Nuclear power...

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: piasabird
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Hundreds of acres of the best farmland ruined and contaminated for the next 300 years because of one nuclear accident. This rogue reactor was capped, but it is still dangerous. In the accident part of the reactor literally blew apart and sailed through the roof which was designed to contain the radiation and landed in a field nearby.

Maybe safeguards in American reactors are safer, however, There is no guarantee that there will never be another nuclear accident. I would not want a reactor near a large city. The USSR was lucky this reactor was in the middle of a sparsely inhabited location and they could evacuate the location quickly. However, they were unlucky also because valuable famland in a large area near good water has become unusable and unproductive for around 300 years from just one accident.

Solar power is safer.
Wind Power is safer.
Hydro Power is safer.

That is Chernobyl, 1 dam failure has caused an order of magnitude more deaths.

It *CANT* happen in new reactor designs, and safety measures that werent present in chernobyl are present in all western nuclear reactors.

Read up on chernobyl and educate yourself.

 

[Rustican]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sure or we can put the mirrors in space and create vast ponds of liquid magma for solar induced geothermal. Sand and rocks could go in maglev trains that run up hill in the day and run down hill at night generating electricity. They could carry people too. Up to high places in day time, down at night. Flywheels are good too.

Create ponds of magma? I though we were trying to preserve the environment? How do you think your scheme will affect global warming? Directing more heat right at the earth... nice... Have a cookie.

And good luck trying to get the equivalent of an orbital laser into space past the rest of the world powers.

And maglev consumes vast amounts of electricity along with powerful magnetic fields affecting the surrounding areas. Flywheels are not as efficient as pumping liquid. The added infrastructure you're talking about is more complicated and less efficient than digging a hole in the ground lining the bottom and filling it with water.

 

[BrownTown]

yeah, Moonbeam is just getting more and more illogical as this thread goes on, I am starting to wonder if he even believes this is stuff or just gets off on making silly comments. It always sorta seems like hes trolling, but it is more subtle than your everyday stupid troll, so I wonder if he is jsut messing with us or ill-informed.

I mean, I am really honestly trying to not be insulting but I just don't understand how you could logically come to the conclusions you do regarding energy technology is you actually did a little research or has a basic understanding of the concepts. I mean just do a simply potential energy = MGH and see what it takes to store a few tens of gigawatt-hours of energy and you will see that your plans for energy storage would be impossibly expensive. There is already a good way to store energy in pumped hydro, the beauty of it comes from the fact that is is sooo dang simple, it is easy to implement and decently efficient. There is only 1 moving part which is a reversible AC generator/motor so it is cheap to built and very reliable. The only downside of course is finding areas with suitable geographic features to build one (well ,thats the only *engineering problem*, you also have to deal with a bunch of environmentalists who don't like you flooding areas).

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yeah, Moonbeam is just getting more and more illogical as this thread goes on, I am starting to wonder if he even believes this is stuff or just gets off on making silly comments. It always sorta seems like hes trolling, but it is more subtle than your everyday stupid troll, so I wonder if he is jsut messing with us or ill-informed.

I mean, I am really honestly trying to not be insulting but I just don't understand how you could logically come to the conclusions you do regarding energy technology is you actually did a little research or has a basic understanding of the concepts. I mean just do a simply potential energy = MGH and see what it takes to store a few tens of gigawatt-hours of energy and you will see that your plans for energy storage would be impossibly expensive. There is already a good way to store energy in pumped hydro, the beauty of it comes from the fact that is is sooo dang simple, it is easy to implement and decently efficient. There is only 1 moving part which is a reversible AC generator/motor so it is cheap to built and very reliable. The only downside of course is finding areas with suitable geographic features to build one (well ,thats the only *engineering problem*, you also have to deal with a bunch of environmentalists who don't like you flooding areas).

You don't understand how I think or operate. I am trying to get you guys to see that your nuclear hope is a crack pot idea. I want you to see how you think. I argue with your crack pot idea and you tell me some new crack pot scheme that will supposedly make it all better. But you never see. So I help you by being a mirror. I suggest, to your endless streams of can't do, unAmerican, negative attitude toward solar, some nice crack pot ideas so as to train your thinking. Hopefully such exercise will develop the skills to see the real absurdity of your own ideas.

You want to create pools of fire in the belly of a reactor to generate heat to make steam? Good God, do you know what that will do to global warming. I mean, after all, with my mirrors in space, where I always keep them by the way, for all intents and purposes, I can also put umbrellas to shade the earth equivalent to the degree I heat it. You can't do that with your earth heating reactors, no?

Actually it appears that the best solution to night use of solar is heating a nitrate salt to molten conditions and making steam with that. One test facility achieved an 8 day 24 hour run doing that until stopped by cloudy weather. Using this technique a ten mile by ten mile area of desert will provide all the power for the US and if distributed additional green energy is put in the mix we will be home free.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yeah, Moonbeam is just getting more and more illogical as this thread goes on, I am starting to wonder if he even believes this is stuff or just gets off on making silly comments. It always sorta seems like hes trolling, but it is more subtle than your everyday stupid troll, so I wonder if he is jsut messing with us or ill-informed.

I mean, I am really honestly trying to not be insulting but I just don't understand how you could logically come to the conclusions you do regarding energy technology is you actually did a little research or has a basic understanding of the concepts. I mean just do a simply potential energy = MGH and see what it takes to store a few tens of gigawatt-hours of energy and you will see that your plans for energy storage would be impossibly expensive. There is already a good way to store energy in pumped hydro, the beauty of it comes from the fact that is is sooo dang simple, it is easy to implement and decently efficient. There is only 1 moving part which is a reversible AC generator/motor so it is cheap to built and very reliable. The only downside of course is finding areas with suitable geographic features to build one (well ,thats the only *engineering problem*, you also have to deal with a bunch of environmentalists who don't like you flooding areas).

Actually it appears that the best solution to night use of solar is heating a nitrate salt to molten conditions and making steam with that. One test facility achieved an 8 day 24 hour run doing that until stopped by cloudy weather. Using this technique a ten mile by ten mile area of desert will provide all the power for the US and if distributed additional green energy is put in the mix we will be home free.

Molten salts are extremely corrosive to metal and even a small amount water infiltration can wreck the whole system. They ran into these problems several decades ago when experimenting with molten salt cooled nuclear reactors and the whole approach was pretty much abandoned for any realistic application.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yeah, Moonbeam is just getting more and more illogical as this thread goes on, I am starting to wonder if he even believes this is stuff or just gets off on making silly comments. It always sorta seems like hes trolling, but it is more subtle than your everyday stupid troll, so I wonder if he is jsut messing with us or ill-informed.

I mean, I am really honestly trying to not be insulting but I just don't understand how you could logically come to the conclusions you do regarding energy technology is you actually did a little research or has a basic understanding of the concepts. I mean just do a simply potential energy = MGH and see what it takes to store a few tens of gigawatt-hours of energy and you will see that your plans for energy storage would be impossibly expensive. There is already a good way to store energy in pumped hydro, the beauty of it comes from the fact that is is sooo dang simple, it is easy to implement and decently efficient. There is only 1 moving part which is a reversible AC generator/motor so it is cheap to built and very reliable. The only downside of course is finding areas with suitable geographic features to build one (well ,thats the only *engineering problem*, you also have to deal with a bunch of environmentalists who don't like you flooding areas).

Actually it appears that the best solution to night use of solar is heating a nitrate salt to molten conditions and making steam with that. One test facility achieved an 8 day 24 hour run doing that until stopped by cloudy weather. Using this technique a ten mile by ten mile area of desert will provide all the power for the US and if distributed additional green energy is put in the mix we will be home free.

Molten salts are extremely corrosive to metal and even a small amount water infiltration can wreck the whole system. They ran into these problems several decades ago when experimenting with molten salt cooled nuclear reactors and the whole approach was pretty much abandoned for any realistic application.

Hehe, we are not using them to cool a nuclear reactor. The kinds of safety requirements there, due to the deadly effects of a nuclear meltdown etc, are not at issue. They are being used in solar applications, not abandoned.

I do think a global solar effort is the better way to go and the best way to insure human peace, with each part of the world dependent on another. Nuclear will always cause people to worry about the bomb. Solar makes sense on multiple levels.

And you learned nothing from what I said. For every road block you make up, there is some logical answer. It is the same with nuclear. We probably could do it safely. We probably could safely store the waste. But that does not change the underlying fact that there is no satisfactory political solution is sight. Nobody wants it in their back yard so stop trying to force them to take it. Everybody will be happy with green, except the nuclear industry. A person who keeps beating his head against the wall has some profit motive somewhere or is an idiot.

"There are a million paths in life and they all nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart."

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yeah, Moonbeam is just getting more and more illogical as this thread goes on, I am starting to wonder if he even believes this is stuff or just gets off on making silly comments. It always sorta seems like hes trolling, but it is more subtle than your everyday stupid troll, so I wonder if he is jsut messing with us or ill-informed.

I mean, I am really honestly trying to not be insulting but I just don't understand how you could logically come to the conclusions you do regarding energy technology is you actually did a little research or has a basic understanding of the concepts. I mean just do a simply potential energy = MGH and see what it takes to store a few tens of gigawatt-hours of energy and you will see that your plans for energy storage would be impossibly expensive. There is already a good way to store energy in pumped hydro, the beauty of it comes from the fact that is is sooo dang simple, it is easy to implement and decently efficient. There is only 1 moving part which is a reversible AC generator/motor so it is cheap to built and very reliable. The only downside of course is finding areas with suitable geographic features to build one (well ,thats the only *engineering problem*, you also have to deal with a bunch of environmentalists who don't like you flooding areas).

Actually it appears that the best solution to night use of solar is heating a nitrate salt to molten conditions and making steam with that. One test facility achieved an 8 day 24 hour run doing that until stopped by cloudy weather. Using this technique a ten mile by ten mile area of desert will provide all the power for the US and if distributed additional green energy is put in the mix we will be home free.

Molten salts are extremely corrosive to metal and even a small amount water infiltration can wreck the whole system. They ran into these problems several decades ago when experimenting with molten salt cooled nuclear reactors and the whole approach was pretty much abandoned for any realistic application.

Hehe, we are not using them to cool a nuclear reactor. The kinds of safety requirements there, due to the deadly effects of a nuclear meltdown etc, are not at issue. They are being used in solar applications, not abandoned.

I do think a global solar effort is the better way to go and the best way to insure human peace, with each part of the world dependent on another. Nuclear will always cause people to worry about the bomb. Solar makes sense on multiple levels.

And you learned nothing from what I said. For every road block you make up, there is some logical answer. It is the same with nuclear. We probably could do it safely. We probably could safely store the waste. But that does not change the underlying fact that there is no satisfactory political solution is sight. Nobody wants it in their back yard so stop trying to force them to take it. Everybody will be happy with green, except the nuclear industry. A person who keeps beating his head against the wall has some profit motive somewhere or is an idiot.

"There are a million paths in life and they all nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart."

The problems I noted were to it's reliability as a heat transport/storage system and why despite it being a decades old technology has never been applied on commercial scale. Our current nuclear waste can and should be dealt with. We posses both the technological capacity and knowledge to do so safely while recovering even more energy thus negating some of the cost. The politicians have not been in much of a rush because electricity production (and arguably energy as a whole) haven't been sexy issues until relatively recently.

I wish flowery philosophical rhetoric could solve our problems, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

 

[VooDooAddict]

While wind and solar might be great for growing light suburban and rural areas... in the short term it's not effective for dense urban areas.

Nuclear power looks like the best short term way to start bringing down our dependence on foreign energy resources. It's about as clean and safe as we can get (in the short term).

This does not mean we should stop developing more "clean" alternatives and seek ways to conserve and reduce our energy foot print. (this is nothing to say about the CO2/warming footprint which is a whole other "debate")

We can't wait till we are in an energy crisis to deal with this issue.

 

[marincounty]

It's interesting how many pro-nuke folks are suddenly so concerned with the environment. I'll bet most are laughing at all of the global warming alarmists-until it's pointed out that nuclear power doesn't create CO2, now nuclear power is our great eniviromental savior.
I took a physics class in college from a very well respected professor, and he was very proud that the national organization of physicists to which he belonged was AGAINST nuclear power. He also pointed out that the mechanical engineering organizations were For nuclear power, because they had a built-in conflict of interest, they get paid for designing, building and maintaining them.
Nuclear power was a way for the military-industrial complex to continue their gravy train of govt funding after the end of WWII. Too bad we didn't follow through on some of their great ideas: Like nuclear powered airplanes and cars.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: marincounty
It's interesting how many pro-nuke folks are suddenly so concerned with the environment. I'll bet most are laughing at all of the global warming alarmists-until it's pointed out that nuclear power doesn't create CO2, now nuclear power is our great eniviromental savior.
I took a physics class in college from a very well respected professor, and he was very proud that the national organization of physicists to which he belonged was AGAINST nuclear power. He also pointed out that the mechanical engineering organizations were For nuclear power, because they had a built-in conflict of interest, they get paid for designing, building and maintaining them.
Nuclear power was a way for the military-industrial complex to continue their gravy train of govt funding after the end of WWII. Too bad we didn't follow through on some of their great ideas: Like nuclear powered airplanes and cars.

I bet our gas mileage would look a hell better with a nuclear power car
I am sure those mechanical engineering organizations work on more than nuclear plants. Leave it upto the old professor to get all conspiracy theory on you.

I see Nuclear energy as the best option out there right now. Coal pollutes, and renewables are reliable enough. I will say slapping a solar panel on our roofs might make sense to help alleviate energy crunches.

 

[Moonbeam]

I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

 

[piasabird]

Make electricity from burning Methane which is free at any landfill!

Ocean waves keep coming, so make electricity off the motion of the ocean???

When it comes to making electricity we need to learn to think like engineers.

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Make electricity from burning Methane which is free at any landfill!

Acutally, this article
shows it may not be far from the truth.

Basic synopsis - A company has developed a machine that, via a plasma incinerator, burns garbage to produce steam (that powers a turbine) and a syngas byproduct that can be sold for industrial purposes. It's not 100% proven, and there's still questions about the 'slag' byproduct of all the burned materials, but it could potentially help address two problems.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

The concentrated solar plant referred to in your article is actually a very cool DEMONSTRATION plant. Personally I think it is a good idea and is the way that solar should go in the future (as I said earlier in this post). Actually, my dad was talking to one of the people who worked on that project a few weeks ago and they said it is quite reliable and the technology works fine, HOWEVER it is considered to be more like a big toy than a real source of power. It is FAR from being economically viable at this time. You will be glad to know however that there are liquid fluoride breeder reactors which can run on nuclear waste and reduce it to compounds that decay in only a few hundred years so that the problem of storage is much simple since you are turning long lived waste to short lived and getting power out in the process! However, again this technology is also only a demonstration and not commercially viable. But you must admit that even you must like such a nuclear plant which would run on waste that has ALREADY been produced and which creates not new waste. Again, for every problem with nuclear there is a solution just like for solar except that the nuclear solutions would end up being 1/10th the cost to implement.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

The concentrated solar plant referred to in your article is actually a very cool DEMONSTRATION plant. Personally I think it is a good idea and is the way that solar should go in the future (as I said earlier in this post). Actually, my dad was talking to one of the people who worked on that project a few weeks ago and they said it is quite reliable and the technology works fine, HOWEVER it is considered to be more like a big toy than a real source of power. It is FAR from being economically viable at this time. You will be glad to know however that there are liquid fluoride breeder reactors which can run on nuclear waste and reduce it to compounds that decay in only a few hundred years so that the problem of storage is much simple since you are turning long lived waste to short lived and getting power out in the process! However, again this technology is also only a demonstration and not commercially viable. But you must admit that even you must like such a nuclear plant which would run on waste that has ALREADY been produced and which creates not new waste. Again, for every problem with nuclear there is a solution just like for solar except that the nuclear solutions would end up being 1/10th the cost to implement.

Hah, shens. I'm for nuclear power (and not necessarily against solar either ) but nuke's main disadvantage is not the FUD-surrounded waste, but the huge capital investment required. Nuclear plants are very expensive to build (because they're big machines, as well as heavily regulated and there are backups for backups of backups), but cheap to maintain (because a batch of fuel will last you a couple years at least). Nuclear is great once it's up and running, but right now electricity just isn't expensive enough to make it worth the huge investments.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

The concentrated solar plant referred to in your article is actually a very cool DEMONSTRATION plant. Personally I think it is a good idea and is the way that solar should go in the future (as I said earlier in this post). Actually, my dad was talking to one of the people who worked on that project a few weeks ago and they said it is quite reliable and the technology works fine, HOWEVER it is considered to be more like a big toy than a real source of power. It is FAR from being economically viable at this time. You will be glad to know however that there are liquid fluoride breeder reactors which can run on nuclear waste and reduce it to compounds that decay in only a few hundred years so that the problem of storage is much simple since you are turning long lived waste to short lived and getting power out in the process! However, again this technology is also only a demonstration and not commercially viable. But you must admit that even you must like such a nuclear plant which would run on waste that has ALREADY been produced and which creates not new waste. Again, for every problem with nuclear there is a solution just like for solar except that the nuclear solutions would end up being 1/10th the cost to implement.

Hah, shens. I'm for nuclear power (and not necessarily against solar either ) but nuke's main disadvantage is not the FUD-surrounded waste, but the huge capital investment required. Nuclear plants are very expensive to build (because they're big machines, as well as heavily regulated and there are backups for backups of backups), but cheap to maintain (because a batch of fuel will last you a couple years at least). Nuclear is great once it's up and running, but right now electricity just isn't expensive enough to make it worth the huge investments.

When the plants are paid off, its well below 2 cents a kw/h.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

The concentrated solar plant referred to in your article is actually a very cool DEMONSTRATION plant. Personally I think it is a good idea and is the way that solar should go in the future (as I said earlier in this post). Actually, my dad was talking to one of the people who worked on that project a few weeks ago and they said it is quite reliable and the technology works fine, HOWEVER it is considered to be more like a big toy than a real source of power. It is FAR from being economically viable at this time. You will be glad to know however that there are liquid fluoride breeder reactors which can run on nuclear waste and reduce it to compounds that decay in only a few hundred years so that the problem of storage is much simple since you are turning long lived waste to short lived and getting power out in the process! However, again this technology is also only a demonstration and not commercially viable. But you must admit that even you must like such a nuclear plant which would run on waste that has ALREADY been produced and which creates not new waste. Again, for every problem with nuclear there is a solution just like for solar except that the nuclear solutions would end up being 1/10th the cost to implement.

An Accelerator Driven System thorium reactor has some thing going for it, but it is as much of a pipe dream at the moment as solar. Probably one or two should at least be built in case the nuclear industry wants to make good on cleaning up nuclear waste and old nuclear weapons.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

The concentrated solar plant referred to in your article is actually a very cool DEMONSTRATION plant. Personally I think it is a good idea and is the way that solar should go in the future (as I said earlier in this post). Actually, my dad was talking to one of the people who worked on that project a few weeks ago and they said it is quite reliable and the technology works fine, HOWEVER it is considered to be more like a big toy than a real source of power. It is FAR from being economically viable at this time. You will be glad to know however that there are liquid fluoride breeder reactors which can run on nuclear waste and reduce it to compounds that decay in only a few hundred years so that the problem of storage is much simple since you are turning long lived waste to short lived and getting power out in the process! However, again this technology is also only a demonstration and not commercially viable. But you must admit that even you must like such a nuclear plant which would run on waste that has ALREADY been produced and which creates not new waste. Again, for every problem with nuclear there is a solution just like for solar except that the nuclear solutions would end up being 1/10th the cost to implement.

Hah, shens. I'm for nuclear power (and not necessarily against solar either ) but nuke's main disadvantage is not the FUD-surrounded waste, but the huge capital investment required. Nuclear plants are very expensive to build (because they're big machines, as well as heavily regulated and there are backups for backups of backups), but cheap to maintain (because a batch of fuel will last you a couple years at least). Nuclear is great once it's up and running, but right now electricity just isn't expensive enough to make it worth the huge investments.

When the plants are paid off, its well below 2 cents a kw/h.

What's the cost of solar when the panels are paid off?

 

[BrownTown]

Here is the point, BOTH nuclear and solar have the vast majority of costs in upfront capital costs. Solar just has 10 times the upfront costs that nuclear has, its really that simple. Perhaps some of ya'll should do some research into solar power, there really is no such thing as a solar power plant solar is the type of thing people use to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy at night, or to try to get good PR, but it does not even provide one ten thousandths of the energy we use in this country. In terms of making any real contributions solar power and "magic fairy dust" power are about even since neither one exists in quantities even worth mentioning outside of an academic context.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Here is the point, BOTH nuclear and solar have the vast majority of costs in upfront capital costs. Solar just has 10 times the upfront costs that nuclear has, its really that simple. Perhaps some of ya'll should do some research into solar power, there really is no such thing as a solar power plant solar is the type of thing people use to make themselves feel warm and fuzzy at night, or to try to get good PR, but it does not even provide one ten thousandths of the energy we use in this country. In terms of making any real contributions solar power and "magic fairy dust" power are about even since neither one exists in quantities even worth mentioning outside of an academic context.

Exactly, it is the capital costs that is the problem for our ideas. I have a feeling you're pulling 10x disadvantage to solar out of your kiester, but that's somewhat secondary. Whatever the reason, global warming, energy dependance, or just crappy air that simply drives you nuts, we all want to move away from coal and oil and the like. I frankly don't care whether or not in twenty years it's solar or nuclear or dilithium that's powering the world, you all need to go argue with the people that don't think anything needs to be done at all. Instead of selling one solution over another, how about we just get something done, I mean any change is better than coal.

 

[charrison]

Within the next 10-20 years solar is going to be a cost effective means of producing electricty and rooftop solar with flourish without subsidy. We will still need baseline provided by the grid , unless there is a signficant breakthough in battery tech in the same time period. The baseline load is going to be provided by nuclear.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: piasabird
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Hundreds of acres of the best farmland ruined and contaminated for the next 300 years because of one nuclear accident. This rogue reactor was capped, but it is still dangerous. In the accident part of the reactor literally blew apart and sailed through the roof which was designed to contain the radiation and landed in a field nearby.

Maybe safeguards in American reactors are safer, however, There is no guarantee that there will never be another nuclear accident. I would not want a reactor near a large city. The USSR was lucky this reactor was in the middle of a sparsely inhabited location and they could evacuate the location quickly. However, they were unlucky also because valuable famland in a large area near good water has become unusable and unproductive for around 300 years from just one accident.

Solar power is safer.
Wind Power is safer.
Hydro Power is safer.

That is Chernobyl, 1 dam failure has caused an order of magnitude more deaths.

It *CANT* happen in new reactor designs, and safety measures that werent present in chernobyl are present in all western nuclear reactors.

Read up on chernobyl and educate yourself.

Again, as I said earlier, Chernobyl happened b/c of institutional, BS communist-era codes of accountability--NOT b/c of the reactor's technical failure. It could have been avoided, and the techs were implimenting fail-safes when the acting director stopped them, b/c he simply would not admit that there was a problem (it would be tantamount to saying that Russia failed, which was "impossible" to stomach in that culture) One man single-handedly let this disaster happen (I believe one of the scientists on site actually sacrificed himself to limit the diasaster), and the USSR made it worse by not acknowledging the explosion to neighboring villagers for weeks after.

Listen to Acanthus. Read up on the accounts before you misrepresent the facts; just as the sheep you got your information from did

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I hate to put salt peter on your nuclear boner but here goes.

while i think you've been a bit looney in this thread...I just had to laugh.

well done.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Make electricity from burning Methane which is free at any landfill!

Ocean waves keep coming, so make electricity off the motion of the ocean???

When it comes to making electricity we need to learn to think like engineers.

It still astonishes me that this hasn't become more feasible yet...Hell, I've been pondering this for over ten years now. It makes too much freaking sense.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: crownjules

Originally posted by: piasabird
Make electricity from burning Methane which is free at any landfill!

Acutally, this article
shows it may not be far from the truth.

Basic synopsis - A company has developed a machine that, via a plasma incinerator, burns garbage to produce steam (that powers a turbine) and a syngas byproduct that can be sold for industrial purposes. It's not 100% proven, and there's still questions about the 'slag' byproduct of all the burned materials, but it could potentially help address two problems.

I didnt' read the whole article, but based on your synopsis, the methane solution is a bit different than what you propose.

Essentially, landfills (I actually think in terms of Hog Lagoons (pig ****** for you Yankees) as that is the biggest culprit back home), give off tons of methane vapor. My pops actually did some research into this years back, and based on his info as well as a microbio professor of mine, it's been calculated that with harvesting and processing the amount of methane released from one large Hog Lagoon in one day, you could power a small town for that day.

Freaking ridiculous. Especially when you consider the multi-pronged enviro-bonus that this could have:

1) lining the lagoon with a rubber bladder significantly (almost completely) reduces the nitrate introduction into local water systems (which causes algal blooms, pfisteria, choke fish and other aquatic life etc)

2) By trapping and re-processing that methane, you're significantly reducing one of the major greenhouse gases

3) Well, I'm not sure what the processing involves, but I'd like to think that by trapping the gas you could seriously reduce the oder (those that have driven through eastern NC know what a hog lagoon smells like )

4) essentially....free energy (once manufacturing costs are paid over); people will keep eating BBQ, and hogs will keep sh1tting

5)Another target for Biff Tannen to wreck his vehicle into



I believe the methane from a large landfill is comparable.

But as for the trash-grinding proposal: Sounds cool too, b/c what doesn't sound cool when a Plasma Gassification System is involved? I don't care what it does, but I totally want one of those!