RE: A few thoughts on climate change.

RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/13/2014 10:41:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Yeah, I guess I'm being pedantic a bit. Controlled fusion reactors suitable for electrical power plants are out of our reach right now. We have had man-made fusion since 1952 since they detonated the first fusion bombs. Fusion doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics but exploits the mass defect in atomic structure. Put simply, put a proton and a proton together to make a helium nucleus; the helium nucleus weighs less than two protons and the rest is released as energy. Mass defect is what drives energy release with fission as well. A Uranium atom has more mass than a Cesium plus a Rubidium so splitting Uranium releases energy. Fusion power is more advantageous as the mass defect is greater between hydrogen and helium than between Uranium vs Cesium & Rubidium. More detailed explanation at: http://nsb.wikidot.com/pl-9-8-3-9 When we do fusion it always takes more energy than we get out. That is a plain fact. Might there be some way to do fusion that doesn't take some immense amount of input energy? That's cold fusion and I've done the math on that. Any low energy fusion scenario that could occur would have consumed all the hydrogen in the universe over the 14 odd billion years of existence. Since hydrogen exists low energy fusion is not possible.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/13/2014 7:34:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/13/2014 8:16:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma. The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy.

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/14/2014 4:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma. The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy. Which, while true, has nothing to do with your contention that we may never be able to have fusion power due to the second law of thermodynamics. Said statement is, as I said before, wrong. We may never have fusion, although I think we will. But if we don't it will be economic, political, and technological impediments that prevent it. The second law of thermodynamics will have nothing to do with it.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/14/2014 4:10:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma. The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy. Which, while true, has nothing to do with your contention that we may never be able to have fusion power due to the second law of thermodynamics. Said statement is, as I said before, wrong. We may never have fusion, although I think we will. But if we don't it will be economic, political, and technological impediments that prevent it. The second law of thermodynamics will have nothing to do with it. Wait, you think the 2nd law isn't entropy? WTF do you think the 2nd law is? How precisely would it not apply?

Phydeaux -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/14/2014 4:15:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma. The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy. Which, while true, has nothing to do with your contention that we may never be able to have fusion power due to the second law of thermodynamics. Said statement is, as I said before, wrong. We may never have fusion, although I think we will. But if we don't it will be economic, political, and technological impediments that prevent it. The second law of thermodynamics will have nothing to do with it. Wait, you think the 2nd law isn't entropy? WTF do you think the 2nd law is? How precisely would it not apply? Do you see me saying that the second law doesn't regard entropy? In fact, when you made the uneducated opinion that fusion may not be possible because of the second law of thermodynamics I educated you and said that the entropy of the system decreases when the heavier elements were made. Using small words: The things that stop us from getting fusion power are economic, political, and technological. You really do hate admitting you are just wrong.

MercTech -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/14/2014 4:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. I realize that too. But I don't imagine they're doing this on a whim. I expect someone has the math that shows it's possible or they wouldn't be trying. After all, I believe a Russian mathematician recently modified E=MC(sq) as well. I'm just skeptical about fusion power plants as I've been hearing that we are almost ready to have fusion power plants since 1973. A very low yield test plant is a good step in that direction but I would still estimate 20 years for the first full size plant to be on line assuming the test plant provides a decent proof of concept. We could have AP-1000 plants online within 5 years of breaking ground. _____________________________________ quote: There are more problems than just the local government not letting them use fire trucks to cool the plants. The plants physical design is a disaster waiting to happen. The spent fuel rod pools are on top of the reactor vessels which makes it next to impossible to remove them now that the reactor vessels have breached. As an aside, having spent fuel storage at the same level is a good idea. The few plants that have spent fuel storage at a level different level than the top of the reactor are a rube goldberg nightmare during refueling. In a BWR6 design (like Fukushima) spent fuel storage and reactor vessel access are at the same level, the highest level in the building. After several foot thick concrete missile shields are removed, you can get to the bolts holding the reactor vessel head closed. After bolts are removed, the space is flooded up to the same level as the spent fuel pool and the head and top equipment is removed and a weir gate to the spent fuel pool is removed.. Then fuel is lifted with remote operating tools and trundled to the fuel pool. In a PWR, the fuel goes through a transfer tube to a fuel pool outside of the containment building but at the same level as the reactor cavity so you don't have to use valving on the transfer tubes (in most reactors.. some exceptions have very convoluted refueling paths) Getting to the spent fuel at Fukushima isn't so much an issue because being at the top of reactor height but because the lack of cooling water allowed the fuel in the spent fuel pool to boil. The whole level of the building would be contaminated to hell and gone. You have to deal with nuclides in the people space that are normally only found in the pipes. Tepco did a lot of benchmarking of the TMI cleanup and the DOE cleanup jobs on the old bomb factory reactors.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 7:13:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny FR All this arguing over coal, oil, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. seems completely pointless to me. I find it hard to believe I'm the only person here who's heard of things like ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and understands the implications for energy production and slowing environmental damage. And yet, nobody ever talks about it. Why do we continue to waste money propping up DOA industries like solar and wind when fusion is within our reach? I just don't get it. [sm=banghead.gif] Fusion is not within our reach. Fusion that puts out more energy than is put into it may never be possible, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Why am I not surprised. 2nd law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about nuclear fusion being possible. We face technological constraints, nothing more nothing less. The very fact that we have elements such as helium, lithium, boron... iron (etc) is proof that entropy of the system decreased; which is why these elements are in fact formed in fusion reactions. Fundamentally, our current issues are (more or less): Energy inefficiency of the laser pumps pushing the reaction (about 1%). Difficulty of creating the magnetic bottles. Efficiency of energy collection from plasma. The tragedy of the universe is that eventually the cycle of suns forming and dying will come to an end because it is not an entropy free cycle. The cycle does lose energy. Which, while true, has nothing to do with your contention that we may never be able to have fusion power due to the second law of thermodynamics. Said statement is, as I said before, wrong. We may never have fusion, although I think we will. But if we don't it will be economic, political, and technological impediments that prevent it. The second law of thermodynamics will have nothing to do with it. Wait, you think the 2nd law isn't entropy? WTF do you think the 2nd law is? How precisely would it not apply? Do you see me saying that the second law doesn't regard entropy? In fact, when you made the uneducated opinion that fusion may not be possible because of the second law of thermodynamics I educated you and said that the entropy of the system decreases when the heavier elements were made. Using small words: The things that stop us from getting fusion power are economic, political, and technological. You really do hate admitting you are just wrong. You don't get it do you, how precisely can you get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it?

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 7:17:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech As an aside, having spent fuel storage at the same level is a good idea. The few plants that have spent fuel storage at a level different level than the top of the reactor are a rube goldberg nightmare during refueling. In a BWR6 design (like Fukushima) spent fuel storage and reactor vessel access are at the same level, the highest level in the building. After several foot thick concrete missile shields are removed, you can get to the bolts holding the reactor vessel head closed. After bolts are removed, the space is flooded up to the same level as the spent fuel pool and the head and top equipment is removed and a weir gate to the spent fuel pool is removed.. Then fuel is lifted with remote operating tools and trundled to the fuel pool. In a PWR, the fuel goes through a transfer tube to a fuel pool outside of the containment building but at the same level as the reactor cavity so you don't have to use valving on the transfer tubes (in most reactors.. some exceptions have very convoluted refueling paths) Getting to the spent fuel at Fukushima isn't so much an issue because being at the top of reactor height but because the lack of cooling water allowed the fuel in the spent fuel pool to boil. The whole level of the building would be contaminated to hell and gone. You have to deal with nuclides in the people space that are normally only found in the pipes. Tepco did a lot of benchmarking of the TMI cleanup and the DOE cleanup jobs on the old bomb factory reactors. It may have made refueling easy but has now created an environmental catastrophe that may never get fully cleaned up. Not a trade off I find acceptable.

JeffBC -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 9:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 First ignore the current majority held scientific belief that humans are responsible for all of it. Before I could ignore that "scientific belief" I'd have to have heard about it somewhere other than this post. I have never, not once, read a direct writing by an actual climate scientist which suggested such a thing. quote: The same is true about cleaning up rivers, lakes and oceans. Clean water is better than polluted water. Uh, that obviously depends on your viewpoint. The problem here is that we generally do not put any price tag on clean water. Accordingly, in a capitalist society, it has no value. If it did have value manufacturers would be touting how they "keep the water clean" and consumers would be flocking to products which managed to do so while shunning products which dirty the water. That isn't exactly my observation of reality.

MercTech -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 1:08:54 PM)
quote: It may have made refueling easy but has now created an environmental catastrophe that may never get fully cleaned up. Not a trade off I find acceptable. Location of a spent fuel pool is totally irrelevant to the cleanup situation. More like harping on the type of radio in a car that was wrecked. The problems at Fukushima stem from a loss of cooling for a protracted amount of time. The design flaw that caused this was considering the placing of equipment and environmental hardening was sufficient for location on a seacoast where devastating tsunamis could happen.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 1:31:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech quote: It may have made refueling easy but has now created an environmental catastrophe that may never get fully cleaned up. Not a trade off I find acceptable. Location of a spent fuel pool is totally irrelevant to the cleanup situation. More like harping on the type of radio in a car that was wrecked. The problems at Fukushima stem from a loss of cooling for a protracted amount of time. The design flaw that caused this was considering the placing of equipment and environmental hardening was sufficient for location on a seacoast where devastating tsunamis could happen. If the pools had not been on top of the reactor vessels they might not have drained and might not have been involved at all. For instance if the pools had been in ground.

jlf1961 -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 2:41:42 PM)
Actually you cant get more energy from something than you put in. In nuclear fusion, we are talking about a self sustaining reaction. In other words, we are just putting fuel into the system in the form of hydrogen, and the reaction is generating thermal energy that we can convert to electricity. That is what is meant by efficiency. If you have to keep firing lasers or whatever you used to generate the initial reaction, then it is not efficient and a waste. Internal combustion, fossil fuel power plants even nuclear fission are inefficient.

crazyml -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 2:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Marc, all your points are true. I am just trying to approach the situation from a different angle. I believe that humanity has had some impact on climate change, but to blame humanity for all of it is a bit of a stretch. I don't think many climate scientists do blame human actions for all of it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 3:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Actually you cant get more energy from something than you put in. In nuclear fusion, we are talking about a self sustaining reaction. In other words, we are just putting fuel into the system in the form of hydrogen, and the reaction is generating thermal energy that we can convert to electricity. That is what is meant by efficiency. If you have to keep firing lasers or whatever you used to generate the initial reaction, then it is not efficient and a waste. Internal combustion, fossil fuel power plants even nuclear fission are inefficient. One has to think if the potential energy locked in the radioactive elements is being taken into consideration...

MrRodgers -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/15/2014 4:46:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Internal combustion, fossil fuel power plants even nuclear fission are inefficient. That says it all for mankind...the internal combustion engine burning petro based fuels. It uses O, produces CO and even more CO2 in an effort to reduce what everybody almost always seem to miss...unburnt hydrocarbons. (CnH2n+2,) Recent improvements in auto emissions are all designed to create a second attempt at burning these un-burnt hydrocarbons (fresh air pump) or to combine C0 with HCs producing yet...more C02. (catalytic converters) ) Internal comb. motors on petro fuels burn only 80% leaving on average, 20% as unburnt hydrocarbons. To the extent that man is contributing to CO2 is fossil fuels and the greatest use of which is the internal combustion motor and to the extent CO2 is contributing to the greenhouse effect. (see Venus) 1 Billion cars now world wide. 1.7 billion by 2035...you do the math. When you add coal, the numbers become undeniable and it is ALL on MAN's contribution to CO2 and the greenhouse effect and what is narrow now but will be in a few decades...simply untenable. That's a few of my thoughts on climate change.

Hillwilliam -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/16/2014 12:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You don't get it do you, how precisely can you get more energy out of a fusion reaction than you put into it? Look up on a sunny day.[8\|] Or, if it's dark, watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQEgndKhQ-U

Musicmystery -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/16/2014 12:28:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen When we do fusion it always takes more energy than we get out. That is a plain fact. Seems to work for the stars. quote: That's cold fusion and I've done the math on that. What pretentious bullshit. How long have you been an astrophysicist now? Granted, cold fusion seems a dead end -- for now. Science has a way of learning new things.

DomKen -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/16/2014 2:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen When we do fusion it always takes more energy than we get out. That is a plain fact. Seems to work for the stars. Stars die. They consume all their fuel and die. Their is no such thing as infinite energy.. quote: quote: That's cold fusion and I've done the math on that. What pretentious bullshit. How long have you been an astrophysicist now? Granted, cold fusion seems a dead end -- for now. Science has a way of learning new things. I'm a mathematician. When the guys in Utah came out with their crap I sat down with some friends at Fermi and we ran the numbers, If low energy fusion could happen then there would be no hydrogen left. There is hydrogen in the universe therefore low energy fusion does not happen. Remember all their rig was, was an electrolysis setup. There was nothing unusual about the physical environment the hydrogen was supposed to be in so in the 14+ billion years the universe has existed all the hydrogen has been in those sorts of environments many times and never fused. That is why the physics community met the claim with such incredulity and immediately set out to debunk it. Everyone knew it was impossible. Lo and behold it was total bullshit.

Musicmystery -> RE: A few thoughts on climate change. (3/16/2014 3:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Stars die. They consume all their fuel and die. Their is no such thing as infinite energy.. And so therefore, no energy is possible/viable? Interesting fallacy. I though mathematicians were good at logic? We don't seek energy for it to be infinite. We seek it to use to power things. Though my passive solar heating comes damn close.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625