Alternet fuels

[duckiesrock]

Which alternet fuels should we consider? There are so many different ones which ones should America, China, Britian, or other large world powers conised?

[Boltrig]

At 6/14/07 07:50 PM, duckiesrock wrote: Which alternet fuels should we consider? There are so many different ones which ones should America, China, Britian, or other large world powers conised?

Nuclear

The dangers exist yes, but as a middle term solution, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Jeriad-440]

Moon Shine!!!

think about it, you can fuel your car and get drunk at the same time

For those who don't know what moon shine is made of, it's made from corn

[Boltrig]

At 6/14/07 08:04 PM, Jeriad-440 wrote: Moon Shine!!!

think about it, you can fuel your car and get drunk at the same time

For those who don't know what moon shine is made of, it's made from corn

Bio fuels that are made from crops wont get you drunk. Itd be like chugging vegetable oil. Not a good idea!

[JakeHero]

At 6/14/07 07:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 6/14/07 07:50 PM, duckiesrock wrote: Which alternet fuels should we consider? There are so many different ones which ones should America, China, Britian, or other large world powers conised?

Nuclear

The dangers exist yes, but as a middle term solution, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

Looks like someone on this forum is well-informed by alternative energies. Yes, nuclear fuel is the most efficient, expedient, cheap, and safest fuel source in the world. The only instance of people dying from a nuclear meltdown was in Chernobyl, but that happened in 60s, and even by the standards of that day it was a piece of shit machine; thirty years behind its time. Contrast those numbers to the number of miners killed yearly mining for coal and fossil fuels.

[Boltrig]

At 6/14/07 08:17 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/14/07 07:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:

Nuclear

The dangers exist yes, but as a middle term solution, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

Looks like someone on this forum is well-informed by alternative energies. Yes, nuclear fuel is the most efficient, expedient, cheap, and safest fuel source in the world. The only instance of people dying from a nuclear meltdown was in Chernobyl, but that happened in 60s, and even by the standards of that day it was a piece of shit machine; thirty years behind its time. Contrast those numbers to the number of miners killed yearly mining for coal and fossil fuels.

Plus its nowhere near as polluting as people think. The gas belching from nuclear plant stacks is water vapour mainly. Its not some horrible radioactive monstrosity.

So long as proper containment protocols are observed and waste dealt with responsibly, then Nuclear becomes a completely viable option.

Too much NIMBYism though

[K-RadPie]

I'm quite fond of wind power myself. Where I live there are windmills everywhere and they produce a shitload of power.

[Boltrig]

At 6/14/07 08:26 PM, K-RadPie wrote: I'm quite fond of wind power myself. Where I live there are windmills everywhere and they produce a shitload of power.

But to replace an entire nations fossil fuel output youd need rediculos amounts of turbines.

Im wondering though. What are the barriers to this:

In the movie Sahara, they were using hundreds of mirrors to reflect the solar enery at a single collection point, and focusing it onto toxic waste to dispose of it.

Whats the barriers to using such a focused beam to heat water, and using it in a conventional turbine setup?

Are there losses in efficiency, or would the number of reflecting mirrors be too great? Just a thought I had

[JakeHero]

At 6/14/07 08:22 PM, Boltrig wrote: Plus its nowhere near as polluting as people think. The gas belching from nuclear plant stacks is water vapour mainly. Its not some horrible radioactive monstrosity.

In the US, when the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor almost had a meltdown, hippies everywhere were harping about how much unknown quantities of dangerous radiation were released, an investigation was issued by the Energy Commission, their findings: the amount of radiation that the local residence were exposed to was equivalent to the amount received from a chest x-ray in a doctor's office.

So long as proper containment protocols are observed and waste dealt with responsibly, then Nuclear becomes a completely viable option.

The government has scheduled to open Yucca Mountain Disposal Facility to bury all the nuclear waste thousands of feet beneath sea level, this multi-billion dollar installation won't open until 2017 due to the lobbying of environmental groups.

An interesting thing to note is that their are only 104 nuclear reactors alone in the US. All of these are from the 70s, but despite their outdated age, these alone can power 20% of the United State's infastructure. Now, imagine if we built many more efficient and modern nuclear power plants.

Too much NIMBYism though

Another advantage of nuclear power would be the abudance of depleted uranium.

[K-RadPie]

Nuclear Power is great and all, but what about solar power? Eh? Solar power? Yeah, it kicks ass and it can't melt down.

[Twiligh]

Nuclear.

Solar is great but the technology is not up to be as efficient at producing energy as we need. Second the worst meltdown in US history had no injuries or deaths. And nuclear waste is soled and are in a container which could take most worse case scenarios so it does no harm, and you need long term exposure to it to get sick.

[AdamRice]

Nuclear is a good mid term solution. I remember reading a while back that a few companies (westinghouse I think, can't remember and I no longer have the source) have scheduled the construction of some generation IV reactors, so we should finally have a few new power plants to add to the ranks of the aging ones from the seventies. The generation IV reactors are safer and more efficient so they are even better.

The pebble bed reactor for example cannot melt down because of it's design.

It is also good to note that environmental groups are stupid if they lobby against long term nuclear waste storage facilities like Yucca mountain. Spent fuel is actually just stored in big buckets of water outside of nuclear power plants. It's going to be more secure tucked away in one long term storage facility as opposed to hundreds of tanks across the US.

Some people say that Yucca mountain will contaminate the drinking water supply with radiation. The spent fuel is melted down into sheets of glass that are not soluble in water. The spent fuel could sit naked in open water all day long, not enough is ever going to dissolve to reach dangerous levels.

[JakeHero]

At 6/15/07 03:01 AM, AdamRice wrote: Some people say that Yucca mountain will contaminate the drinking water supply with radiation. The spent fuel is melted down into sheets of glass that are not soluble in water. The spent fuel could sit naked in open water all day long, not enough is ever going to dissolve to reach dangerous levels.

The reason the government chose Yucca Mountain as a location for waste disposal was the fact that water never seeps that deep beneath the surface. So not only do we have the precaution you listed, but it seems percipitation is in our favor. That's what I like to call a win-win situation. :)

[Senri]

America owns 2/3 of the oil in Iran [or Iraq]

[InsertFunnyUserName]

I agree with JakeHero, AdamRice, and Boltrig. Nuclear is the way to go.

People are so paranoid about urainium, but with the proper obsrevation and the proper decontamination technologies, it's a perfictly safe, lasting, powerful alternitive fuel that won't polute.

In addition, there aren't as many variables that would effect it as they would corn, wind, and solar power. We've already seen the impact of the ethenal industry; pushing the pices of the entire food market to etremely high rates. And wind is never a definate. You can't stop an entire country just because the wind isn't blowing that day. As for the sun, well it's only out for only half the day and as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) we don't have the proper technology to hold energy from a solar source for very long.

...

Another (probibly extremely outragious) idea I had when I was sitting around one day is: what if we could create an alternitive fuel that was based off of human waste? It's just an idea I'd thought I'd throw out there.

[Slizor]

Yes, nuclear fuel is the most efficient, expedient, cheap, and safest fuel source in the world.

People often forget that nuclear energy requires a number of factors to be externalised for it to be seen in such a light. The cost of decommissioning plants at the end of their use and burying nuclear waste while the plants are working raises both the cost and safety of nuclear power. I would prefer it if governments made greater efforts to encourage renewable micro-generation. A solar panels on the roof of every home is the way forward.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

Solar Power.

Cover the worlds deserts with solar panels, hook them up to a world grid of sorts, and bang, problem solved!

I think you'd have to change to DC though as that loses less energy over long distance or something.

But that's never going to happen, so Nuclear is the way to go.

[Elfer]

We need solar panels and wind turbines installed in private residences to create a reliable, decentralized grid.

[Twiligh]

At 6/15/07 03:11 PM, Elfer wrote: We need solar panels and wind turbines installed in private residences to create a reliable, decentralized grid.

I know it sounds good, but you need a lot of room for wind turbines(and a good bit of wind) but again we use a ton of energy. And to the idea of covering the worlds deserts with solar panels would cost way to much and would destroy a lot of natural habitat for some species.

Now solar on ever roof would help, but still does not create enough energy for 24/7 energy consumption but does make sense.

Nuclear is still clean compared to oil and coal power plants but no one ever bothers noticing how much pollution they create, they just bitch that nuclear could be dangerous when fossil fuels are dangerous when they are used.

[scorchin-hot]

At 6/14/07 08:17 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/14/07 07:59 PM, Boltrig wrote:

At 6/14/07 07:50 PM, duckiesrock wrote: Which alternet fuels should we consider? There are so many different ones which ones should America, China, Britian, or other large world powers conised?

Nuclear

The dangers exist yes, but as a middle term solution, I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

Looks like someone on this forum is well-informed by alternative energies. Yes, nuclear fuel is the most efficient, expedient, cheap, and safest fuel source in the world. The only instance of people dying from a nuclear meltdown was in Chernobyl,

Sweet we can just have nuclear reactors in our cars. I think people are getting fuel mixed up with electricity.
Also 3 mile island.

[Paradigms]

Wind.
Hydroelectric.
Solar.
Wave.
Nuclear
Biomass.
Fusion.
All of them! Yaay! Save the environment!

[JakeHero]

At 6/15/07 02:38 PM, Slizor wrote: People often forget that nuclear energy requires a number of factors to be externalised for it to be seen in such a light.

This is true, but all the other fuels require multitasking. Right now, it would be cheaper to continue harvesting coal and fossil fuels, on the other hand, it would save alot more money by making the leap to nuclear energy. It is sort of like a hardware store scenario, where you can buy the cheapest fire place or the more expensive one that burns 30% slower, over time the more expensive would actually be cheaper.

The cost of decommissioning plants at the end of their use

Not even something you should worry about. Engineers agree that these reactors built in the 70s are so we designed that they'll be operation for many decades. There's only a hundred and four in the US right now.

and burying nuclear waste while the plants are working raises both the cost and safety of nuclear power.

I think we went over this, but I'll explain again. The government has chosen Yucca Mountain as a dumping site. The installation there has had 50+ billion dollars to ensure its usefulness. What they'll do is bury the nuclear waste thousands of feet under the ground where it can safely deteriorate without coming into contact with the fragile eco-system.

I would prefer it if governments made greater efforts to encourage renewable micro-generation. A solar panels on the roof of every home is the way forward.

The thing is, despite what many groups would like you to believe, is that solar energy is too impractical to impliment on a large scale. Right now, they can only use solar energy as a suppliment and not the primary source of energy. On satellites those panels actually serve as support energy and not the main conduit.

I'm not just say this because I was bribed by the oil corporations, I've taken into consideration all the other alternative fuels and I believe nuclear energy is the best choice.

At 6/15/07 03:53 PM, scorchin-hot wrote: Sweet we can just have nuclear reactors in our cars.

Well, the French did start using mini-nuclear reactors to power their aircraft carriers, but that's beside the point.

I think people are getting fuel mixed up with electricity.

Umm, what do you think the electric companies use in order to yield a byproduct of electricity? Do you believe they transmute it out of nothing?

Also 3 mile island.

No one was killed in Three Mile Island, which is what I can hardly say about how many people are killed a year harvesting fossil fuels and coal.

[Paradigms]

Fusion is the cleanest and safest, but it would cost a lot, so nuclear would be the best choice.
Fusions is essentially the same as the sun, it fuses hydrogen into helium to generate heat to boil water to turn the turbine, thats essentially what nuclear reactors do to, except they don't fuse hydrogen into helium, but use uranium instead.

[Brick-top]

Solar
Bio-fuel
Hydrogen
Methane

nuff said

[EndGameOmega]

At 6/15/07 03:05 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Solar Power.

No.

Cover the worlds deserts with solar panels, hook them up to a world grid of sorts, and bang, problem solved!

Can't work. One, solar panels are too expensive and despite the clams of the people I worked for (Environment Arizona) mass production will not reduce the cost by more then 5%. Two, Photovoltaic cells have half lives of about 30 years. This rather short half life produce a waste problem much like nuclear, only worse as there's a hell of a lot more of it.

I think you'd have to change to DC though as that loses less energy over long distance or something.

AC, actually; But yes you do have to convert, and this conversion adversely impacts efficiency.

But that's never going to happen, so Nuclear is the way to go.

Agreed, nuclear is generally better then solar. Though, for isolated small comunitys thigs like solar and wind would be useful as back power sources.

At 6/15/07 05:26 PM, JakeHero wrote: On satellites those panels actually serve as support energy and not the main conduit.

No. The main, and only source of power on any earth orbiting satellite is solar. RTG aren't alowed on earth orbiting craft due to proliferation, and space weaponsation risks.

Well, the French did start using mini-nuclear reactors to power their aircraft carriers, but that's beside the point.

The US was the first country to use nuclear reactors on ships, the first one being the USS Nautilus (sub), and the first actual ship was ether the USS Enterprise or the USS Long Beach (not sure which left the ship yard first).

At 6/15/07 06:55 PM, Potempkin wrote: Fusion is the cleanest and safest, but it would cost a lot, so nuclear would be the best choice.

Uhh... Fusion is nuclear, and its not a matter of cost, but lack of research. We don't know how to build a fusion reactor yet, that's capable of producing more power then what's put in (at lest on any buildable scale).

Fusions is essentially the same as the sun, it fuses hydrogen into helium to generate heat to boil water to turn the turbine, thats essentially what nuclear reactors do to, except they don't fuse hydrogen into helium, but use uranium instead.

There are several paths for fusion, the two most likely to be used are T+D fusion and p+B fusion, or if we find a large enough source for it ^3He+ ^6Li fusion. Plain H fusion is highly impractical and very energy expensive. As for turbines, the current fusion design makes use of MHD taps for power, which are far more efficient then steam turbines.

Side note, you don't fuse uranium in a nuclear power plant you fission it (split it apart).

At 6/16/07 02:25 AM, Brick-top wrote: Solar

Can't work on any large scale, not to mention it causes more problems then it solves.

Bio-fuel

Decent idea.

Hydrogen

Intressting idea.

Methane

No.

nuff said

Not really. You need to give some explanation of why you think these options are viable.

[DingoTheDog]

Liquid Natural Gas (LNG)

The oil industry is getting all hot and bothered as this century is believed to be the "Century of Gas"

LNG is methane (CH3) with very few contaminants. Its transported at -160 degress celsius (the boiling point of methane) where in a liquid state it takes up 1/600th of the space it would as a gas.

As Methane is a fairly volatile gas it readily combusts very efficiently and as it is just a hydrocarbon the emissions are far cleaner than that of oil and coal.

i.e. CH3 when combusted in 02results in H20 and C02

Japan currently take around 80% of gas imports from around the world. Europe have started taking serious steps into expanding its number of LNG recieving terminals and the USA who although have recently decreased their intake are supposedly planning on new terminals.

Major players such as Shell have announced the release of no less than 26 brand spanking new LNG carriers for 2008-2010 which will be chartered for Qatar Gas for delivery to Europe. The UK has what promises to be the worlds most technologically advanced LNG terminal under construction in Milford Haven.

China have recently started recieving LNG deliveries from the Northwest Shelf Project in Australia.

LNG will have a profound effect on things. For one it should (when the gas boom expected for 2010 happens) result in a decrease in the value of oil. It will result in a huge shake up of international politics as Malaysia, Indonesia and Africa have discovered they are sitting on giant gas fields and will can expect rim-jobs in the form of lucrative contracts from the world super powers.

Russia also have huuuUUUUuuuuge Gas fields which should start being used for Gas exports within the decade as well. Could the value of this Gas make them a dominant force in the world yet again?

[Paradigms]

At 6/16/07 02:25 AM, Brick-top wrote: Solar

Wouldn't work in the long run.

Bio-fuel

Good idea, but would probably need lots, though.

Hydrogen

That's fusion.

Methane
Wouldn't work very well, as recycling technologies are improving, there won't be lots of methane from dumps from decomposing materials, the only other way to get enough, would proably be to stick pipes to lots of cow's asses.

[Paradigms]

There is also Geothermal, which could produce quite a lot at areas like YellowStone

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/16/07 08:35 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Can't work. One, solar panels are too expensive

The costs of things always falls. You start mass producing things on large levels you'll find the price will drop significantly. Likewise, you start pouring money into research for stuff, the cost can go down.

Too expensive at the moment, yes, but forever? I'd find it hard to believe.

and despite the clams of the people I worked for (Environment Arizona) mass production will not reduce the cost by more then 5%.

I assume you mean the cost as in monetary terms? I was thinking more along the lines of not destroying the environment and the whole having a supply of energy that really is Infinite, as as long as we have a sun, we have power. Even nuclear will run out eventually as it relies on a finite resource.

Two, Photovoltaic cells have half lives of about 30 years. This rather short half life produce a waste problem much like nuclear, only worse as there's a hell of a lot more of it.

I have to say I was not aware of that at all.

AC, actually; But yes you do have to convert, and this conversion adversely impacts efficiency.

I never paid much attention in Physics, can not never remember which one is which half the time.

[Jordaneh]

an idea that i had when i was younger was to have a generator in a/the wheel/s of a car and use only enough gas to get it to start and the generator spins and produces the rest of the energy