Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Freedom for Fission
Jenda:
--- Quote ---It takes more energy to slpit Hydrogen and oxygen that what you get out by recombining them.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly. And even if, it is irrelevant. Remember the conservation of energy law? The amount of energy is exactly the same, but even if it wasn't, it is not important how much energy you need to split the hydrogen (if it comes from the Sun, who cares if you lose some). A certain amount of solar/wind/hydro energy WILL produce a certain amount of hydrogen, and that in turn will produce a certain amount of electric energy (equaling the input minus losses, most in the form of heat). The goal is to maximise the output for a given input, thus minimising losses.
It's just relative. To date, the cost of the production is higher than the profit from the sold energy. That will change, as the losses diminish...
Calum:
--- Quote from: skyman8081 ---No, I'm just saying that nuclear is better than your "Alternatves".
--- End quote ---
again, i like how you back yourself up with convinving evidence, nice job.
--- Quote ---And it's here NOW.
--- End quote ---
unlike wind power, i suppose, which will obviously only be developed in the future. what have you been smoking?
worker201:
--- Quote from: skyman8081 ---It takes more energy to slpit Hydrogen and oxygen that what you get out by recombining them.
Hydrogen isn't cheap, and not natually occuring on earth by itself.
It is a PITA to store, and can only be efficiently stored as a liquid, which is several hundred degrees below zero.
--- End quote ---
So what? You're not hearing what I am saying. Hydrogen production may not be all that efficient, but it is simple. All you have to do is arc a bolt of electricity through water. The electricity produced by wind and solar DURING THE DAY can be used to make fuel to use during the night. The storage problem will be simple to solve, because our technology can do that - we do it now, just not on a mass level.
To recap - your argument against windfarms as ugly is stupid. I've been to mines of all types, and they are some of the ugliest fucking things on the planet. Seriously, they are nasty. And they fuck up the surrounding environment like CRAZY. You might as well put fucking Manhattan in the middle of the mountains, that's how much garbage and air pollution and noise and loss of habitat they produce. The nastiest ones I have seen are the Anaconda copper mine in Montana, and the Klimaxx molybdenum mine in Colorado. PLUS, the cost of mining is extreme. If you think about all the processes that go into getting any mineral at all out of the ground, they become very expensive and very inefficient. I think mining should be absolutely minimized. No more coal, no more uranium.
My plan contains no harmful byproducts, and can be put into use right now.
skyman8081:
How much power does one of these magic plants of yours put out?
How many would have to be built to supply to world energy needs?
And I assume that you are talking photovoltiac cells for solar, and that the arsenic, gallium, and cadmium are safe and non-toxic?
I don't want to give up the beautiful, pristine california deserts, for "clean" alternative power sources.
worker201:
Well, I don't want to give up Africa and South America to your unending search for fissionable material.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version