Welcome to the php ebenezer's messageboard
see bottom for more info


back to main board collapse thread
energy (stamina - wink@e) (15/07/22 16:21:57) Reply
    friday night and at 19:11 i am still working at home catching up due to a week absence (that shoulder calcification thing)... ill draw the line in about 2 hours from now.then its either netflix or sleep, whichever comes first- and screw work. for now im just taking a break...


    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 was hoping for an opinion/dialog rather than just a pic.
    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
    revised link


2. endemic biota (across 20,770–22,072 km2) (27/07/22 17:15:12) Reply
    just a taste!



endemic (27/07/22 17:44:03) Reply
    apparently missing from the flora list (or i am blind)


Re: energy (stamina - wink@e) (23/07/22 20:30:33) Reply
    Saturday evening and home again - just the Lady of my Life and me, Comfortable temperature, not the baking inferno of the Continent and even Sweden.


    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
    ive been hearing about small and safe reactors for more than a few years now but had very little time to follow up on the subject. was busy with solar (oh the irony)

    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
    There needs to be enough of it. Energy with small footprint would be nice. With fossil fuels the ecological footprint and energy generation may be 10 000+ km apart, so the environmental downsides are invisible to the user. With renewables and nuclear the distances are shorter.

    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
    I am all for nuclear energy making, almost at any cost - provided the reactors are used to burn off all that 235U and 239Pu that is now lying around in nuclear warheads. No distinction. Take them all away and make electricity from the latent energy. For quite some time mining will not be necessary - so there is time to improve methods and slag utilisation and handling.

    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
    It seems that reactors may use low enrichment or high enrichment fuels directly.


    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
    Wouldn't it be nice?!

    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,[20] 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,[21] 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.[22]

    Cubic SiC is usually grown by the more expensive process of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of silane, hydrogen and nitrogen.[19][23] Homoepitaxial and heteroepitaxial SiC layers can be grown employing both gas and liquid phase approaches.[24]

    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.[25] Precursor materials to obtain silicon carbide in such a manner include polycarbosilanes, poly(methylsilyne) and polysilazanes.[26] 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.[27][28][29][30]"

    So I expect helium-proof tybes can be made.


Cooling and fusion and beyond (23/08/22 07:46:57) Reply
    To me it is an entirely new aspect of the climate change: Cooling of nuclear power stations. France seems to have troubl
    The trouble is, of course, that atomic and fossil energy generate electricity via heat. This is alossy process where the lost energy is removed by cooling.

    From this perspective fusion energy looks like a black hole: it swallows whatever you offer itof money but can never deliver it back in a constructive way.

    I'd say: Cancel fusion and put a great effort into developing high-efficiency omnivorous fuel cells with cheap and widely available electrode materials. AFAIK only hydrogen is presently usable as a fuel cell fuel. Even methanol fuel cells are beyond reach because byproducts (mainly carbon monoxide) are poisoning the catalyst.

    Ethanol fuel cells? Methane fuel cells? Nope.

    There is a lot of scientific work to be done. There are lots of people now soldiers or on the dole with the right qualifications. Billionaires are needed too.

Re: Cooling and fusion and beyond (30/08/22 07:25:25) Reply
    "lossy" process, i agree.
    of course, there is no free lunch, or in other words...
    "I'd gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" - J. Wellington Wimpy.

    as for fusion, i dont have high hopes for it.
    sounds great in theory, and we should probably continue studying it, but it doesnt strike me as practical. but who knows...
    somewhere deep in the back of my juvenile brain i still dream of cold fusion ;)

    "There is a lot of scientific work to be done. There are lots of people now soldiers or on the dole with the right qualifications. Billionaires are needed too."

    indeed. i would specify, especially chemists.

    on a tangent, energy storage. it was supposed to be my no 3 for have above (but have has left the building)
    seems to me that all storage methods are either inefficient batteries or middle ages type of storage ( pumped storage hydroelectricity (sounds like sisyphus to me) or thermal energy storage)
    besides, all these have severe limitations. especially geographical ones.

    we are in the 21st century. i want something safe, small and portable.

    i encountered "iron air battery" some time ago and i have seen a few startups are doing something with it, but quite frankly i dont know what to make of it.


    oh and...


    sounds perfect for my wifes pacemaker... well, i can dream cant i? ;)
    last ref in wikipedia is from 2015 so i guess it wont hit the market just yet... damn you Wimpy.


    your post above was very interesting.
    you seem to have been reading more than me on the subject.
    thank you.

Re: Cold fusion (31/08/22 17:43:20) Reply

Re: Re: Cold fusion (06/09/22 16:07:57) Reply
    i read this earlier today, interesting...

    i think we should benchmark this vs the "turbo encabulator".

    just kidding. no disrespect for the people that work on this, on the contrary.
    but i am still skeptical about this.
    anything that sounds too good to be true, probably is.
    god, now i know im OLD. i would never said such a thing not even 10 years ago.

Re: Re: Re: Cold fusion (07/09/22 05:08:03) Reply
    Maybe cold fusion of a few nuclei at a time is possible. Making it scale to auseful size is quite another matter. But at least those guys start at the bottom with the basics instead of the top with a huge building and ditto investment.

A new lesson (24/08/22 16:58:40) Reply
    I knew about chlorofluorocarbons (freons) that were ozone layer destroyers, and their replacements in asthma inhalators, which were greenhouse gases and less fearsome back in the 1990s. But I did not know about sulfur hexafluoride.

    2According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF
    6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that has been evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO
    2 when compared over a 100-year period.[40] Sulfur hexafluoride is inert in the troposphere and stratosphere and is extremely long-lived, with an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 800–3,200 years.2


    It only serves to show that policy changes are more complex than politicians can imagine. Even well-educated and interested lay people like myself fall behind.

    At least we now have people who listen, and a relevant and useful shitstorm.

Money andavailability (04/09/22 06:51:25) Reply
    It seems that the EU finally will get her act together and save the freezing and starving Europeans by taxing the windfall profits of the energy providers and giving it back to the people.

    The nuclear protagonists keep saying that fissionable material is abundantly available. Does that apply also when political risks are taken as part of the picture? According to my sources Russia used to be a major provider of fuel rods. Will a new age for nuclear be possible without sourcing the fuel from unstable dictatorships?

availability (06/09/22 16:02:56) Reply

    just a start, read both, its short.

    im sure there are plenty of other sources. i remember something about africa, but shipping is more expensive and prone to various war lords, red influence(russia and china) and also prone to sudden (partial) disappearance...

    africa, a neglected continent by "the west", mostly due to guilt. sad. that should have been the alternative to both russia and especially china factories, not their playground. bad politics. im thinking about this oversight for the last 20 years. remember, china has a lease on haifa port for 20 years!


    my wife who understands quite a bit of russian (moldavian origin, remember that thread?) said she shares your idea of a putin statue in the urinal :D

    time to get serious about this energy thing, especially about nuclear.

come again

messageboard's PHP script is a courtesy of Laurent

 This board has been visited 319331 timesCurrent time is 06/10/22 07:15:42