|Brisbane, Aus

Nuclear is realy the only way to go, best do it now and concentrate on how to get rid of the waste it produces as quck as possible

2007-04-14 19:43:30

#30

herrr_smity: Member; +156|6630|space command ur anus

Spark wrote:
Harmor wrote:
herrr_smity wrote:
i think thorium reactors are the way of the future
Someone correct me, but is that Fussion (what the sun does), the answer to almost limitless power?

What about anti-matter (Star Trek Geek anyone?)?

Didn't Tesla figure out a way to harness the power of the differential between the clouds and the ground?

What if we had a modified space elevator that generated electricity? (A wire moving through an electric field generates electricity - they tested this in space)
Except currently the only way to get any meaningful fusion is through fission.

Thorium, as well as uranium, can be used as a nuclear fuel. Although not fissile itself, thorium-232 (Th-232) will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233), which is fissile. Hence like uranium-238 (U-238) it is fertile.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

2007-04-14 19:44:47

#31

Mad Ad: Member; +178|6513|England, UK

I think the projections are somewhere in the region of 3,500 reactors being needed to generate the amount of energy that we use today.

2007-04-14 19:52:50

#32

KuSTaV: noice; +947|6513|Gold Coast

Meh. There are other alternatives, such as solar. I saw somewhere that if there was a 50km x 50km area of solar panels it could generate enough power for the whole nation of Australia. But for countries with larger populations, China, USA etc, nuclear power is the only way. And guess where they're gonna get their uranium from? There is profit to help perfect the energy source. Like in that BF storyline in another thread by someone that was heaps long, Australia would become really rich. But IDK, I'm not a nuclear physicist.

noice

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png

2007-04-14 20:59:22

#33

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6550|San Diego, CA, USA

CommieChipmunk wrote:
well if we would have pumped half of the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on destroying rebuilding Iraq on research, who's to say we wouldn't be closer to clean energy alternatives?

Problem is they would had been closer to a 'nuclear' solution...kinda hard to drive around in your electric car when its 27,000 degrees around you.

2007-04-14 21:06:24

#34

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6550|San Diego, CA, USA

Fenix14 wrote:
Nuclear is realy the only way to go, best do it now and concentrate on how to get rid of the waste it produces as quck as possible

I don't think there's really a problem with the waste. Its so concentrated, so small, vs. the amount of energy it generates.

I think some scientists suggested sending a rocket full of the stuff into the sun. Reminds me of the 'trash' asteroid from Futurama.

We could send it on a rocket and point it away from our solar system.

Right now we put it deep within salt mines in the middle of the Nevada desert.

2007-04-15 22:40:37

#35

Mad Ad: Member; +178|6513|England, UK

Harmor wrote:
I think some scientists suggested sending a rocket full of the stuff into the sun.

Yeah but what if the rocket does a Challenger and airbusts spent fuel into the stratosphere?

2007-04-15 22:43:24

#36

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|6768|Cambridge (UK)

CameronPoe wrote:
liquidat0r wrote:
Who says they have to use nuclear power?
I work in the electricity industry. I can't see any alternative. Renewable energy is pretty much bullshit (apart from tidal maybe). I have been brainwashed.

2007-04-15 22:46:29

#37

Roger Lesboules: Ah ben tabarnak!; +316|6579|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

Mad Ad wrote:
Harmor wrote:
I think some scientists suggested sending a rocket full of the stuff into the sun.
Yeah but what if the rocket does a Challenger and airbusts spent fuel into the stratosphere?

Then...we are fucked!

2007-04-15 23:37:47

#38

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6603|132 and Bush

If the pursuit of technological advances in all other alternative energy sources completely stops than yes. I'm sure in the 19th century they felt that the world would be completely dependent on coal.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-04-15 23:41:51

#39

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6583|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Kmarion wrote:
If the pursuit of technological advances in all other alternative energy sources completely stops than yes. I'm sure in the 19th century they felt that the world would be completely dependent on coal.

try the 21st century. I think China is lighting up a new coal plant every week now.

2007-04-15 23:46:04

#40

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6603|132 and Bush

Reciprocity wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
If the pursuit of technological advances in all other alternative energy sources completely stops than yes. I'm sure in the 19th century they felt that the world would be completely dependent on coal.
try the 21st century. I think China is lighting up a new coal plant every week now.

Maybe, but we at least have the technology and knowledge now to know better.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-04-15 23:53:09

#41

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6583|the dank(super) side of Oregon

we should take one of the useless states like, oh, Utah or Texas, and turn it into one giant solar energy plant.

Last edited by Reciprocity (2007-04-15 23:54:58)

2007-04-16 00:07:28

#42

MrPredictable: Member; +14|6688

Ship the nuclear waste to the moon. While it is in transit it should be in a very very strong ( as close to indestructible as possible) case that ejects as soon as there is any fault in any system on the rocket.

Problem of waste solved.

2007-04-16 00:09:38

#43

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6583|the dank(super) side of Oregon

MrPredictable wrote:
Ship the nuclear waste to the moon. While it is in transit it should be in a very very strong ( as close to indestructible as possible) case that ejects as soon as there is any fault in any system on the rocket.

Problem of waste solved.

it's easier to just bury the stuff in salt mines 2 miles below New Mexico.

2007-04-16 00:14:19

#44

MrPredictable: Member; +14|6688

Reciprocity wrote:
MrPredictable wrote:
Ship the nuclear waste to the moon. While it is in transit it should be in a very very strong ( as close to indestructible as possible) case that ejects as soon as there is any fault in any system on the rocket.

Problem of waste solved.
it's easier to just bury the stuff in salt mines 2 miles below New Mexico.

Thats short term thinking, they will fill up eventually, and it is still moderately close to us there.

2007-04-16 00:16:26

#45

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|6812|Nårvei

To cover the world`s energy needs by only using nuclear power cant be done until the waste disposal problem is solved !

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2007-04-16 00:19:51

#46

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6583|the dank(super) side of Oregon

MrPredictable wrote:
Reciprocity wrote:
MrPredictable wrote:
Ship the nuclear waste to the moon. While it is in transit it should be in a very very strong ( as close to indestructible as possible) case that ejects as soon as there is any fault in any system on the rocket.

Problem of waste solved.
it's easier to just bury the stuff in salt mines 2 miles below New Mexico.
Thats short term thinking, they will fill up eventually, and it is still moderately close to us there.

I think you underestimate the salt mining industry.

2007-04-16 09:42:23

#47

Ridir: Semper Fi!; +48|6766

i think you're all nuts. From a military point of view it would be very simple to attack nuclear plants and cause significant damage. And there will always be conflict while human beings remain. While I would prefer more nuclear plants for the U.S. I would also prefer more reliable large scale security for them.

2007-04-16 09:59:04

#48

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6583|SE London

MrPredictable wrote:
Ship the nuclear waste to the moon. While it is in transit it should be in a very very strong ( as close to indestructible as possible) case that ejects as soon as there is any fault in any system on the rocket.

Problem of waste solved.

There is no way that will happen. Nuclear power would be a wonderful propulsion technique for a spacecraft, but they don't do it because the risks are much too great. Because if the craft exploded then a massive area would be showered with radiation.

Shipping nuclear waste to the moon would not only be prohibitively expensive, but also absurdly dangerous. I would rather see nuclear propulsion being used to lauch a manned mission to Mars (which would be far cheaper, much, much safer and have a much greater potential impact) than I would see nuclear waste being flown to the moon on an industrial scale. Launching spacecraft with nuclear material onboard is very irresponsible.

2007-04-16 10:02:57

#49

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6774|PNW

Reciprocity wrote:
we should take one of the useless states like, oh, Utah or Texas, and turn it into one giant solar energy plant.

Let's hear it for land-seizure civil war.

CameronPoe wrote:
Warlord wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
...that every country in the world will need nuclear facilities in the future to satisfy their energy requirements?

Man that IAEA is gonna be busy...
...Well at least it would be in the name of peace.

BTW - What is exactly is the future? ...1 year? 1000 years?

~ W
~ 40 years I'd say.

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/unnamednewbie13/t-homer_asleep_on_job1.jpg

God help us.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-04-16 10:05:15)

2007-04-16 10:04:59

#50

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|6646

https://www.unwiredadventures.com/photos/mobile_blogg/image_119.jpg

1.21 gigawatts

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-04-16 10:06:04)

BF2S Forums Does anyone realise... (nuclear energy)

herrr_smity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Harmor wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

Spark wrote:

Harmor wrote:

herrr_smity wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Fenix14 wrote:

Harmor wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Mad Ad wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

MrPredictable wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

MrPredictable wrote:

MrPredictable wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

MrPredictable wrote:

MrPredictable wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Warlord wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Board footer