Re: [OT] for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world
- From: "cr88192" <cr88192@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:11:12 +1000
"Rs" <a@xxx> wrote in message news:47bd9fdc$0$10626$4fafbaef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:fpjlh6$fp9$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Rs" <a@xxx> wrote in message
news:47bc701e$0$4784$4fafbaef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the governaments have to try a different model for the world
convivence - producht exange too
close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world
Could you explain your logic?
Nuclear reactors predominantly produce electricity in the US. As I see
things, if the US shutdown all nuclear reactors, which produce 20% of US
electricity, this would shift US electric energy demands to other major
fossil fuel sources, such as coal, which produces 51% of US electricity,
or
natural gas, which produces 17.5% of US electricity. Oil is heavily used
for transportation, but almost isn't used for electricity in the US (4% of
electric). Due to cost pressures, coal would be used. This 20% of
additional coal usage amounts to a 40% increase in coal usage. The
serious
producers of energy are fossil fuels which increase greenhouse gas
emissions, acid rain, toxic metals, and other particulates in the air or
environment. Supposedly, the greenhouse gases contribute to global
warming,
assuming we aren't seeing natural weather variation. Wind and
hydroelectric
aren't serious power producers here or yet. The only other serious
options
for electric energy are fusion reactors, black holes, undersea methane
hydrates, and geodynamo's. None of which have been perfected. The
methane
hydrate is a fossil fuel... and at the bottom of the sea. People fear
black
hole research will create of a black hole that will destroy the Earth.
Geodynamo's are under researched since they are about as close to a
"perpetual energy machine" as you can get.
meanwhile:
coal tends to be a very unclean element, and even as such, like petroleum, the world's coal supplies will not last forever...
IMO, nuclear is actually the best and safest way to generate cheap, clean, and safe electric power.
the major problem though is that, in the US at least (worse in Europe AFAIK) people have this strange fear of nuclear power, and actually end up using one of the worst possible reactor designs (U-235 burning light-water reactors), which both burn a fairly rare element, produce lots of waste, and in countries with a government too damn scared to make fuel reprocessors.
now, what if we had U-238 burning breeder reactors?...
well then, both cost, and waste, would be far lower than at present.
IMO, the PRC has a much better approach here.
my cousin
explain me that if one electric motor is turn
that produce electric power in the start then
the resistance stop the turn
yes, we can use electric motors as generators.
as such, motors and generators tend to have very similar construction (albeit many motors tend to have the coils of the rotor and the magnets on the outer casing, wheras generators tend to have the coils in the casing and the magnets on the rotor).
Fusion reactors have the same
problem as hydrogen fuel-cells: hydrogen doesn't exist in a pristine state
problem is the increase of radiactivity in the world
you mean, like radiation is rare?...
you mean, like this whole damn planet is not sitting on top of a big-ass fission reaction that keeps the core molten?...
you mean, like 100 pCi/L worth of radiation is not building up in my house by comming out of the ground (and passing right through this heavy piece of plastic apparently designed to try to stop it)?...
(yes, and we have work men come and install a machine designed to extract said radioactive gasses out of the ground and pump them outside...).
nuclear reactors contribute far less to radioactivity than we give them credit for (after all, the reactor is contained within a heavily shielded housing, and ratiation levels nearby tend to be no higher than normal background radiation).
it is not really a threat.
on Earth. I.e., you must use large amounts energy to create pure hydrogen
only to convert it back to energy... Unless you are able to extract far
more energy from the hydrogen than used in creating the hydrogen, you
lose.
You also consume large quantities of hydrogen rich chemicals such as
water,
methane, or methane hydrate, etc. which are needed by humanity for many
other chemical products.
i think new batterys (hdrogen battery) and wind and sun (fotocellule) are
the answer
but possibly i'm wrong because i have drunk some rum
the problem is the world's energy use...
it is unlikely the world could practically build enough solar plants to cover our uses.
also, hydrogen only really offers a solution for energy transfer, not production (it is, as such, an alternative to conventional cabling and batteries...).
Rod Pemberton
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world
- Next by Date: Re: Switch from protected mode to real mode
- Previous by thread: Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world
- Next by thread: Re: for the close of all fission nuclear reactor in the world
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
