Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

Fission/Fusion reactors are likely to be the wave of the future, though. Fuse hydrogen into something heavier, then break it apart to make hydrogen.

You lose more energy breaking Helium into Hydrogen than you gain from fusing Hydrogen into Helium.

[G-Flex]

Yes, Zombie's explanation defies the laws of thermodynamics.

You can't break X into Y, then fuse Y back into X again and get a net increase of anything. That would enable you to create a perpetual motion machine (or free energy device; same principles), and that's just plain impossible.

You gain energy fusing hydrogen into helium, and it takes at least as much energy to break that helium up into hydrogen again. One is just the reverse of the other.

[Virex]

On the other hand, the amount of energy present in the hydrogen of a glass of watter is so tremendous that we're not likely to run out before we blow ourselves to kingdom come...

[kuro_suna]

Modern Nuclear plants produce almost no waste, and I think the fifth generation can even use the waste from the older plants. (Have to reread that article.) The older ones don't produce that much waste compared to other plants type (well cept for green ones.)

This is only half true, a lot of modern reactors have been designed to burn fuel made from reprocessed waste but the reprocessing itself hasn't worked out very well in practice. As far as I know their aren't any waste reprocessing plants working on a industrial scale yet.

[MrWiggles]

Its been a bit since I read the article.  Thank you for clarification.

[kuro_suna]

I remember a article from a few years back about trying to store thousands of tonnes of plutonium from japan's reactors thats waiting to be reprocessed in plants that don't work yet.

EDIT:
In short fission reactors with thorium fuel breeding and waste reprocess are a viable long term energy solution but at the moment only marginally more technologically feasible than fusion power.

[sneakey pete]

In which case check out the polywell project they claim the 100mw net gain reactor will be running 2012. Although getting information out of them appears to be like drawing blood from a stone due to the US Navy contract. However the project was run by Dr Buzzard (until he died) who had a good reputation so I'm hopeful it's not all just outright lies

Belive it when you see it, no sooner.

Regards to the setup time of a nuclear reactor, i've heard recently that in some european countr (italy i think) they're planning to build some much quicker, 10-15 years instead of 20.

[Zombie]

Yes, Zombie's explanation defies the laws of thermodynamics.

You can't break X into Y, then fuse Y back into X again and get a net increase of anything. That would enable you to create a perpetual motion machine (or free energy device; same principles), and that's just plain impossible.

You gain energy fusing hydrogen into helium, and it takes at least as much energy to break that helium up into hydrogen again. One is just the reverse of the other.

My explanation was a silly bit of sarcasm as everyone likes to geek over fusion and whatnot. I really think we'd be better off making a dyson sphere around the sun than perfecting a fusion reaction. It'd likely be easier and less likely to blow up. I mean, we still don't have flying cars.

Of course, now I am obligated to correct you. Thermodynamics? Theory. There are no concrete laws in physics. They are called laws, but that is wrong. We just haven't found a way to make things more complicated yet. Well, we could just use the word "quantum" in there a bunch of times, but people are starting to catch on to that.

[G-Flex]

Of course, now I am obligated to correct you. Thermodynamics? Theory. There are no concrete laws in physics. They are called laws, but that is wrong. We just haven't found a way to make things more complicated yet. Well, we could just use the word "quantum" in there a bunch of times, but people are starting to catch on to that.

Dear god, are you seriously disputing the idea that you can't make a magical free energy device? Please, we don't need to add fuel to the "LOOK YOU CAN MAKE HYDROGEN POWER IN YOUR CAR" fire that people try to set in order to make money off of the uneducated.

And yes, it's theory. Everything is theory. You might as well say that I'm wrong if I state any arbitrary, obvious scientific knowledge.

There is absolutely no constructive reason to say "Well, it's falsifiable, being science, so it might hypothetically be wrong, so don't say it's right!" - that applies to all scientific ideas ever conceived.

[Zombie]

Of course, now I am obligated to correct you. Thermodynamics? Theory. There are no concrete laws in physics. They are called laws, but that is wrong. We just haven't found a way to make things more complicated yet. Well, we could just use the word "quantum" in there a bunch of times, but people are starting to catch on to that.

Dear god, are you seriously disputing the idea that you can't make a magical free energy device? Please, we don't need to add fuel to the "LOOK YOU CAN MAKE HYDROGEN POWER IN YOUR CAR" fire that people try to set in order to make money off of the uneducated.

And yes, it's theory. Everything is theory. You might as well say that I'm wrong if I state any arbitrary, obvious scientific knowledge.

There is absolutely no constructive reason to say "Well, it's falsifiable, being science, so it might hypothetically be wrong, so don't say it's right!" - that applies to all scientific ideas ever conceived.

There is no need to be an ass. I wasn't suggesting "magical free energy" or whatever words you choose to type on my behalf. The reason I stated it was theory is because it is. Theory is not law. We are not sure if there ARE any laws to physics. Who knows? Not me.

With science, a lot is uncertain. Haha, see what I did there? Uncertain...? ... *sigh* I feel dorky now.

Anyway, there is no need to fly off the handle simply because I have a pet peeve about any "laws" of science. There's too much to test and attempt to refute out there to say anything is certain. My statements are purely out of a love for science and a desire to see everything contested as much as possible so we can see cool new things happen. I mean, how awesome would the scientist be that successfully challenges thermodynamic theory? Really awesome, that's how awesome.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I'm aware that it's great to keep in mind that scientific ideas are falsifiable and should continue to be tested, but I feel like it's also rather naive to use that as an excuse for either defending things we know don't work (like the kinds of things banner ads will try to sell you to improve gas mileage on your car using water, or pretty much any other perpetual-motion/greater-than-100%-efficiency/free-energy things anybody has come up with) or to cast unnecessary/misplaced doubt on currently accepted and verified theory. In other words, it's just not that constructive to talk about without adding eighty pounds of disclaimer on top so that people don't get the wrong idea.

[Pwnzerfaust]

The problem really is getting a self-sustaining fusion reaction that generates more energy out than energy put into it. Figure that out, and we're set for well beyond the lifetime of the sun.

It's possible to do it already, but there are technical limitations which prevent it from being commercialized at present. One experiment which shows promise is the National Ignition Facility in California. It shoots a couple hundred lasers at a hydrogen pellet, raising its temperature to levels normally seen only in the cores of stars. The problem, however, is maintaining the lasers. As you may guess, such powerful lasers generate a lot of heat, and that damages the lasers themselves, and the lenses and mirrors that focus and reflect them. So the problem now is (1) figuring out how to reduce wear and tear and (2) making it possible to shoot the lasers dozens of times an hour in order to put out constant energy.

[Zombie]

I never mentioned anything about magical gas creation. I didn't mention anything of the kind, except in jest. I already stated my fusion/fission comment was a misinterpreted bit of sarcasm brought on by the mention of fusion as a hyper-efficient form of power. Fusion seems to only prevail in that hydrogen is far more abundant than various radioactive isotopes. As it is, we can't even fuse things properly and 'cold' fusion seems to be going the way of the flying car. Being doubtful of accepted scientific theory is how we learn new things. If someone didn't think to argue against all black holes functioning as gravitational anomalies that crush everything into an infinitely dense core, then why would we research them? Science is one big discussion where everyone is trying to find out the coolest stuff ever. Previous research and accepted theories make good starting points for advancement.

I never defended a crazed statement, one that was never made, about perpetual energy. Please don't make me seem like an idiot who doesn't understand the basic prevailing theories of the universe. It really isn't very nice and is kind of hurtful.

I mean, while perpetual energy is theoretically possible, it would simply be a system with 100% energy efficiency that produces its own reactants. Everything produced would be used and there would be no loss. As such, it would be completely useless for power as that would require removing energy from the system. I mean, all perpetual energy would be useful for would be as a desk lamp or something. Maybe a really weird desk object for some bigshot CEO. Of course, we'd have to stick a lightbulb in it so we could see what was going on as it would need to vent NO energy at all... maybe it could be a mystery opaque box labeled "perpetual" or something humorous. Wouldn't be useful, except maybe as a paperweight.

[Pwnzerfaust]

I mean, while perpetual energy is theoretically possible, it would simply be a system with 100% energy efficiency that produces its own reactants. Everything produced would be used and there would be no loss. As such, it would be completely useless for power as that would require removing energy from the system. I mean, all perpetual energy would be useful for would be as a desk lamp or something. Maybe a really weird desk object for some bigshot CEO. Of course, we'd have to stick a lightbulb in it so we could see what was going on as it would need to vent NO energy at all... maybe it could be a mystery opaque box labeled "perpetual" or something humorous. Wouldn't be useful, except maybe as a paperweight.

Even a desklamp wouldn't work. What do you think light is? Photons emitted by heated substances. How are they heated? Electrical current. The very act of producing light causes a loss in energy in the system. So there needs to be a continuous input into the system, as from the electrical system of the house, which in turn gets it from the wider electrical grid, which in turn gets it from the power plants, which in turn get it from the burning of fossil fuels.

[G-Flex]

That, and 100% efficiency isn't even reachable in ideal circumstances sometimes. The ideal efficiency of a heat engine, for instance, is necessarily lower.