Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.
Really? You sure about that?
Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.Really? You sure about that?
Given that we haven't developed a practical form of hydrogen fusion, yeah he can be pretty sure. The atomic part of nukes is something that's just a matchstick to kick off the fusion reaction. We've however never used fusion successfully for anything other than bombs.
|
Every ounce of energy we can get our hands on WILL be used eventually. Ignoring nuclear power because it is expensive is a ridiculous argument, sadly.
Solar power is already less expensive than nuclear worldwide. Storage only becomes needed when intermittent power sources start to exceed ~35% of the total. By the time solar and/or wind get to that level the cost of energy storage will have dropped enough that solar PLUS storage is STILL less than nuclear.
Thus, there is no point in the foreseeable future where it would make sense to build significant nuclear power... solar will always be a more cost effective choice and that won't change unless some new nuclear technology comes along OR we run out of solar power... which isn't likely to happen for hundreds of years even assuming continued population growth AND increasing energy consumption per capita.
Unless you believe you can get people to use less energy with anything short of the chinese one-child policy enforcement, energy used is only going to rise. This is not a negotiable situation, I am afraid. Talk about how an increased efficiency is going to save us and reduce the energy used is delusional or uninformed. What remains is to keep producing more energy, but reducing the environmental impact of doing it. And if you do that, it's all well and good saying "It's going to be a mix", which of course is not saying anything substantial at all, but the truth is, it's going to be "everything". Every ounce of energy we can get our hands on WILL be used eventually. Ignoring nuclear power because it is expensive is a ridiculous argument, sadly.
I'm having trouble finding data for the past decade, but from what I can tell in the US we are on a downward trend of energy consumption compared to what we used in the 80s and 90s. Increases in efficiency without many new sources of energy consumption have reduced consumption.
Given that we haven't developed a practical form of hydrogen fusion, yeah he can be pretty sure. The atomic part of nukes is something that's just a matchstick to kick off the fusion reaction. We've however never used fusion successfully for anything other than bombs.Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.Really? You sure about that?
Erm, no. Just no. I am discussing normal fissile warheads, the "normal" atomic bombs. Those that use refined isotopes of uranium and cleave it apart for their detonation. Those that make up the vast majority of the world's nuclear arsenals.
Hydrogen bombs, which use hydrogen and slam it together for energy, are something entirely different. They do use a normal fissile detonation to heat up, as you say, for the fusion reaction... but they are rare birds and not relevant to what I am talking about.
Now, please, I would like to hear Wrath confirm that he is in fact certain that the fissile material in nuclear warheads can not be used to power nuclear plants in any way.
Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.Now, please, I would like to hear Wrath confirm that he is in fact certain that the fissile material in nuclear warheads can not be used to power nuclear plants in any way.
"Can not be used ... in any way" is overstating it, but weapons-grade plutonium makes for a really lousy reactor fuel. Basically, you're talking about "oh, I have an ordinary gasoline engine here; can I run it off Rémy-Martin cognac instead?" The answer is yes, provided you're willing to way overpay for your fuel, do a hell of a lot of reprocessing of your basic material to turn it into fuel, and then to accept that your reactor (or engine) performance will suffer.
When you dump uranium isotope number 238 into a reactor, all sorts of strange stuff happens; there's a long change. U-238 absorbs a neutron and decays to Pu-239, which is the stuff you want to make bombs out of. If you "cook" Pu-239 for longer, you get other isotopes (Pu-240, Pu-241, Pu-238, Am-241, et cetera.)
For weapons, you want relatively pure Pu-239. Cook your Uranium rare and take it out quickly. You want stuff that isn't actually that radioactive but that will absorb lots of neutrons.
For reactor fuel, you actually want the more radioactive stuff, because the radiation turns into heat (which is power), so you get more power per kg of fuel, but also less likely to give you an unexpected chain reaction. You want highly radioactive stuff, but stuff that won't absorb lots of neutrons. So you want your Uranium cooked medium-well.
|
See orfamy post above Syssyl.
Weapons grade plutonium makes terrible fuel for electricity producing power plants.
It's cheaper to continue mining Uranium than it is to try and salvage anything from nuclear warheads to run a plant.
By the time that costs ratio changes, we won't be needing huge power plants, it'll be small systems networked to a grid. That system is already starting to happen here in Australia. Solar systems on so many houses in an area that they just link it to a grid system and distribute the power out. Power companies "pay" for your power input but charge more for their redistribution. It makes the economy still work and benefits certain users since they have cheaper electricity bills. Of course, now there are battery storage systems coming on line too. I suspect it'll be only a few short years before people can go off grid completely from solar power here in Aus.
As for fossil fuels. Car emissions far outstrip the damage caused by electricity producing coal plants.
That's only going to get worse as companies produce cars so cheap to buy that the majority of the population in traditionally poor nations can actually afford them.
India is predicted to have a huge boom in car use in the next few years since there are cars that can be bought by the mid to lower income range in Indias population now. If you understand how big Indias population is, that will have a dramatic impact on fossil fuel emissions in a really short time.
So talking power plants etc is just one piece of the pie sadly. And convincing a nation that is pushing very hard to get itself into the first world sphere of influence and out of the third world for much of its population, to not use fossil fuels is going to be very difficult indeed.
The solution there will be alternate engines obviously. Maybe even the end of the internal combustion engine completely. That's going to happen as well, because we are now reaching the point where companies and governments realise you can make lots of money from a development of that nature. You just have to make it more income positive than oil is at the moment. That point is getting closer I believe.
|
|
As for fossil fuels. Car emissions far outstrip the damage caused by electricity producing coal plants.
Not so.
Emissions from power plants are nearly double those from transportation worldwide
One of the big questions for greenhouse gas reductions in the next decade or two is whether the increase in electricity generation needed for conversion to electric vehicles will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions from power plants OR if the conversion of power generation to clean sources will be rapid enough to keep emissions down even as total electrical generation grows.
Interesting. Not only is it eminently POSSIBLE to use warheads as nuclear fuel, it has also been done, and to my eyes it sems to be on a rather large scale.
Here is some information. My "first link on google" policy works again, now for "using warheads as fuel".
Bringing me to the question, do you guys always completely improvise your views when someone says something, or was that just for this time?
|
|
Hmmmm, did you read the article Syssyl?
The part about surplus to needs? That statement that means they're not pulling weapons apart to make power. Just giving away the scraps.
What about the bit where it says they have to refine this material through a three step or more process that actually increases the cost of it as a fuel? Did you read that bit?
Or the part where If all of the surplus was used, it would provide one years worth of energy to power plants around the world.
Now tell me again how that is going to be cheaper than mining more Uranium, or how that refutes my claim pulling weapons apart for fuel is useless?
Neither claim by myself nor Orfamy is refute by your article. In fact, your article supports both of the things we said.
Good job.
I may also call in to question the legitimacy of an article on nuclear material use that has been commissioned by and published by the world nuclear assosiation. I mean, it could well and truly be completely factual. It sounds reasonable. However I'd be checking that through independent sources where possible.
It's almost like the coal and oil mining companies presenting research they funded to say their industry isn't affecting greenhouse gas and global warming.
|
|
As for fossil fuels. Car emissions far outstrip the damage caused by electricity producing coal plants.Not so.
Emissions from power plants are nearly double those from transportation worldwide
One of the big questions for greenhouse gas reductions in the next decade or two is whether the increase in electricity generation needed for conversion to electric vehicles will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions from power plants OR if the conversion of power generation to clean sources will be rapid enough to keep emissions down even as total electrical generation grows.
I'm not going to argue your data there. In 2010 (when your data was gathered) energy emissions were indeed more than transport.
Industry was quite high, and that part includes the refining process for crude oil into petroleum and diesel.
However, more importantly, I'm wondering if those proportions are the same now in 2016 as they were in 2010. Certainly the cheap car option I was referring to only popped up in the last 2 years or so if I remember correctly. That was data out of New Scientist magazine which is fairly reputable, but certainly not above scrutiny. I believe the article was predicting transport emissions to eclipse energy production emissions very soon the way the Indian Economy was going, and with changes to energy production being pushed in the places like Europe.
Either way, I'm seeing good changes happening already. Just not sure it's all fast enough really.
|
|
As to your first link policy,
Here's the first link that pops up about a religion worshipping a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
It's a recognised religion. People can officiate weddings and everything.
I have in fact provided as much evidence as is necessary to suggest the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists based on your first link policy. After all, this is an official religion, equally as recognised in some countries as Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
Finding info on the Internet, especially first links, is a really bad way to support arguments.
As to your first link policy,
Here's the first link that pops up about a religion worshipping a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
It's a recognised religion. People can officiate weddings and everything.
I have in fact provided as much evidence as is necessary to suggest the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists based on your first link policy. After all, this is an official religion, equally as recognised in some countries as Christianity, Hinduism and Islam.
Finding info on the Internet, especially first links, is a really bad way to support arguments.
From what I hear, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has some popularity in the military, since you are allowed to bring a religious book when you deploy and their religious texts are hilarious.
You put in "a religion worshiping a flying spaghetti monster" into google and you find their wikipedia page? What an amazing surprise! You, sir, truly showed me why doing that is a bad idea...
The point is, you said it wasn't possible. To find examples of it, I only had to click the first link on it on google. Obviously, then, you never checked, you just took your statement out of thin air.
More later.
|
Delivery of power to a vehicle may not be as clean as expected. Each step has an inherent efficiency - or a loss depending on your way of thinking.
Generation 12-50% depending on the method.
Transmission 5% eia average 05 to 2014
Battery Charge 10-33% stanford 2010, battery dependant.
Mechanical Use - somewhat equivalwnt
Narrowing the steps improves efficiency. Which is why there is an interest in direct solar/wind power (to charge batteries) for illumination with a limited electric backup.
|
|
However, more importantly, I'm wondering if those proportions are the same now in 2016 as they were in 2010.
They have certainly changed, and yes emissions from eletrical generation are decreasing while those from transportation are rising. Indeed, in the US, transportation emissions surpassed electrical generation for the first time a few months ago.
However, on the global stage it hasn't been much of a shift yet and the spread of electric vehicles could actually reverse the trend... depending on how quickly they proliferate in comparison with the spread of clean power generation.
|
|
Delivery of power to a vehicle may not be as clean as expected.
Yes, but it is still a good idea.
Most studies have shown that even if your electric vehicle is powered 100% by dirty coal plants hundreds of miles away, the total CO2 emissions to operate it are comparable to what you'd have gotten from the average internal combustion engine.
Use ANY other type of electrical generation and, even with the efficiency losses, the electric vehicle is going to generate less carbon pollution than an ICE vehicle.
Thus, from an environmental perspective electric vehicles are already the better option. They are still a few years away from being a better economic choice for the individual consumer (i.e. ignoring cost externialities). I estimate they will really start to take off some time around 2020.
There will be over 9 billion people on Earth by 2050 and there is no way humanity is escaping into space anytime remotely soon....
Money won't be the issue... it will come down to the basic need for a google load of energy!
Windfarms and a few solar panels wont even scratch the surface!
|
|
Money won't be the issue... it will come down to the basic need for a google load of energy!
Windfarms and a few solar panels wont even scratch the surface!
You vastly underestimate the amount of solar power available.
We would only need to capture 0.02% of the available solar energy at the Earth's surface to meet all current energy needs. So, if our total energy consumption grew to 5000 times current... we'd still only be using 10% of the available surface solar.
In short, we aren't going to run out of solar energy any time soon... especially when you factor in space based solar.
|
|
Along with more efficient energy usage - no one needs to waste as much as we do in the US, especially not us.
As well as whatever we can do to bend that population curve, make it top out sooner and lower.
Let's say we do none of that.
Double the population (15 billion)
Double the global average power consumption per person
Oh noes! We're using 0.08% of the available solar power at the Earth's surface!
|
|
When you can capture solar as you describe, store it, and transmit it effectively we'll agree. Until then the cost mile of solar far exceeds ICE at the same mass.
Even with rebates, and short driving (my work is 2 miles from home) I dont find an economic win for solar cars. (Transport and refining is included in the price). If solar was a clear winner, it would not need a rebate.
Solar is a clear winner in amall area lighting that is not already connected to a power grid (by far). Running cables is capital intensive.
|
|
You put in "a religion worshiping a flying spaghetti monster" into google and you find their wikipedia page? What an amazing surprise! You, sir, truly showed me why doing that is a bad idea...
The point is, you said it wasn't possible. To find examples of it, I only had to click the first link on it on google. Obviously, then, you never checked, you just took your statement out of thin air.
More later.
I never said not possible, I said useless.
The material in warheads is useless for energy formation is what I said.
Forgive my colloquial term. In Australia that's how we describe something that is a waste of time. Like saying, "You're useless mate" despite the fact that a person obviously has at least some use.
Now as for Google searching, your search had one page at the top about nuclear stuff, by the very foundation trying to convince everyone nuclear power is good and safe.
Now on the very same google page, down below all the promotional stuff and other links by the nuclear association, you'll find a few from independent scientists and organisations that discuss how ridiculously dangerous and expensive that process is.
Well, it is a bit more complicated than that, isn't it? What the Bloomberg article says is that converting an old Plutonium plant has so far been a non-starter, very costly, and likely not to work. However, the uranium has worked perfectly, and that project ended in 2013 after all the uranium handled in the contract was used up. It really can't be stated clearly enough: Plutonium and uranium are VERY different things. Uranium is radioactive, but is otherwise completely safe to handle. Plutonium is among the more toxic substances known. It should come as no surprise that they require different methods of use.
It is also a matter of what to do with surplus fissile material. See, the old superpowers agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals. No, this doesn't mean they removed material that could no longer be used. This was weapons-grade uranium (and plutonium) still. Deciding what to do with this is not a simple issue. Stowing it away? Not bloody likely, to be honest. Using it for energy is, and was, a good idea. Now it sounds like the plutonium will not, which is sad, but perhaps unavoidable.
Sissyl, nuclear warheads are made from the bi product of nuclear power. You cannot "break them up" and use them for nuclear energy. The stuff in weapons is useless for energy production.
Okay. We will go with colloquial term.
|
|
For the record, uranium is not "otherwise completely safe to handle," it's just safe in comparison to plutonium. In my experience uranium is one of the most commonly studied heavy metal contaminants in groundwater. Still accumulates in fat and in the food chain, still sucks for someone to inhale or eat. It's still chemically toxic, in addition to the radiation toxicity.
Right. My bad. Still, if I had a choice between handling uranium and plutonium, I know what my choice would be. It is not a difficult question. And because it isn't, it is clear that you really need different facilities to handle them.
|
|
Sigh, Syssyl, can't tell if the last one was sarcastic or not. I'm assuming it is, but you can never tell.
I guess I'll just explain a different way.
The material in nuclear weapons is useless for energy production.
If you got the stuff from weapons and put it into a reactor for energy use, bad stuff happens and energy for human use isn't it.
In order to use it, you have to refine it much further, in what is considered both dangerous and expensive refining processes.
So now that it has been refined, it is no longer the same material as was in the weapons.
Sadly, the process of doing this also makes material that is easier for people to steal and place into dirty bombs (apparently. I didn't realise that part till I read a few more articles on it for this discussion).
So, your proposal is more dangerous, more expensive and enables. Greater chance of mass death through terrorist attacks.
In Australia, we call that a useless suggestion. That is a colloquial term though, which means the suggestion is so bad we would never consider it, even though there is a chance it would work.
|
|
When you can capture solar as you describe, store it, and transmit it effectively we'll agree. Until then the cost mile of solar far exceeds ICE at the same mass.
Even with rebates, and short driving (my work is 2 miles from home) I dont find an economic win for solar cars. (Transport and refining is included in the price). If solar was a clear winner, it would not need a rebate.
Solar is a clear winner in amall area lighting that is not already connected to a power grid (by far). Running cables is capital intensive.
Cheaper why though?
Solar works on individual housing very easily. So for low density areas (most outer suburbs and townships) it can easily be established to run a household entirely. Indeed, we already have places in Australia that generate enough solar energy to be off grid completely. (Bush homes, island homes, some resorts and environmental,centres)
My mother in law has a system on her house that generates so much energy that she gets paid money from the electricity company here. She makes enough to run her entire house and has left over stuff going to the grid.
The only cost holding people back is storage capacity. More specifically, storage capacity in a size that suits a household and doesn't require its own shed system to store. And that is going to be available very soon from what I've seen and read recently.
As for harvesting sunlight. It's cheap to harvest on earth, but may eventually cause environmental concern. However, a great deal,of sunlight travels right past our planet and never even touches Earth. That stuff is a currently untapped resource (expense obviously).
Now, if we sunk as much money into mechanisms for harvesting that and possibly expanding into space, as we do on weapons and war in general......well, I suspect this global energy and warming issue wouldn't be a topic of discussion any more.
By the time that costs ratio changes, we won't be needing huge power plants, it'll be small systems networked to a grid. That system is already starting to happen here in Australia. Solar systems on so many houses in an area that they just link it to a grid system and distribute the power out. Power companies "pay" for your power input but charge more for their redistribution. It makes the economy still work and benefits certain users since they have cheaper electricity bills. Of course, now there are battery storage systems coming on line too. I suspect it'll be only a few short years before people can go off grid completely from solar power here in Aus.
As for fossil fuels. Car emissions far outstrip the damage caused by electricity producing coal plants.
Right now in New Jersey you can't trip but fall over someone trying to hook solar panels to your house to hook up to the grid. Also the last coal fired power plant in Hudson County is going permanently offline in a few weeks.
|
|
Is there enough Lithium (or Ni, Ca, Mn, Co, Na, S, Pb, Zn, Cl, or ???) to make high capacity in-home batteries for even a fraction of the population?
Yes.
Given that electric cars are angling to take up a big chunk of the market?
If the electric cars succeed in taking a big chunk of the market then they become the in-home batteries. After all, they are parked right there next to the home all night. Set a limit so you have enough electricity for your commute the next morning and the rest of that battery charge is available to power the house... or the neighbor's house... or to be recharged by wind turbines... et cetera.
The more rechargeable batteries you have connected to the grid the easier it becomes to smooth out peaks and valleys from intermittent power. As most people will also remain connected to the grid you don't even need batteries for each house... just enough of them scattered around to help provide load balancing.
Unless the best (better?) solution is simple/stupid/cheap, it won't be implemented.
Good thing solar IS simple / cheap.
|
|
Yes, but it doesn't appear to be "stupid/simple/cheap" since you didn't cite anything to support your assertion.
You want citations to counter your complete lack of same? Sure, I've got citations;
New US Wind & Solar exceed all other new power generation combined in 2014 and 2015
US new solar surpasses wind for first time in 2016 Q1
Several countries are closing in on 100% renewable power
The fossil fuel era has already ended. Renewable power now comprises the majority of new power being generated each year and will only continue to grow.
I expect that creating a nation-wide distributed power grid is anything but.
We already have one of those.
|
|
I prefer this link
Sure. The data on that site looks consistent with the other sources I cited.
Can you imagine the headache of coordinating every Tesla home battery?
Have you heard of these new things called computers? They don't get headaches.
Smart grid technology isn't difficult. Just requires the initial investment... which frankly we should have made decades ago. The regular failures of the US power grid have been a growing embarrassment and drain on the economy.
|
|
I don't think it's feasible anytime before about 2050. The tech is still too crude and the costs are up front (not hidden like with fossil fuels) so people, being people, just won't move fast enough.
Yeah, 2050 might be too hopeful. You keep leaving people out of the equation.
No, I don't. As I've already said, solar is both the logical long term choice AND the foolish short-sighted choice.
You keep leaving reality out of the equation... that being, not only ARE people going to switch to renewable power... they already have.
Just look at your own data site. Renewable energy percentages growing everywhere. Fossil fuel percentages flat or falling everywhere.
I'm not predicting the end of fossil fuel dominance... I'm pointing at the data which shows that this has already happened. Fossil fuels are now a shrinking minority of our power generation. All your gloom and doom about how people are too stupid to ever make the right choice does little (i.e. nothing) to convince me in the face of established proof that they've already done what you say they never will.
Talking point:
Certain countries look good (talk'n about you Norway!) but they make a huge portion of their GDP off of selling fossil fuels to other places. So saying they are sourcing 96% of their needs from renewable energy is more than a little misleading.
I don't see what's misleading about that. A vegetarian who works in a steak house is still a vegetarian, even if they cook and/or serve meat to others. Oil is a valuable resource, but so is wheat, and so are diamonds.
Norway is in an enviable position because they have a resource that they can sell to get money to buy whatever they need -- and one thing they need are power plants. Ironically, it works better for them to use renewable energy rather than burning oil. That's like an Idaho farmer who finds he would rather eat wheat and corn than potatoes, and it says something about how cheap renewables really are, if that's an option.
Sweden lead that list. Just remember, most of that is 50% of our energy coming from hydroelectric plants built from the fifties.
|
|
In terms of storage, there are already options out there and have been for years. As an example, a car runs on a lead acid accumulator. A battery that has a reversible reaction so that you can use it one way to generate electricity, but if you put electricity into it via the alternator, then you build the battery back up.
Those have been used with Solar panels to store energy on farming properties in Australia since the early 90s. I've been to farmsteads in Kingaroy here in QLD that have sheds built to store power in networked batteries. Those farms are completely off grid.
Remember that the majority of devices in a house do not actually require a high voltage to run. Most of them have step down converters built in to specifically reduce the voltage coming in from the mains.
Economically, there is already a ready built grid that power can go in to. Some of the big power lines themselves work as capacitors and hold so much energy that workers have to wait an hour or more to allow them to discharge safely after cutting power before they can begin work on them.
The one thing stopping all of this happening in the next year to two is hammering out the financials. Companies and countries have been built around fossil fuels sales. They are very rich, and very powerful. Until they can see a way to make money from renewable energy to replace the money they currently make on oil etc, then things will move slowly.
Once the money people are convinced though, boom!
|
|
Also, I'm typing this on an iPad Air. It is very thin. It has a battery that fun run for ten hours before needing re charging. It runs a machine that literally has enough computing power to fully run any technology in my house if they were synced that way.
This battery is very thin, very small and very light. Imagine what can be done with that level of technology applied to a household. Doors, walls, panels, internal sections etc could all hold battery systems like this for no loss of space. The concepts are very easy, the technology is already available, but the market isn't ready yet.
Once it is, then time and money will be invested in running high energy devices (fridges, fans, air conditioners, heaters etc). Those will need to be more efficient and require less voltage in order to work on a new system. Again, that technology already exists, but at the moment is small scale or interest only devices.
Finally, as a point for perspective. At the beginning of the 1900's (only just more than 100 years ago) horses were the main transport, electronic devices were not household items, and burning gas provided the lighting for a home and the streets.
Look at the world now. In fact the rate of technological advancement grows at an exponential rate. 10 years from now, we will look back at this conversation and marvel at all the stuff we never even imagined that is now completely normal to our future selves.