|back to main board||collapse thread|
|energy (stamina - wink@e) (15/07/22 16:21:57)||Reply|
am i the only one thinking that solar panels and wind mills ;) is not a sustainable future? i mean, those things are made in china with a pretty heavy environmental cost.
we keep multiplying like rabbits and the surface area needed for these things grows beyond reasonable.
i would buy one tomorrow and sell electricity to the whole neighborhood, about 1400 households. and im pretty sure ill have lots of leftovers :D
20mw is pretty impressive. i mean, we got low-enriched uranium coming out our ears at this point. (maybe im wrong)
i cant help but remember asimovs dreams/aspirations...
|Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (21/07/22 15:54:54)||Reply|
|Re: 1. surface area (26/07/22 08:25:56)||Reply|
i think the way this is presented in the pic and the article(s) is a little simplistic and misleading.
i could write a longer post, but i am not sure i should.
for now, ill settle for the following snippet:
the following is a map highlighting all the "protected" "green areas" in my country (green, yeah right)
surface area of israel according to wikipedia 20,770–22,072 km2
ill let you figure out the annual energy consumption (including occupied territories which israel supplies as well)
|ooops (26/07/22 08:28:47)||Reply|
|2. endemic biota (across 20,770–22,072 km2) (27/07/22 17:15:12)||Reply|
|endemic (27/07/22 17:44:03)||Reply|
|Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (23/07/22 20:30:33)||Reply|
Wind, solar -and accumulators
Nuclear? Once fission product storage is no longer a problem, and once there is an economically viable model for dismantling EOL reactors and storing the radiocactive structural materials, and once mining of raw materials, whether uranium or thorium, can be done responsibly: yes.
Is there a published model somewhere?
|Re: Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (26/07/22 09:07:08)||Reply|
i dont like seeing what all these "renewables" are doing to the local wildlife (and people)
imo what we should be looking for is something that is:
1) safe (something at least like "failure chance" = "winning the lottery" is fine by me)
2) low ecological impact (including: initial production, eol, surface area[out of our faces and natures face])
3) long lifespan.
4) low maintenance.
5) high efficiency (and supplies energy on demand 24/7)
6) cost effectiveness (even excluding the first 3 years, lets say it would still be an attractive proposition for near sighted politicians :) )
this also has to include all maintenance and eol cost (in case of nuclear, also refueling)
a tall order. did i forget anything?
so, solar FARMS, "accumulators", wind turbines... out of the question.
thats not saving nature, thats more land grab, thats pissing on natures head (and in our own eyes imo)
when i travel to the golan heights area these days my eyes bleed. not to mention the impact on birds and other animals around. (google for: golan heights wind turbines)
same with the desert. solar panels pop up like mushrooms. pretty soon it will stop being a desert.
>> Again: Is there published methods for converting weapons grade uranium and plutonium into reactor grade material?
not exactly a publication but i did hear about this in early 2k i think. i have yet to read the full article (and already spotted a mistake)
also, not sure what to make of this "association". wikipedias description is opaque.
>> provided the reactors are used to burn off all that 235U and 239Pu that is now lying around in nuclear warheads
the trouble with most reactors in use is their architecture, size and the fact they are all prone to the same faults (chernobyl, 3 mile island, fukushima...). i wouldnt want to live near one. otoh...
considering i lived most of my life near the refineries and petrochemical plants in the gulf of haifa, the safety level of the TWR is _apparently_ something i could sleep well at night even if i were in close proximity to one.
i shudder at the thought what will happen to the _old_ reactor in dimona when a serious earthquake strikes... in the mean time ill go wash the dust and mud from those solar panels. maybe givem a waxing too...
|Re: Re: Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (31/07/22 19:00:22)||Reply|
The picture changes with time. The hydroelectric station of my early childhood
looks nice now. When it was initiated, it was not nice at all. The locals were very badly treated.
Southern Europe will have a hard time: Desertification from heatwaves plus less heating during the winter plus shortage of materials for isolating houses - it is going to be nasty. And much worse for those outside Europe who are going to starve. I read a chapter of Harvest of Sorrow just before writing this. The tsar has no qualms about starving people to death.
Once in awhile we can read in the news about amnesties for illegal weapons.Weapons are being received by the police - no questions asked, and no penalties.
So the billionaire challenge: "Buy a nuke for fuel" - feed money to the government (Pakistan might need some money) in return for those warheads, establish a commercial entity with specialist labs and specialist people, and make converting the warhead to fuel for low-waste reactors as a profitable business. Something for the charitable ones? Bill Gates? Or should the fusion reactor concept be scrapped and the money channelled to this project? I'd think so. We will need to find out how.
|While I still remember (24/07/22 08:25:22)||Reply|
Again: Is there published methods for converting weapons grade uranium and plutonium into reactor grade material?
Putin is presently using his nuclear capacity for extortion. Countries that care for their population to some degree, have no countermeasures. So really: Nukes are a means for the bad guys to use against us - but we are powerless because we want no nukes to be fired because we care about humanity and Putin and Xi (to name a few) do not.
|Reactor material from bomb material (24/07/22 18:02:03)||Reply|
I would like a fact sheet or procedure description on how to safely produce reactor core elements from bomb cores.
It's a dangerous process.
|Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (07/08/22 18:42:51)||Reply|
Silicon carbide tubes designed to keep helium - at elevated pressure, I suppose - in place for decades. That's realy something.
Making those tubes. Making fittings that do not lear. Repairing breaks.
OK - sintered powders.
But will sintered ceramics be helium-proof?
Melting point 2830 Celsius.
"Pure silicon carbide can be made by the Lely process, in which SiC powder is sublimed into high-temperature species of silicon, carbon, silicon dicarbide (SiC2), and disilicon carbide (Si2C) in an argon gas ambient at 2500 °C and redeposited into flake-like single crystals, sized up to 2 × 2 cm, at a slightly colder substrate. This process yields high-quality single crystals, mostly of 6H-SiC phase (because of high growth temperature).
A modified Lely process involving induction heating in graphite crucibles yields even larger single crystals of 4 inches (10 cm) in diameter, having a section 81 times larger compared to the conventional Lely process.
Cubic SiC is usually grown by the more expensive process of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of silane, hydrogen and nitrogen. Homoepitaxial and heteroepitaxial SiC layers can be grown employing both gas and liquid phase approaches.
To form complex shaped SiC, preceramic polymers can be used as precursors which form the ceramic product through pyrolysis at temperatures in the range 1000–1100 °C. Precursor materials to obtain silicon carbide in such a manner include polycarbosilanes, poly(methylsilyne) and polysilazanes. Silicon carbide materials obtained through the pyrolysis of preceramic polymers are known as polymer derived ceramics or PDCs. Pyrolysis of preceramic polymers is most often conducted under an inert atmosphere at relatively low temperatures. Relative to the CVD process, the pyrolysis method is advantageous because the polymer can be formed into various shapes prior to thermalization into the ceramic."
So I expect helium-proof tybes can be made.
|This board has been visited 254188 times||Current time is 11/08/22 12:34:51|