»nintendo64 Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 Fusion Plants simply doesn't work, they do not produce as much heat as Fission Plants does. Bush Goverment gave some money to Hydrogen Fuel Cells Project, but he probably did it because of good press, and to make people think he's not all about the oil. -nintendo64
madhaha Posted September 21, 2003 Report Posted September 21, 2003 Fusion reactors have been made to work. Unfortunately the reaction as it is can only be sustained for a matter of seconds. The reaction releases far more energy than traditional fission plants (thats why H-bombs give you more bang for buck than A-bombs) but the reaction is much harder to create. If you are really interested, do some research into Tokamak reactors.
Aileron Posted September 22, 2003 Author Report Posted September 22, 2003 Fusion Plants simply doesn't work, they do not produce as much heat as Fission Plants does. Bush Goverment gave some money to Hydrogen Fuel Cells Project, but he probably did it because of good press, and to make people think he's not all about the oil. -nintendo64 Actually, I doubt Bush is all that into oil. First off, it is clear that the future source of fuel lies elseware. Secondly, while he is an ex-oil tycoon, note that he is an EX-oil tycoon. He left that business because he didn't like it for some reason. Third of all, while his "friends" are still in the business, due to the way corperate structures are set up, the executives can survive the collapse of their business will almost no impact on their careers. If he really did want to cater to these people so much, he would be doing them a favor by killing the oil industry and builind hydrogen fuels. All the oil tycoons would have to do is shake the prevebial dust off of their shoes and become hydrogen fuel tycoons. They would be no less rich than before and would also be in a growing instead of dying industry. Anyways, thats another topic, one of which I am truly tired of. Ok, back on topic. I've never heard of these Tokamak reactors. I would like to know what they are, they sound cool. It seems that there are two basic types of power plants - experimental and actual. Of the experimental ones, I prefer fusion. I only do this because if a fusion plant can be implemented, there will be no energy crisis and no ecological debate. If Fusion power was created tomorrow, this whole topic would be spam the day after. Because fusion doesn't give off radiation, it would be safe for everything from power plants to cars and wouldn't pollute the environment at all. It also would produce such a large amount of power from such a small amount of such an inexpensive fuel (hydrogen), that it would be practically an indefinite source of power. The only problem would be where we would store all the Helium we would be producing, which pales in comparison to our current environmental concerns.
madhaha Posted September 22, 2003 Report Posted September 22, 2003 Not a problem! Helium is extremely useful and believe it or not we're running out of it very soon (its mined from select sources of natural gases). It is needed in modern lighter than air transport, as a coolant (cooler than liquid nitrogen). in superconductors (used in CAT scans, maglevs etc.), for its inert properties (you could use it in MIG welding, in environments where you don't want fires or oxidation etc.) The Tokamaks are experimental fusion reactors that try to contain the plasma of the fusion reaction using magnetism. It has successfully done it for several seconds and they've been undergoing continual development these last 40 odd years. A workable reactor is predicted for 2015 which is a long time off... Sadly its much simpler to create fusion bombs (h-bombs) than fusion reactors because you need to keep the process under strict control (and you also get a standard fission bomb as a power source which you obviously can't use in a reactor). Fusion reactors mainly run off deutrium and other "heavy water" isotopes and supplies from the ocean are predicted to last for several thousand years. Concerning Bush and his oil connections, remember how much texas depends on its oil fields (and helium supply) for income. If Bush seriously funded fuel-cell development he'd screw Texas over and he'd lose lots of support. Bush also has shown very little interest in environmental issues and reducing fuel consumption .
Aileron Posted September 23, 2003 Author Report Posted September 23, 2003 Kyoto isn't really that good for the whole country, not just oil interests. Yeah, I did some research into the Tokamak reactor. They do have promise, although the claim that they reached break even is doubted. Still, something like that will PROBABLY work. The only problem that the plant would have to be huge. It would get a much higher proportion of power back. However, having one power plant per continent leads to distribution problems.
madhaha Posted September 23, 2003 Report Posted September 23, 2003 Kyoto isn't really that good for the whole country, not just oil interests. Its called an international summit for a reason. Its not MEANT to be good for the USA. Its meant to slow down the decline of our ecological systems. He didn't even send someone to attend!
Aileron Posted September 24, 2003 Author Report Posted September 24, 2003 That is exactly the point. No leader under any cicurmstances should do something that overall runs counter to his country's interests. The fate of the rest of the world is not a good enough justification. Leaders have a responsablity to their people and not the rest of the world, because his people is where he got his power from. Take an example as a security guard at a bank. Suppose this bank was inside a poor community. The only rich person in this community was the bank owner. Yes, the money in the vault would be best off in the people's hands. It would be a good act for the owner to give out that money. However, it would be wrong for the security guard to do as such. He was given the key to the vault in order to protect it, and it his responsablity to keep it there unless the owner wants it out. He was hired by and owes allegience to the owner of the bank, not the people outside. The same thing holds true to presidents. Kyoto isn't worth squat unless it can be doctored to fit X's interests or can be enacted without X in it, where every country can be inserted for X. Ok, THAT is MY last post on Kyoto unless another topic is started.
Silk Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Why would the security guard have the key?
madhaha Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Bad analogy and just plain wrong. The US is responsible for a lot of pollution and most of the worlds consumption of fossil fuels. This has an impact on other countries because pollution doesn't stop at the borders hence the Scandanavians are having so much trouble with acid rain even though they have a very "green" outlook (using geothermal, proper insulation, recycling etc). Its kinda like a picnic where one guy decides to hog all the food he can lay his hands on and then leaves the mess for everyone else to clear. Kyoto was fairly meaningless as the targets are unlikely to be met and the convention even failed its own target of being carbon neutral but at least there was an agreement and a token show of interest. When the most important country in terms of pollution decides not to make a token gesture, its not just America thats going to suffer for it. Slowing down the decline of the world ecology isn't easy and it will be impossible unless the US does it's part and its something that requires a long term contribution. What is the point in "looking" for alternative fuels if your short term strategy is to increase the problems we already have? Sure you Might avoid future environmental problems and foresee every last eventuality but you'd have to live with today's problems for the considerable future.
Aileron Posted September 24, 2003 Author Report Posted September 24, 2003 Why would the security guard have the key? ITS JUST A STUPID ANALOGY! Hey, I didn't say Kyoto was incompatible to the US. There are several good reasons the US should participate. Mostly, it is for the long term good of our ecology. I'm just saying that it would be wrong for our leadership to engage in an activity that hurts the US and doesn't help it unless we want them to. Basically, Bush was elected to serve the United States. His job is to make decisions for the good of the United States. If there was a situation where the entire rest of the world would be nuked and the US would gain 5 cents profit in both short and long term, the US people should be against it for the clear suffering of others, but Bush should be for it because that is what would be best for the people that elected him. Kyoto is complicated because there is one world and one ecosystem between all countries. I'm just saying that your arguement would be much stronger if it pointed out how the US would eventually benefit rather than calling us greedy and selfish. Ok..back on topic I recently saw this proposed legislation on the latest emissions regulations for coal. Basically, they are to limit CO2 emissions from coal plants. I'm no fan of coal power and no one here is. However, I think this is a little much. Yes, it isn't that healthy, but it isn't really poisonous either. I'd rather have the coal plant put some trees in the parking lot and we can call it even.
madhaha Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 Wow another terrible anology Don't use them to "prove" your point No-one "benifits" from the Kyoto agreement. We're already up the creek without a paddle. The terms would simply buy us time, perhaps a few decades if we're lucky, to prepare for some serious climate changes and try and increase the survival chances of other species. CO2 = Greenhouse gas. That is not a good thing. The more CO2, the faster the climate change. If the global temperature raises by 2 degrees then there will be immeasurable damage. England would freeze over and there'd be flooding further down south. We're not talking a few extra storms every year, we talking of losing some major cities, changes in monsoon patterns and hurricanes, ocean currents etc. Trees POTENTIALLY could remove CO2 but you'd have to cut them down when they are mature and store them somewhere so the carbon won't get released back into the atmosphere i.e. can't burn them. You'd need a ridiculous amount of trees to remove the amount of CO2 powerplants currently create. Look at it this way. Coal is extremely high in carbon with a few impurities like sulphur etc. Probably 95% carbon (conservative guesstimate). Trees/wood are less than 25% carbon. That means you'll need to have 4 times the volume of coal you use in trees (!@#$%^&*uming its completely dried) in order to keep the plants carbon neutral. Trees need time to grow. That means although potentially a single tree can remove several tonnes of carbon, you'd need to plant a dozen in order to keep up with the amount of coal you're burning while waiting for it to grow. Now work out how many power plants you have. how much CO2 each one produces and you can APPROXIMATELY work out how many trees you'd need. I'm guessing a number big enough to cover the US and then some. Planting a few trees in the car park isn't going to cut it, sorry.
Evil Jin Posted September 24, 2003 Report Posted September 24, 2003 ok i can see we have a few newbs here. if you cant see akia was posting about his views your realy stupid. plus nuclear power plans are probably the one they build but in the long run would it be the best? an then when we dispose it why should we put it in the mountains it could harm animals. i dont see how that would be the most effectie way to dispose it. then when a power plant actualy does -*BAD WORD*- up were screwed up inside out. We would cuase disasterous things to the eath that will most likely screw us even worse.
madhaha Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 Jin please do your homework. Nuclear plants are probably NOT what they're going to build because of the public misconceptions about their risks. Almost all construction has been halted for the past few decades in the west. In the long run they provide lots of energy so we need less powerplants. The waste they produce can be measured in tonnes not thousands of tonnes like conventional power and biofuel plants. Putting them underground under mountains prevents the radiation from damaging anything because the amount of radiation that reaches the surface is barely enough to be registered on a giger counter. If you knew your science then you'd realise that normal granite on the surface would produce several times more radiation than nuclear waste would if its buried underground. This is NOT dangerous. Whats more should the waste start to leak you can collapse a mountain on it putting several thousand feet of rock between even burrowing animals and the radiation. Powerplants do not blow up as you imagine they do in your hollywood movies in an "atomic bomb" fashion. They Could leak if several things went wrong (the design has since been improved so that this is even more unlikely) at the same time which is why a large concrete dome is constructed over the reactor so that in the event of an emergency none of the material escapes. Akai claims that this dome could withstand a direct hit from an aircraft (although he doesn't factor in that it might be packed with explosives). If you wanted to Really be safe you'd put the nuclear powerplant under a mountain too so if things went wrong you could bury it or you can create several barriers as fail safes, much like the idea of "double hulling" in oil tankers. So what do you think is more of an ecological disaster? Chernobyl or all the oil spilages we've had or the impact of m!@#$%^&* coal burning? I'm not sure but it'd have to be between the last two.
Evil Jin Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 well you also forget to calculate in all the -*BAD WORD*-ing rednecks that will be working there gg.
Silk Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 what does rednecks have to do with anything? What would they do in the first place? clean the toilets and somehow cause a meltdown?
madhaha Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 The workers have sealed suits, lead barriers and manipulators to protect them. People get killed on oilrigs and coal mining too, you include that?
Aileron Posted September 25, 2003 Author Report Posted September 25, 2003 Yes, there are no "rednecks" in the nuclear power industry. You need a college degree and a federal nuclear engineering liscense to get it. Also, there is an additional liscense. I am unsure of the requirements for mechanics, but they have to p!@#$%^&* several competency tests as well, and work under supervision of the engineers. Now, as Silk pointed out, you don't need any degree to scrub a toilet in a power plant, but lets just ignore that. Seriosly, you watch "The Simpsons" too much. REAL power plants are about as stringent about rules as an army base, and are ONLY filled with professionals.
madhaha Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 They also go under psychological profiling/screening don't they?
Evil Jin Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 not to be a janitor since jantors can be red necks no need fr collee degree. plus were also forgetting to calculate another terroristic threat im sure if a errorist wanted to he try to take that out
madhaha Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 They don't have someone with a duster clean up the reactor. The scientists do all the maintenance themselves.
Silk Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 What does "its america" have to do with anything. If anything since its after 9-11 the security has been stepped up dramatically. Back where i live every night at all the hydro dams there are police now on top patrolling.
Evil Jin Posted September 25, 2003 Report Posted September 25, 2003 i had a joke but i forgot it so i just put its america
Recommended Posts