Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually for nuclear fusion, you get more energy back than what you put in unless your making an element hevier than iron (stars dont produce anything heavyer than iron either, once you get to irion the start kinda goes nova)

Law of conservation, look it up...

 

 

 

sadly nuclear waste as it is has a very long half life and is beyond dangourus to the future of the human race. im talking 100 thausand years or more from now when we either have nowheres to put it or the stuff we put under the ground starts leaking into the water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, the longer the half life, the safer the material is. If it takes a longer time to reduce the reactivity by half, then it must also mean that on average less radiation is being emitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fusion has been producing a net gain of energy for a while. The problem has been a lack of funding into scaling up the size of the reactions for practical use. It's taken the European Union, the United States, Japan and a bunch of other countries to fund one test reactor. For something so important, you would think that governments wouldn't scrounge for funding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The waste problem isn't so bad if governments allowed reprocessing of nuclear waste into useful by products. Also http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html which lists a few points related to this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From what I've read, that general powergrid production isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse emission anyway... it's vehicle emissions. Were I in charge of policy, I'd be more focused on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You use a power source like nuclear or solar to generate the energy required to power cars (hydrogen, electrical etc.). The problem is the technology and practicality of doing such a thing. It still puzzles me why we are using 100 year old technology which is extremely inefficient.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law of conservation, look it up...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear Fusion, look it up...

 

 

 

You lose mass when fusing two elements to produce elements below iron, this lost mass is converted into energy.

I would use a combonation of power sources provided the country in question is the united states. some nations are too poor to go with anything but coal which is in great supply and very cheep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for one I would use solar power in the deserts, Nucklear power where practible i.e. large city's that can use all that energy. Geothermal power where the vents are, as well as wind and - hydro electric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear power is quite safe so long as proper standards are upheld in the plants construction and it has good security. also I heer on the moon there is a fourm of hydrogen or something that allows for clean nuclear power- that is to say no radioactive waste. so I would invest in mining operations to harvest this stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sadly nuclear waste as it is has a very long half life and is beyond dangourus to the future of the human race. im talking 100 thausand years or more from now when we either have nowheres to put it or the stuff we put under the ground starts leaking into the water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would also try to shake our addiction to oil from the middle east and go twoards hydrogen and electic cars. since we have cheep power sources from nuclear power plants and the like we can produce hydrogen cheeply and in great quantity's. I heer all you need is water and electricity if you have the generators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I would have a one billion dollar reward to anyone who can invent a reliable source of energy via perpetual motion generators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear waste is less radioactive than coal ash after 400 years or so. Additionally, even if it did last indefinitely, why not cart it out to the middle of Utah? Salt flats are dry, so there is no moisture, even underground. The result is a safe, uninhabited place to store nuclear waste. Additionally, have you seen photos of how much uranium is used at any given time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take two of these pellets, and there you go!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perpetual motion in anything larger than subatomic particles violates the laws of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear, and a combination of other renewables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem with nuclear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if you use nuclear fusion, you are actually using up more energy than you produce. This, obviously, is a waste. It's quite obvious why only the sun can effectively use nuclear fusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With nuclear fission, there are vast amounts of nuclear waste. What do you do with them?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's been a couple of years since I have studied nuclear power. Please inform me if there is a solution to this problem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually for nuclear fusion, you get more energy back than what you put in unless your making an element hevier than iron (stars dont produce anything heavyer than iron either, once you get to irion the start kinda goes nova)

 

 

 

However, we have no way to duplicate the conditions in stars. We just can't heat up the particles enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather not use coal, but there is a HUGE problem with nuclear energy. The cost of up keeping a nuclear reactor so it does not turn out to be another chernybal (sp?) is enormous! 5 billion CAD a year goes into nuclear reactors. Im pretty sure we have only around 22 (18 operational?) reactors. Also, the waste does last so long. Burying it is not an option. As much as you try to contain it, it will leak out. Containing it in lead will stop alpha and beta particles, but gamma particles still will get through lead sometimes. Even at that, lead is poison to organic life, so it will contaminate the place. Our best bet (I know this will sound crazy) is to send the waste into space. It will be madly expensive, but its the only way we can get rid of the waste whilst also protecting the planet. Before nuclear energy can become 100% of the worlds energy, we must perfect its use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and I would have a one billion dollar reward to anyone who can invent a reliable source of energy via perpetual motion generators.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not sure what someone meant by this? Did they mean a generator that creates more energy then it takes in? This is impossible as dictated by physics. energy created can never exceed energy used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Law of conservations is what i meant*

 

 

 

Sending it into space would be BAD, for the following reasons.

 

 

 

1. Spent fuel has lots of mass, and therefore is quite hard to get into space.

 

 

 

2. We would have to use enough fuel to get it out of Earth's orbit. Otherwise, the fuel will burn up in the atmosphere, spreading nuclear waste all over the planet. Think Chernobyl, all over the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Law of conservation, look it up...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nuclear Fusion, look it up...

 

 

 

You lose mass when fusing two elements to produce elements below iron, this lost mass is converted into energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass is not equal to energy. They are not the same thing. It is physically impossible to change mass into energy (Or vice versa). The energy from nuclear fusion happens when the two atoms fuse together, creating a new atom. There is lost mass, but this is through the missing neutrons. Since the product is more stable then the reactants, the excess energy is what we get. The missing neutrons just go where ever.

Mass is not equal to energy. They are not the same thing. It is physically impossible to change mass into energy (Or vice versa).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E=MC^2 says otherwise.

 

 

 

Hydroelectric power- Renewable clean, plenty of supply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would have to disagree, at least in part with all of your examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Renewable. They would always renew themselves but given time their level of efficiency would decline. The dams slowly trap sediments behind them which fill in the storage lakes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clean. They cause significant damage to rivers. Downstream from the dam the rivers scours all of the gravel and sediment away leaving bedrook. Upstream from the dam they firstly cause lakes which interfere in the natural flow patterns but latter the lakes fill in with gravel and sediments. The dams also interfere and prevent the migration of fish and other life up the valley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This article is also interesting

 

 

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plenty of Supply. With increase demand on water for irrigation and other uses the supply is not so certain. Many of the worlds major rivers flows are only a fraction of their natural flows.l

then wouldn't that make wind turbines also sort-of non renewable, they will need to be cleaned etc...and also, they kill many hundreds of birds, which get caught in the rotating rotors, or blades (or w\e they're called)

 

Mass is not equal to energy. They are not the same thing. It is physically impossible to change mass into energy (Or vice versa).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E=MC^2 says otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for. Energy could be referring to any kind of energy. I just learned an equation yesterday that had to do with kinetic energy, which was the energy of moving objects. Obviously this has nothing to do with nuclear energy, as it is potential energy, not kinetic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its like saying velocity is the distance covered. No it is not, it is the distance covered over time, which is different from just distance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then wouldn't that make wind turbines also sort-of non renewable, they will need to be cleaned etc...and also, they kill many hundreds of birds, which get caught in the rotating rotors, or blades (or w\e they're called)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, wind turbines are renewable. The wind just keeps coming :D

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

But why? They're no cleaner than regular cars...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparison of hybrid petrol to normal petrol cars:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prius 1.5 petrol = 104g/km CO2 emissions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*lots of facts*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fact me 'til I fart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I quote myself, to which you obviously didn't read,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where do you think the electricity to run the hybrid cars comes from?

 

 

 

I'll tell you where. Most likely from a coal powered plant. I'm certain the amount of CO2 given off to produce the electricity easily brings the Prius back into the 'normal' car range of CO2 releasers, after being added on to the actual engine emissions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its not as clean as what all the salesmen will tell you is what i'm saying.

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

 

Potentially, yes. What do you think your pencil is made from?

 

 

 

Mass is not equal to energy. They are not the same thing. It is physically impossible to change mass into energy (Or vice versa). The energy from nuclear fusion happens when the two atoms fuse together, creating a new atom. There is lost mass, but this is through the missing neutrons. Since the product is more stable then the reactants, the excess energy is what we get. The missing neutrons just go where ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If mass couldn't be converted into energy then conservation of energy would be violated by the fact you are producing energy from nuclear fusion (it should take energy to combine atoms together). If you add up the weight of all the matter before and after the reaction you will find a small difference, this is the energy emitted from a reaction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is a banana an apple? After all they are both made out of the same matter. Mass is a form of energy.

Haha wow, I meant E doesn't = M :wall: [/i]

 

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's most definitely potential energy. You eat it and it is converted into physical energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS, where did this discussion come from?!

i think it came from...takling about nucleur energy...then someone asked a bunch of questions...my topic has been transformed :thumbsup:

I would use all the non-renewable fuels that I'd have and make laws so that using polluting fuels is easier than not. I'd also try to detonate a nuke under Yellowstone and wipe out everything in the world...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lionheart, you're wrong. E=Mc^2, and M=E/c^2. Mass is energy. That's how nuclear reactions work (they turn subatomic particles into energy; since there's a lot of particles that get converted to energy, a lot of energy is produced, even though the particles' mass is around 1/c). E is measured in J, mass is measured in kg, and c is measured in m/s...

 

 

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

 

Potentially, yes. What do you think your pencil is made from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My pencil is made from atoms, which in turn are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Energy is holding together those sub atomic particals and holding together the atoms. Energy is released when breaking apart the bonds. This is the potential energy in everything. The actual sub atomic particals/ atoms are not actual energy. If Mass were equal to energy, then energy would be equal to mass. Therefore we would get mass from energy. Can you please tell me how much UV radiation (Solar energy) weighs?

 

 

 

It's most definitely potential energy. You eat it and it is converted into physical energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all digested matter will give us energy. For us to obtain energy, we must digest organic foods. The fact that we break up bonds in the food is what gives us the energy. The potential chemical energy. The matter itself does not give us our energy. What you are purposing is that I could eat my computer and I would get energy. Perhaps i would get an electrical shock, but i wouldn't feel... "Energized".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And E=MC^2, is mass times the speed of light squared. It does not mean energy is equal to mass, but the mass times the speed of light squared. There is a complete difference.

 

 

 

 

Yes, but does it say E=M ? No, It is Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light square. I know what each portion stands for, but im not sure what this equation stands for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course E=M, it's just your point was you can't turn mass in to energy, which is wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you tell me that the pencil sitting on my desk is energy? (Thats what your E=M equation is suggesting.).

 

 

 

Potentially, yes. What do you think your pencil is made from?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My pencil is made from atoms, which in turn are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Energy is holding together those sub atomic particals and holding together the atoms. Energy is released when breaking apart the bonds. This is the potential energy in everything. The actual sub atomic particals/ atoms are not actual energy. If Mass were equal to energy, then energy would be equal to mass. Therefore we would get mass from energy. Can you please tell me how much UV radiation (Solar energy) weighs?

 

 

 

It's most definitely potential energy. You eat it and it is converted into physical energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not all digested matter will give us energy. For us to obtain energy, we must digest organic foods. The fact that we break up bonds in the food is what gives us the energy. The potential chemical energy. The matter itself does not give us our energy. What you are purposing is that I could eat my computer and I would get energy. Perhaps i would get an electrical shock, but i wouldn't feel... "Energized".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And E=MC^2, is mass times the speed of light squared. It does not mean energy is equal to mass, but the mass times the speed of light squared. There is a complete difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd tend to side with you on this, Lionheart. You know, considering the laws of conservation of mass and energy respectively and that they state energy and mass is neither created nor destroyed. I'd phrase it that energy is merely realised when bonds of all kinds are broken (covalent, nuclear, whatever) as bonds contain chemical potential energy. Or when an electron is excited in the case of electromagnetic radiation or whatever other source of energy there is. The whole duality of EM radiation being waves and particles dosen't help my brain either. :?

My pencil is made from atoms, which in turn are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Energy is holding together those sub atomic particals and holding together the atoms. Energy is released when breaking apart the bonds. This is the potential energy in everything. The actual sub atomic particals/ atoms are not actual energy. If Mass were equal to energy, then energy would be equal to mass. Therefore we would get mass from energy. Can you please tell me how much UV radiation (Solar energy) weighs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fun fact: When taking the mass of all the individual subatomic particles inside an uranium-238 atom, the mass of the uranium atom will not match the collected mass of the subatomic particles taken separately. Where does the mass go? Energy. Matter has been converted into energy. And when you break atom via fission, some of this energy is relased as heat (the rest will remain bound til you've ran your little fission process down to lead if memory serves)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is not the same as chemical energy. Chemical energy is when an inter-atomic/molecular bond has a different "energy level" than another bond. No alteration in mass involved.

would anyone like to get back to my topic...this energy=mass stuff is getting on my nerves, i dont understand more than the equation :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

maybe i should read it...

 

 

 

My pencil is made from atoms, which in turn are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Energy is holding together those sub atomic particals and holding together the atoms. Energy is released when breaking apart the bonds. This is the potential energy in everything. The actual sub atomic particals/ atoms are not actual energy. If Mass were equal to energy, then energy would be equal to mass. Therefore we would get mass from energy. Can you please tell me how much UV radiation (Solar energy) weighs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specific quantitative example: a deuteron

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A deuteron is the nucleus of a deuterium atom, and consists of one proton and one neutron. The experimentally-measured masses of the constituents as free particles are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mproton = 1.007825 u (u is atomic mass unit)

 

 

 

mneutron= 1.008665 u

 

 

 

mproton + mneutron = 1.007825 + 1.008665 = 2.01649 u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mass of the deuteron (also an experimentally measured quantity) is:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atomic mass 2H = 2.014102 u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The mass difference = 2.01649 - 2.014102 = 0.002388 u. Since the conversion between rest mass and energy is 931.494MeV/u, a deuteron's binding energy is calculated to be:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.002388 ÃÆÃââââ‰â¬

ok, no one obviously wants to get back to the topic :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

anyway, if mass M=E(c^(2)), then why is it not possible to make a water fission reactor that splits apart the water atoms, won't one cup of water be able to sustain the world with maybe 2-3 years of electricity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the amount of energy given off will be huge, since the speed of light squared is huge, then multiplied by the mass... :ohnoes: we could all die from a cup of water

no wait...it would take more energy to split the atoms in that cup of water (i think) so therefore we would be wasting energy...hm,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

btw, bump :XD:

farts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all those farts and no way to put them to use, ill discover a way! :thumbsup: