100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Science for a Green World | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Heat is not waste in a steam turbine nuclear reactor, and it was not heat that caused the problem at Chernobyl it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction which of course led to run away reaction, which of course generates TONS of heat which was what was the destructive element in this disaster, but not the cause of the disaster. Heat in a steam turbine nuclear reaction IS the source of power. The heat generates steam which we use in turbine engines to generate electricity. A properly functioning steam turbine nuclear reactor does its very best it can to loose no heat. The heat is what powers the turbine, the less lost, the more power. Ignorance is not a good reason to not use our safest cleanest energy source. Nuclear waste has many applications including medical, engineering, and many times can be fuel for other processes. The main problem is that we are not funding research the way we should due to half baked arguments like these. '...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Solar cells work pretty well but don't work at night. They absorb solar energy and cool our planet a little by turning the Sun's energy into electricity.
Here is an idea. The US government could build a nice big production plant to make silicon solar cells. (jobs) In the process the plant could develop and produce massive amounts of solar cells. ( jobs and research) All of the production of the solar cells could be used to make roofing shingles for government buildings (more jobs, manufacturing technology, reduced energy consumption, new technology, reduced CO2 production). Gradually convert every government facility to self sufficient energy consumption reducing the need for coal power and power distribution. (better power infrastructure) Develop standards for installation of solar products which do not now exist. ( The government has already done this in many other areas of construction) None of this would hurt the private market except for the sale of common roofing singles to the US government. The US Navy already operates more nuclear power plants than anyone else in the world. The operation of a silicon solar cell plant would remove it from market economics and let it do it's job. As the risks and technology played out, free market forces could allow others to do the same thing for the private market. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like a brilliant idea actually Metalwing. You should submit this idea to President Obama. Perhaps he would take it in consideration and create some programs. One doesn't know until one tries.
I mean what are the chances he reads your letter right. I heard he gets 20,000 letters per day, but if anything it might work if you put it in as urgent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Wed 07/29/09 09:37 AM
|
|
Heat is not waste in a steam turbine nuclear reactor, and it was not heat that caused the problem at Chernobyl it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction which of course led to run away reaction, which of course generates TONS of heat which was what was the destructive element in this disaster, but not the cause of the disaster. Heat in a steam turbine nuclear reaction IS the source of power. The heat generates steam which we use in turbine engines to generate electricity. A properly functioning steam turbine nuclear reactor does its very best it can to loose no heat. The heat is what powers the turbine, the less lost, the more power. Ignorance is not a good reason to not use our safest cleanest energy source. Nuclear waste has many applications including medical, engineering, and many times can be fuel for other processes. The main problem is that we are not funding research the way we should due to half baked arguments like these. '...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant. I remember the time Chenorbyl was on the news every single day. I was living in Austria and we weren't allowed to go outside basking in the sun. Some food restrictions applied and everyone was paranoid also. Not a great time when that plant exploded or leaked its radiations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant.  This still does not support the idea that heat waste from nuclear power plants would increase in any way the atmospheric temperature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant. This still does not support the idea that heat waste from nuclear power plants would increase in any way the atmospheric temperature. Would depend on how many reactors you built. It really does not matter anyway... By the time you get them built the earth will be in a cooling trend... Storing water in solid form on the surface. Might need the reactors just to stay alive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant. This still does not support the idea that heat waste from nuclear power plants would increase in any way the atmospheric temperature. Would depend on how many reactors you built. It really does not matter anyway... By the time you get them built the earth will be in a cooling trend... Storing water in solid form on the surface. Might need the reactors just to stay alive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'...it was the lead rods not properly engaging to stifle the reaction...' The russians used graphite to cool the reactor instead of water. This was a huge mistake as the control rods could not be 'engaged' properly to dampen the reaction because the graphite was not cooling it was burning (so to speak)... ergo heat did cause that disaster... Just not the way you thought I meant. This still does not support the idea that heat waste from nuclear power plants would increase in any way the atmospheric temperature. Would depend on how many reactors you built. It really does not matter anyway... By the time you get them built the earth will be in a cooling trend... Storing water in solid form on the surface. Might need the reactors just to stay alive. Heat sinks radiate their energy into the local environment. Water vapor WILL cause the atmospheric tempreture to rise... Check your text books. You build enough reactors dumping 'miscule amounts' of 'heat' into the rivers...(any hacker will tell you small numbers add up when applied over time). Rivers use the ocean and atmosphere as a heat-sink... Changes in but a few degrees in the atmosphere can adversely effect the weather world wide. So a short term gain is then worth the long term loss? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have checked my text books...but the problem is more complex then the atmosphere will heat up and stay that way. We both seem to be forgetting the rotation of the earth i.e. night and day. from radiation transport theory, you would lose huge amounts of heat during the night...and this heat ends up in the INFINITE heat sink: outer space. This happens every single day. If we shift the focus to geological records, it is shown that our current ambient temperature is quite lower then what it was in the past... "back then" it was several degrees Celsius higher and life FLOURISHED. Even during the Ice Age, life FLOURISHED. To accomplish the task you forsee will not happen in just a few years, it takes thousands. You will not wake up one day and see a new Ice Age outside your door or the entire planet as a desolate wasteland. And the cool thing about water vapor is that it likes to collect and condense and fall. This takes energy to accomplish, the energy can be supplied in the form of heat. I'm almost tempted to do some thermodynamics calculations to prove my points, maybe I will. Please verify my statements, I'm still just a student and I could be mistaken.
 I do enjoy these conversations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me explain some of this.
Nuclear reactors are cooled pretty much by water alone. There are water/water cooling systems and water/sodium cooling systems where liquid sodium is used to transport heat. The heat is caused by the radioactive material fissioning (spitting of the nucleus) which releases heat and free neutrons. The free neutrons split another nucleus to keep the reaction alive. All of the heat released under the water bath goes to heat the water. The water then goes into a standard steam turbine electric generator system. Coal is burned to heat water. Much of the heat goes into the water and much of it goes out the smokestack. The combustion process creates CO2 and water, as well as ash and sulfur compounds (some of which react with atmospheric water to make sulfuric acid which falls to the Earth as acid rain. Scrubbers are devices which capture as much of the soot and sulfur as possible before the combustion gasses leave the smokestack but reduce the efficiency of the the process. Scrubbers are not 100% effective and require much maintenance. Once the heated water enters the turbine, there is no difference between it and the power generation of a nuclear power plant. Therefore, nuclear power produces less waste heat than coal. Graphite rods are used to "moderate" or control the nuclear reaction, not cool the reactor. They do not remove heat. The graphite has an atom with a stable nucleus which can absorb neutrons easily and has a high melting point. Lead is great for shielding but unsuitable for use next to the reaction because lead has an extremely low melting point. When all the cooling water drained away at Chernobyl (due to operator error), there was nothing to remove the heat so the graphite rods (graphite is a form of carbon) simply caught on fire and burned at a very high temperature. As the moderators (control rods) burned up, more neutrons were free to split more atoms and the reaction raged out of control. There was so much heat produced that the nuclear fuel burned up too, and was sent into the atmosphere. This reaction is known as a "melt down". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting! Why isn't wind power more popular? Does it not provide enough energy? Is it too costly? Would it require too many wind power machines to make the same amount of energy as for example coal or a nuclear reactor?
How do they exactly work? When I was in Holland I would see them everywhere and smile thinking this is a brilliant way to create energy we need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me explain some of this. Nuclear reactors are cooled pretty much by water alone. There are water/water cooling systems and water/sodium cooling systems where liquid sodium is used to transport heat. The heat is caused by the radioactive material fissioning (spitting of the nucleus) which releases heat and free neutrons. The free neutrons split another nucleus to keep the reaction alive. All of the heat released under the water bath goes to heat the water. The water then goes into a standard steam turbine electric generator system. Coal is burned to heat water. Much of the heat goes into the water and much of it goes out the smokestack. The combustion process creates CO2 and water, as well as ash and sulfur compounds (some of which react with atmospheric water to make sulfuric acid which falls to the Earth as acid rain. Scrubbers are devices which capture as much of the soot and sulfur as possible before the combustion gasses leave the smokestack but reduce the efficiency of the the process. Scrubbers are not 100% effective and require much maintenance. Once the heated water enters the turbine, there is no difference between it and the power generation of a nuclear power plant. Therefore, nuclear power produces less waste heat than coal. Graphite rods are used to "moderate" or control the nuclear reaction, not cool the reactor. They do not remove heat. The graphite has an atom with a stable nucleus which can absorb neutrons easily and has a high melting point. Lead is great for shielding but unsuitable for use next to the reaction because lead has an extremely low melting point. When all the cooling water drained away at Chernobyl (due to operator error), there was nothing to remove the heat so the graphite rods (graphite is a form of carbon) simply caught on fire and burned at a very high temperature. As the moderators (control rods) burned up, more neutrons were free to split more atoms and the reaction raged out of control. There was so much heat produced that the nuclear fuel burned up too, and was sent into the atmosphere. This reaction is known as a "melt down". ah... but you see the russians used graphite 'powder' where some reactors use sodium. That powder is what started the uncontrolled reaction. It is a concept first introduced by the French(I believe) and is a very dangerous practice...  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jess642
on
Fri 07/31/09 04:58 PM
|
|
Please have a read.... http://www.powerboat-world.com/Earthrace,-worlds-fastest-and-coolest-boat-coming-to-NSW-south-coast/52776/arc
This amazing craft visited here, my home town, late last year.... and I was so flabbergasted.... This was when it was here..http://www.powerboat-world.com/Earthrace-is-coming-to-1770-on-Sat-13,-Sun-14-Dec/51755 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting! Why isn't wind power more popular? Does it not provide enough energy? Is it too costly? Would it require too many wind power machines to make the same amount of energy as for example coal or a nuclear reactor? How do they exactly work? When I was in Holland I would see them everywhere and smile thinking this is a brilliant way to create energy we need. It works rather well actually. There are wind farms in Texas and California and other areas. The use is spreading. The equipment is expensive but it requires no fuel. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some information on the French production of electricity.
In 2007 French electricity generation was 570 billion kWh gross, and consumption was about 447 billion kWh - 6800 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-80 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr, to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK. Imports are relatively trivial. France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there. Total generating capacity is 116 GWe, including 25 GWe hydro and 26 GWe fossil fuel. The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security. As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear energy is not a bad idea...
But there are many considerations. Fuel will become a major concern. It comes from the ground. When the mines run out... what will you do with all them useless generators? Gee... I reckon our civilization best get smart real quick. Everything we use for our existance (as we now know it)... IS A FINITE RESOURCE (within our world). |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
galendgirl
on
Sat 08/01/09 06:17 AM
|
|
Very interesting! Why isn't wind power more popular? Does it not provide enough energy? Is it too costly? Would it require too many wind power machines to make the same amount of energy as for example coal or a nuclear reactor? How do they exactly work? When I was in Holland I would see them everywhere and smile thinking this is a brilliant way to create energy we need. It works rather well actually. There are wind farms in Texas and California and other areas. The use is spreading. The equipment is expensive but it requires no fuel. The biggest issue for wind generated electricity from a company standpoint is the ability to capture and store it for use during times of peak customer use. A large "wind farm" in NM that I'm quite familiar with, for example, produces at it's peak during seasons that are NOT peak for demand. The energy goes straight to the transmission system at the time it's generated. It's a great alternative source, but the development and implementation of all the pieces necessary to make it a really viable replacement source of power have not happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nuclear energy is not a bad idea... But there are many considerations. Fuel will become a major concern. It comes from the ground. When the mines run out... what will you do with all them useless generators? Gee... I reckon our civilization best get smart real quick. Everything we use for our existance (as we now know it)... IS A FINITE RESOURCE (within our world). Here's an interesting tidbit: The U.S. does not practice fuel reprocessing, as I'm sure you know. When we process the raw fuel using centrifuge to extract U-235, we store the U-238 and the HexaFlouride, so named Uranium HexaFluoride. Did you know that the U.S. has enough UF6 to power our reactors for the next 700 years!!?? And where is this compound? Just laying around. If Uranium becomes depleted, Thorium istopes can be used as fuel or in a breeder reactor. We have been thinking about this....but we're not so smart as to use what we already have that is considered "waste". See ya! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The best source of electric power for the US would be a mix of several types. The use of coal is better than natural gas if it is cleaned up. Coal should be considered short term. Natural gas generation should stop asap. The natural gas could be better spent as an automotive fuel for now to reduce oil imports. As electric cars are phased in, natural gas use in cars and trucks could be phased out.
Solar cells only work when the sun shines so they have some large limitations. However, most energy use occurs when the sun shines so they could play an important part. Wind power works well .. when the wind is blowing. Sometimes it doesn't work at all just as sometimes the sun is covered by clouds. Geothermal works great but few areas have geothermal heat sinks. Areas that do should be developed. Wave power is a great idea but has not been developed. A large float bobbing up and down in the constant ocean waves could power much. Hydroelecric has pretty much been exhuasted as a NEW power source. Nuclear is the wave of the future. Breeder reactors produce more fuel than they consume and would provide power for generations. Fusion power? Maybe. We just never quite seem to get there. The technical challenges are huge and expensive. Maybe the new lineal reactors will work. Zero point energy? Way, way down the road. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be nice to create somekind of instrument that solar panels can be used when it sunshines and when it doesn't a wind panel is used instead. So what I am saying is a plant that can use both at the same time to create energy. Duel plant maybe we can call it.
I really don't like the idea that we use more and more of the resources of our planet to get what we need. Wind and Sun would be the best option for it doesn't destroy anything at all. Don't mind me. Just weird imaginative ideas coming out of my head. Who knows maybe something like this already exists.
|
|
|
|
|
