Nuclear Energy is not the answer to the social issue of our energy crisis.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Hmmm?

Sorry, didn't realize they were typos. I was trying to debate the efficacy of the technologies, not be a grammer nazi. Sausage fingers understood and accepted.

As for the duck, I hadn't heard the device referred to by that name, although I have heard of the concept. There's a better one out (IMO) being developed by a company in the Netherlands. In 2016 they were starting construction on a 500 MW prototype. The concept is it works like a small floating island with a reservoir atop it; think of a raised bowl. The skirt surrounding it is mathematically designed to cause waves to break to maximum height and fill the reservoir. The water is then released through the center of the unit back to the ocean through a standard water turbine generator.

They had the mathematics complete, but were struggling with the main power lines connecting it. Salt water is not exactly conductor-friendly, and there is also the issue of storms that can place heavy physical requirements on the connection.

I'll try to find a link to it... haven't heard much about it in a few years now, but I actually did a report on the technology in college. It appeared sound to me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey I was not offended, I type like a drunk man.

a reply to: scrounger

no "lack of funding" isnt the problem

its that what your funding isnt panning out or as cheap/efficient/ low carbon footprint /ect as you claim

Yeah, that about sums it up.

There seems to be a growing number of people, even in engineering circles, who think that anything is possible given enough money. It simply does not work like that. Physics places limits on what we can accomplish, and physics cannot be bought or bribed. We can find ways around some limitations, but more often than not these major breakthroughs come about by accident... and one cannot plan accidents.

I started in this thread because I read the OP and saw nothing about what could be used to replace nuclear power. Absolutely noting. As it stands right now, we are already in a slight energy crunch; lack of potential power is slowing technological expansion in many areas and California has already experienced planned rolling blackouts. The vast bulk of our energy capacity is via fossil fuel production, with nuclear coming in a distant second. Fossil fuel plants are now all but impossible to get commissioned because of some big scare over a harmless gas, so nuclear has become the political football.

Fukushima didn't help matters. That was literally a comedy of errors, showcasing what happens when someone who has no clue what they are talking about (like the OP) is in charge of complex technology. Fukushima didn't melt down because it was a nuclear plant; it melted down because TEPCO let it melt down over selfish concerns and lack of comprehension of the consequences.

Geothermal has been mentioned. I like geothermal. Unfortunately, geothermal is more difficult to control than nuclear... the same unit that functions fine today can suddenly stop producing or literally melt itself in place over a tectonic shift... and that shift need not even be seismic. It can simply be a shift in subterranean magma flow.

I did design a unit for myself at one time, but never had the funds to build it. I have an exceptionally geothermal-friendly arrangement here: moderate temperatures combined with plenty of land area. The calculations showed it would work, quite well in fact, but the cost to construct a geothermal field for even a single home was prohibitive. So it was never built. That happens a lot. Projects can work, but simply cost too much to implement.

OP needs to grow up. I suspect he is quite young and has had no actual experience with power. More likely, he is upset that power bills are so high, and he reads these articles in the Internet that tell him what he wants to hear. Unfortunately, anyone can publish anything on the Internet, true or not.

TheRedneck

a reply to: LABTECH767

LOL, good! I also tend to come across as a little too much like Mr. Spock at times. Not my intention; I'm actually more like Scotty IRL.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you have any examples of this?

Geothermal has been mentioned. I like geothermal. Unfortunately, geothermal is more difficult to control than nuclear... the same unit that functions fine today can suddenly stop producing or literally melt itself in place over a tectonic shift... and that shift need not even be seismic. It can simply be a shift in subterranean magma flow.

a reply to: themightymerlin

What kind of examples do you want?

Geothermal heat is produced by the heating from underneath the ground, and is the same heat source that drives tectonics. This is pretty much a negligent concern when dealing with smaller units, like the one I designed; they handle lower temperatures at relatively shallow depths and typically are only used for heating. Larger and deeper units have been proposed to produce steam and thereby drive turbines, but these are so deep as to make consideration of tectonics a concern. I made the assumption these were the ones you were speaking of.

So far as I know, there are none of these deep units in actual operation yet (I could be wrong; correct me if so). All I have seen are proposals. Thus, I cannot link examples of something that is simply under consideration. I can only summarize the information I have. If memory serves, the last proposal I looked at was a report in IEEE... those are behind a firewall unless you have University access or are a member.

Speaking of heating, we now have commercially available geothermal heat pumps, which use underground water reserves as a heat source. They are quite efficient and a great idea if one already has a well on their property. They do not conserve much energy during temperate times, but when the temperature gets very hot or close to freezing, they really shine. I wish I had one; perhaps my next heat pump will be geothermal if my well is not too far from my house.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That dosen't sound right at all the temperatures measured.

Geothermal explained Geothermal power plants
Geothermal power plants require high-temperature (300°F to 700°F) hydrothermal resources that come from either dry steam wells or from hot water wells. People use these resources by drilling wells into the earth and then piping steam or hot water to the surface.

Something like 13 Chrome Steel has a melting point of 1400 recorded.

So I am sorry, but you just want me to be wrong for the sake of being wrong and that is also what is wrong about you and degrees.

a reply to: themightymerlin

Here again, you're confusing small units with industrial-sized units.

On a small scale, geothermal works and works well. The planet's crust acts like an insulator: atmospheric temperature above, planetary internal temperature below. Stay shallow and the temperature is fairly stable. My single residence heating design used a six-foot depth; geothermal heat pumps run down to around 100 feet; larger units for single industry have exceeded that. But that's simply not enough heat energy (not temperature; they are different) to handle a commercial power plant. To do that, one has to go much deeper and that brings up the issue of wide temperature fluctuations.

The internal temperature of the planet is much hotter than 700 degrees. It melts rock. It will melt pretty much any alloy put there.

It appears to me you have not yet grasped the quantitative aspects of commercial power production. That's nothing to be ashamed of; a lot of people haven't. I can use a few solar cells and a battery, and power a trail cam just fine. I can set up a WiFi extender in the middle of nowhere. I can even set up some nighttime lighting. But I cannot power my house without some form of backup and I can certainly not power a city. The commercial solar plants you hear so much about are actually natural gas plants with a solar farm on the front end. Yeah, it's a little more efficient when the sun is shining, but the cost, which is typically masked by heavy government subsidies, is prohibitive.

It's the same with any technology. Scalability is a thing. A stream can power a generator, but it takes a river to power a city and there are a lot less rivers than there are streams. Fossil fuels and nuclear are both scalable and controllable... we can make plants large enough to provide a few gigawatts (a few billion watts) of continuous power, and we can control how much power they provide by controlling how much fuel they are given. Geothermal is also scalable, but the controllability, for now at least, is an issue at the upper end of scalability.

Look, you can scoff at my degrees all you want. It changes nothing. No one without those degrees is going to build a power plant of any kind... a good thing IMO, because anything that produces that much power is inherently dangerous if improperly designed. Without people like me, you would be sitting in the dark playing Parcheesi, not enjoying electric lights, Internet, and controlled temperatures. It's those degrees that allow people llike me to give you all those advantages of modern life. So you can go on and talk smack about how being an engineer means nothing, but remember that nothing will ever get done if not for engineers.

I'll also say this: sitting in my shop and office, right now, are several projects partly completed that would greatly benefit mankind if they were completed. Why aren't they completed? Because some days, when I hear too many comments like yours, I just don't care to mess with them. Why should I? If I were to develop a way for the whole world to have unlimited energy without causing any changes to the ecology, someone, like you, would still talk their smack. Most people would just take what I have given and use it to disrespect me. So why bother?

Don't worry; those days when I feel that way are in the minority... but it does mean I don't work on stuff as hard as I could. Most engineers I know feel that way... and that is why you never hear most of them talking about their work like I do. They don't want to be around those who disrespect them, and they aren't going to bust their butts for people who disrespect them. We tend to keep to ourselves then talking "shop." So you aren't getting the real picture of what's really going on in research, and you never will with your attitude.

Take that advice and ignore it to your heart's desire.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Naw that's bs, I don't have all the answers but I know it when I have seen it. We have material capabilities to send units to the sun. We just ain't trying because there is no investment in it.

a reply to: themightymerlin

Naw that's bs

Yep. You have all the answers. So why haven't you done anything about it?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Take that advice and ignore it to your heart's desire.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I have been. Training hard and practicing things like permaculture because people won't even listen to a little girl far smarter than I even who controversy or not just wants what we all want most, a safe family.

I am just another pos, a particularly bad one too. That doesn't mean I don't have a conscious will that wants no real endeavor here it just means I have an aggravated sense of belonging because I've studied the world regardless of my character.

a reply to: themightymerlin

I have been.

Care to share? I'd love to see your own work concerning an alternative to nuclear power.

How much permaculture do you maintain? I maintain 16 acres of it, with another 24 possibly to be added in the future.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, you boomers dug this hole for themselves. I do me, I just wanted to talk about this #.

a reply to: themightymerlin

Ummm... I'm not a boomer. I came along just after the boomers, so by the time I needed something, it was used up.

Apparently you do not have any idea who you are talking to... or what you are talking about.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What was used up?

I do not.

a reply to: themightymerlin

I thought you had all the answers.

NM, no sense carrying on a conversation about nothing. Thanks for the diversion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Good, now I know how to shut up ignorance.