Author Topic: Freedom for Fission  (Read 2862 times)

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #30 on: 8 August 2005, 08:31 »
BUT, if you used solar power at high noon to run a bolt of electricity through plain water, you can create portable hydrogen fuel.  I think a wind and solar based hydrogen production system will cover all of our needs and then some.

As long as we can make hydrogen safe enough for vehicle use, this is the way to go.

skyman8081

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • Kudos: 187
    • http://sauron.game-host.org/
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #31 on: 8 August 2005, 08:59 »
It takes more energy to slpit Hydrogen and oxygen that what you get out by recombining them.

Hydrogen isn't cheap, and not natually occuring on earth by itself.

It is a PITA to store, and can only be efficiently stored as a liquid, which is several hundred degrees below zero.
2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far.  Fuck yeah!


Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #32 on: 8 August 2005, 13:36 »
so we're not talking about alternatives then, just amusing ways of using nuclear "technology", yes?
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

skyman8081

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • Kudos: 187
    • http://sauron.game-host.org/
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #33 on: 8 August 2005, 17:54 »
Quote from: Calum
so we're not talking about alternatives then, just amusing ways of using nuclear "technology", yes?

 No, I'm just saying that nuclear is better than your "Alternatves".

And it's here NOW.
2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far.  Fuck yeah!


piratePenguin

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,027
  • Kudos: 775
    • http://piratepenguin.is-a-geek.com/~declan/
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #34 on: 8 August 2005, 18:36 »
Quote from: skyman8081
And it's here NOW.
Just remember, it has it's problems, problems that cannot be ignored.

We don't needa drop everything else and go all-nuclear too soon.
Also, it'd be nice to see more renewable energy being produced.
"What you share with the world is what it keeps of you."
 - Noah And The Whale: Give a little love



a poem by my computer, Macintosh Vigilante
Macintosh amends a damned around the requested typewriter. Macintosh urges a scarce design. Macintosh postulates an autobiography. Macintosh tolls the solo variant. Why does a winter audience delay macintosh? The maker tosses macintosh. Beneath female suffers a double scum. How will a rat cube the heavier cricket? Macintosh calls a method. Can macintosh nest opposite the headache? Macintosh ties the wrong fairy. When can macintosh stem the land gang? Female aborts underneath macintosh. Inside macintosh waffles female. Next to macintosh worries a well.

Jenda

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 530
  • Kudos: 326
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #35 on: 8 August 2005, 18:51 »
Quote
It takes more energy to slpit Hydrogen and oxygen that what you get out by recombining them.

Not exactly. And even if, it is irrelevant. Remember the conservation of energy law? The amount of energy is exactly the same, but even if it wasn't, it is not important how much energy you need to split the hydrogen (if it comes from the Sun, who cares if you lose some). A certain amount of solar/wind/hydro energy WILL produce a certain amount of hydrogen, and that in turn will produce a certain amount of electric energy (equaling the input minus losses, most in the form of heat). The goal is to maximise the output for a given input, thus minimising losses.
It's just relative. To date, the cost of the production is higher than the profit from the sold energy. That will change, as the losses diminish...

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #36 on: 8 August 2005, 20:29 »
Quote from: skyman8081
No, I'm just saying that nuclear is better than your "Alternatves".
again, i like how you back yourself up with convinving evidence, nice job.

Quote
And it's here NOW.

unlike wind power, i suppose, which will obviously only be developed in the future. what have you been smoking?
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #37 on: 8 August 2005, 22:22 »
Quote from: skyman8081
It takes more energy to slpit Hydrogen and oxygen that what you get out by recombining them.

Hydrogen isn't cheap, and not natually occuring on earth by itself.

It is a PITA to store, and can only be efficiently stored as a liquid, which is several hundred degrees below zero.


So what?  You're not hearing what I am saying.  Hydrogen production may not be all that efficient, but it is simple.  All you have to do is arc a bolt of electricity through water.  The electricity produced by wind and solar DURING THE DAY can be used to make fuel to use during the night.  The storage problem will be simple to solve, because our technology can do that - we do it now, just not on a mass level.

To recap - your argument against windfarms as ugly is stupid.  I've been to mines of all types, and they are some of the ugliest fucking things on the planet.  Seriously, they are nasty.  And they fuck up the surrounding environment like CRAZY.  You might as well put fucking Manhattan in the middle of the mountains, that's how much garbage and air pollution and noise and loss of habitat they produce.  The nastiest ones I have seen are the Anaconda copper mine in Montana, and the Klimaxx molybdenum mine in Colorado.  PLUS, the cost of mining is extreme.  If you think about all the processes that go into getting any mineral at all out of the ground, they become very expensive and very inefficient.  I think mining should be absolutely minimized.  No more coal, no more uranium.

My plan contains no harmful byproducts, and can be put into use right now.

skyman8081

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • Kudos: 187
    • http://sauron.game-host.org/
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #38 on: 9 August 2005, 01:07 »
How much power does one of these magic plants of yours put out?

How many would have to be built to supply to world energy needs?

And I assume that you are talking photovoltiac cells for solar, and that the arsenic, gallium, and cadmium are safe and non-toxic?

I don't want to give up the beautiful, pristine california deserts, for "clean" alternative power sources.
2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far.  Fuck yeah!


worker201

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,810
  • Kudos: 703
    • http://www.triple-bypass.net
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #39 on: 9 August 2005, 02:24 »
Well, I don't want to give up Africa and South America to your unending search for fissionable material.

Lead Head

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,508
  • Kudos: 534
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #40 on: 9 August 2005, 03:23 »
Quote from: worker201
So what? You're not hearing what I am saying. Hydrogen production may not be all that efficient, but it is simple. All you have to do is arc a bolt of electricity through water. The electricity produced by wind and solar DURING THE DAY can be used to make fuel to use during the night. The storage problem will be simple to solve, because our technology can do that - we do it now, just not on a mass level.

To recap - your argument against windfarms as ugly is stupid. I've been to mines of all types, and they are some of the ugliest fucking things on the planet. Seriously, they are nasty. And they fuck up the surrounding environment like CRAZY. You might as well put fucking Manhattan in the middle of the mountains, that's how much garbage and air pollution and noise and loss of habitat they produce. The nastiest ones I have seen are the Anaconda copper mine in Montana, and the Klimaxx molybdenum mine in Colorado. PLUS, the cost of mining is extreme. If you think about all the processes that go into getting any mineral at all out of the ground, they become very expensive and very inefficient. I think mining should be absolutely minimized. No more coal, no more uranium.

My plan contains no harmful byproducts, and can be put into use right now.

On the history channel i saw somwthiing about that this town had an abannded mine and one day they were burining stuff near the entrance and it lit some coal dust and even to this date the mine is still burning, underneath the town
sig.

skyman8081

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 910
  • Kudos: 187
    • http://sauron.game-host.org/
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #41 on: 9 August 2005, 03:26 »
Quote from: Lead Head
On the history channel i saw somwthiing about that this town had an abannded mine and one day they were burining stuff near the entrance and it lit some coal dust and even to this date the mine is still burning, underneath the town

 Thats coal mining.

Nuclear Power doesn't use coal.  Nuclear should replace coal.
2 motherfuckers have sigged me so far.  Fuck yeah!


Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #42 on: 9 August 2005, 04:09 »
I think we should all just drink Cyanide to decrease the amount of energy we are using.

Jenda

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 530
  • Kudos: 326
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #43 on: 9 August 2005, 20:08 »
There's a point, Kintaro. There are WAY too many people on the world. I once read that the Earth could sustainably "feed" (that is supply all they need and absorb their waste without being changed herself at all) about one and a half billion people. One quarter of the current pop, 6 G.

Kintaro

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6,545
  • Kudos: 255
  • I want to get the band back together!
    • JohnTate.org
Re: Freedom for Fission
« Reply #44 on: 18 August 2005, 15:56 »
yeah, we should have let SARS spread