[Cheiron]

The world is desperate for energy. What about nuclear energy, what is status on that? So... as the curious guy I am I trawled around a bit.

On June 25th, 2006 the swedish nuclear plant Forsmark was very close to a really big disaster, due to a freak shortcut that nobody had thought could happen. 2 of the cooling systems + backups blocked and the reactor cooling water fell to half level before they, mainly due to some extraordinary effort of ingenuity managed to control it all again.

Today, however, nuclear energy research is expanding rapidly. So what is happening?

Fission

Fission is the current nuclear energy technique. You need Uranium and split the molecules thereby releasing vast amounts of energy. Problem is the waste and the danger of radiation. It takes 100.000 years to make the waste harmless.
Currently there are 442 nuclear fission plants in the world. 75% of France is powered by nuclear energy, thereby making it the most nuclear powered nation in the world. With current technology we have about 100 years of uranium left. Within 20 years it is expected that there will be 250 new reactors worldwide... and in 2050 maybe 1000 more (as expected mostly in Asia).

However especially in France, they are experimenting with a 4th generation reactor ("the fast reactor") The neat thing is that this type is using Sodium for cooling and the net result is that the radioactive waste is reduced to 500 years of containment instead of 100.000 years.... it kinda "burns" the waste in some way. ( I am not a technician so don't ask.. lol) It can also recycle old waste from former reactors thereby helping to get rid of the dangerous stuff much faster and get more energy from it. Also, the uranium ressources should then last several thousand years using this technology.

In Finland they are trying out their EPR reactor that has a bassin at bottom that should prevent meltdowns like Chernobyl.

But ... fission is still dangerous as hell, even if they say that safety is getting much better... what about alternatives?

Fusion

Fusion is the opposite of fission. Basically you take 2 Hydrogen molecules and heat them to 150.000 degrees centigrades, and they wil form Helium, and release a lot of energy. The problem is the high energy level needed to form "plasma" where all electrons and protons etc are free floating. Basically what you make is a small sun, it is exactly same process inside the sun. The only way to control it so far is with very strong magnetic fields.

The worlds most expensive program today is ISS (international space station)... what is the second most expensive? ....
I can hear readers pondering this question ....

well it is "ITER" http://www.iter.org/ A joint program between USA, EU, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea to make the first fusion reactor.

It is very experimental still, so following stuff is only qualified predictions.

The english test version failed, but a new one is currently being built in southern France and should be productive in 2016, they expect that it will deliver 10 times the amount of energy it takes to get it going... and they prospect clean and plentiful energy around 2050.

1 liter of water = 300 liter of oil, plus it can produce Hydrogen for future cars.
No meltdown risc, if it gets too hot in core, it will cool down on it's own when getting in contact with surroundings.
There IS radioactive waste, but it is said that the containment period is reduced to 50 years. The waste is made up of more low level radioactive isotopes.

A scientist claims that if we have 10 billion people on planet with energy consumtion as today in rich countries like Norway or Denmark, we will have up to 5 billion years of energy ressources from this technology... but as he laconically points out... in 5 billion years, the Sun will blow up and the earth will be swallowed up anyway... so

Well that is what I could gather of instant info, and I find it interesting, I hope you do too.
_________________
Cheiron
______________________________
"Any scientist with respect for himself should start
the day by rejecting his own pet hypotheses".
(Konrad Lorenz)

"Wir müssen wissen
Wir werden wissen"
(David Hilbert)

[Studio 12]

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells. There seems to be a few manufactures out there that have the technology and are perfecting it. When I think about how flexible it is to use this stuff it makes me think it can reduce to need of huge power plants, maybe drastically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLSARSw2JUQ

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Google " Spray-On Solar-Power Cells " to see some others that are doing similar stuff
_________________
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

[Studio 12]

oh by the way there is also Helium-3. It is very rare to find it on the earth. It is s a light, non-radioactive isotope. The sun produces tons of it and projects it out into space. It can not make it through our atmosphere. Just so happens the moon it laced with it.

This stuff is very powerful and very safe. A small vial can power a city for a month. A full space shuttle payload could power the US for a year.

Basically you can harvest it with a magnifying glass and capture the vapors and you good to go. Where the moon has no atmosphere to speak of, magnifying glasses can get up to 2500 degree very easily of which I believe you only need 1500 to harvest the H3.

Different government are slated to give this a whirl in 2020 or later. I myself think that the whole H3 thing rocks. But the idea of strip-mining the moon ? Well I'm not so keen on that part.

Goggle " Helium-3 " to read up more on it.
_________________
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

[Cheiron]

Very interesting indeed yes. In fact nanotechnology is one of the most fascinating things ever.

H3 is new to me.... but about stripmining the moon... um ... yeah well... don't take too much cause we don't want the moon to lose too much weight do we?? hehe
_________________
Cheiron
______________________________
"Any scientist with respect for himself should start
the day by rejecting his own pet hypotheses".
(Konrad Lorenz)

"Wir müssen wissen
Wir werden wissen"
(David Hilbert)

[Cheiron]

A little addendum for those interested.

Aha, H3 is actually the stuff space nations are starting to battle for the moon about.

A group of danish scientists have deviced a way to slingshot vehicles into space, There is the scramjet project too, so those are the two projects that looks promising for devicing an economical way to go back and forth to the moon. Other project is the space elevator, but I haven't checked up on the development of carbon nano fibers, that scientists thinks are the way to make material strong enough to make it.

The idea is to make permanent mining bases on the moon, and both USA, Russia and China are working on that.

Anyways, if we can bring H3 to earth, it craves we put it into a...yes, fusion reactor, and that is where ITER comes in. Currently it is designed for Hydrogen isoptopes as I mentioned in previous post, but Helium 3 would make a lot of more energy as fuel. The secret behind it all is that little formula that Einstein cooked up: E = m x c(squared). What does that formula say?... well... since c is the speed of light (300.000 km/s) and squared is a very big number just a slight decrease in mass will create a lot of energy, and that is exactly what can be achieved with H3 and a fusion reactor. The scientists are so optimistic that they gather three busstops at the moon a year will fuel the earth for a year, and there is enough for 10.000 years...oh well, I think it is great, but with knowing a bit about gravitational pull and equilibrium of systems... again: don't take too much of the moon please.

PS: btw... shouldn't it be rightly called He3 or have I missed out on something in chemistry class?
_________________
Cheiron
______________________________
"Any scientist with respect for himself should start
the day by rejecting his own pet hypotheses".
(Konrad Lorenz)

"Wir müssen wissen
Wir werden wissen"
(David Hilbert)

[Studio 12]

I found these clips interesting to say the least.

In 2 of these videos you will see that folks are claiming that they have invented devices that put out more energy than it takes to run them. Scientist have always said this is impossible.

I suppose there is some way to find out but well there is only so much time I can spend surf'n and such. But if these people are factual in their claims I would think they could use this stuff to make power plants.

I also put in a clip link about folks messing around with HHO. Basically an on demand hydrogen oxygen generator. Where it is not pressurized it makes it a whole lot safer to use the stuff.

There are a lot of you tubes of people messing with HHO in there garages. Do a search for HHO in you tube and you'll find tons.

Would be nice to see some companies pick up on this stuff and put it to work on a large scale.

Water Hammering
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw&feature=related

Zero Point Energy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M&feature=related

HHO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AonkgeeCUE&feature=related
_________________
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

[Cheiron]

hmmm... interesting, but according to my college training in physics the total energy in the universe is constant, which means you can't create energy out of nothing. I have forgotten the physics reasoning behind it though... heh

Btw... what is earth's biggest ocean? Think carefully now

Clue: it has something to do with this thread
_________________
Cheiron
______________________________
"Any scientist with respect for himself should start
the day by rejecting his own pet hypotheses".
(Konrad Lorenz)

"Wir müssen wissen
Wir werden wissen"
(David Hilbert)

[Jade]

[Jade]

[Scotsman]

Think you mean the arctic ocean. The antarctic has a landmass under all that ice.

Zero point energy or vacuum energy was first postulated by Einstein as the background energy in the vacuum of space.

[Jade]

[Jade]

Another stab in the dark here coz its bugging me,
Greenland. ok ok most of that is frozen too but......if it was not ?????
it all depends on your definition of the word "ocean"e.g.A great expanse or amount: "that ocean of land which is Russia" Henry A. Kissinger.
go on carry on laughing
Jade

[Jade]

another thing i DO know for sure is we will all be kicking ourselves when he does let us know.
i'm out of unless i add Iceland to the rest
Jade

[Cheiron]

Don't trust Kissinger, Jade ...he is the patron saint of cement mixers.

Still waiting....
_________________
Cheiron
______________________________
"Any scientist with respect for himself should start
the day by rejecting his own pet hypotheses".
(Konrad Lorenz)

"Wir müssen wissen
Wir werden wissen"
(David Hilbert)

[Studio 12]

That would have to be the ocean of dreams that global economy will recover any time soon.

But for realzies I would have to say that it would be the World Ocean. I suppose to tie it in to this thread you could call it the Global Ocean.
_________________
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.