The context of generating power. Sorry. I made the rather rash assumption that there was a fully philiosphised up idea on how generate power with this using seawater or something and didn't see anything in the article that gave that impression. And that there would be something like that elsewhere I'll look harder. Is that an idea you came up with?
Our dependence on electricity
- Thread starter bb07
- Start date
The context of generating power. Sorry. I made the rather rash assumption that there was a fully philiosphised up idea on how generate power with this using seawater or something and didn't see anything in the article that gave that impression. And that there would be something like that elsewhere I'll look harder. Is that an idea you came up with?
Huh?
This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_power
I posted earlier in the thread. There is a prototype up and running in Norway(fully philosophised and realised) (not my idea)
- perhaps you missed my first post. However when you said "the wiki article" I assumed you hadn't? Not sure what else you need?
Last edited:
Yes I missed the first post, searched for the term Osmotic and found a different Wiki article. That link is perfect. Cheers.
well, what do you think future generations will do with all the uranium plutonium waste ? I think they'll send it into the sun when technology suffices. Begs the question "why so much uranium for so long ?" far too much for weapons. 2 catastrophies and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of highly long living radioactive waste. But then again there are areas exposed to certain chemicals etc that should be evacuated just like chernobyl. The non existing mutants of chernobyl do exist in places where certain weapons where used. Back to electricity. Yup we're seriously dependant on it especially for computers, which we have become heavy users of, but the modern world economic system in the end is just a way of trading energy, whether the energy used to power robots and machines in manufacturing to manufacture other robots and machines and consumables, or energy itself for propulsion or heating. Without energy the modern world wouldn't function.
The radon question I don't know, probably very pressing if your working in real estate.
We mine the radioactive material from somewhere. Why don't we put it back? Sometimes we forget this stuff occurs naturally too.
well Fwance are burying it, and the uk is also going to dig a huge hole in the ground around the lake district also.
No it doesn't.
Look up the output figures. The windfarms currently online produce 2/3rds the output of nuclear. The reason you often see windmills not turning is that they have been intentionally feathered; the grid can't cope with the input. We need to upgrade the grid and add more pump-up storage.
Looking at total energy cost is a good idea. The energy cost for extracting, transporting and refining oil is huge. The 'energy in minus energy out' equation doesn't produce a lot. We use oil because it is very convenient to transport to the point of use and the energy density is very high.
The energy equation for nuclear needs to include decommissioning . . . .
This province (Saskatchewan) has huge uranium deposits and the world's largest mine, as well as other smaller mines.
Some of us don't want it. Many would prefer to see it left where it is and not have any development whatsoever. Like anything else, there are those for and those against, and no amount of talk or facts will sway either side.
To add fuel to the fire, there are now proposals to store nuclear waste here as well, and naturally this too is a very emotional issue, perhaps even more so than the actual mining of uranium. Money and jobs appear to be the only reason to even consider doing such a thing. Those in favour, like anyone pro nuclear, tell anyone that's willing to listen, just how safe it is, while opponents are doing what they can to inform the public that the exact opposite is true. I suppose the truth lies somewhere in between.
Some background information:
Uranium in Canada
Uranium mining in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But if you have mined radioactive material out of a place then the best place to put radioactive material would be the place it was taken from in the first place - thus very little net disruption in the overall areas "radioactivity" so to speak?
No, I do not see the logic of that. The best place to store it is somewhere out of the way, that isn't, or will not become a source of water and where the geology suggests that it will remain constant for a very long time.
But radioactive uranium occurs in a uranium mine, it's already having a natural impact?
The uranium is mined in an area known as the Athabasca Basin
The proposed area for a nuclear waste site is located farther to the south in the Canadian Shield
Saskatchewan has approximately 100,000 lakes, along with many rivers, creeks and streams of all sizes, with the vast majority located in the north, which is the area of the proposed waste storage site. Huge amounts of highly radioactive materials would be concentrated in this one facility, if it becomes a reality, and would remain highly radioactive for thousands of years.
This is the reason for considering the Canadian Shield as a desirable location. Apparently it is a very stable formation, not subject to geological disturbances (eathquakes)
What to do with the waste is a problem that's not going to go away and one which may haunt us for generations to come if it becomes a reality. Like anything else deemed safe, only future generations will know for sure
How to put Canada's nuclear waste to bed
Nuclear waste disposal site
But it irradiates millions of tonnes of concrete, steel, and other waste. Remember nuke plants are virtually erased from their original location and stored. The japs have got millions of gallons of radioactive water. They cannot catch fish off the plant. And also refined uranium from ore is also weapons grade as pointed out earlier.
What does that have to do with putting it back where it originally came from? It was there naturally before it was mined and was radioactive then.
I've also thought about that option. And the technology already exists and is fairly simple. The vessel containing the waste doesn't need any elaborate navigational equipment; just the ability to reach escape velocity with the trajectory already set. The sun's gravity will do the rest. But reaching escape velocity takes quite a bit of energy in and of itself.
Or just use it when they develop the new generation of reactors?
I am sure I heard a debate with Professor Johny Ball that we could develop reactors that consumed the fuel by-product of the current process.
A lot of "Nuclear waste" is other material that comes off a nuclear site, whether that is used overalls or office chairs it is classed as "Nuclear waste".
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou...-GB&q=johnny+ball+nuclear+debate+january+2008
I am sure I heard a debate with Professor Johny Ball that we could develop reactors that consumed the fuel by-product of the current process.
A lot of "Nuclear waste" is other material that comes off a nuclear site, whether that is used overalls or office chairs it is classed as "Nuclear waste".
https://www.google.co.uk/search?sou...-GB&q=johnny+ball+nuclear+debate+january+2008
True. Nuclear waste includes contaminated items other than the actual fuel rods. Rather like bio-medical waste.
trouble is ;
It costs $10,000 to put one pound in
space so 625,000 hamburgers would cost
$1.5625 billion dollars
How would you keep them fresh? Launch
a deep freeze big enough to hold 625,000
hamburgers. Say two hamburgers are 10 x 10 x 10 cm
= 1000 cubic cm
You need a freezer 3125 cu Meters or 15
meters by 15 meters by 15 meters tall and
this is for just ONE hamburger per day per
person.