Best Alternative Power System

I agree. Bad analogy. I was just trying to show that sophisticated equipment cost a lot more than simple equipment. I.e. the capital cost of superconducting magnet coils, large, very good, vacuum systems, etc. are always going to be much greater than a coal burning furnace which is basically made of bricks. This combinded with fact that most of the cost of electric power is capital cost, even zero cost fuel as in case of hydroelectric power, makes only about a 10% reduction in generation cost. This s why I fear fusion power may not commpete economically with coal for about 300 years, even if it can be made to work. (Society can, as it often does, decide to force fusion genertion by tax laws on coal's health cost etc., but be prepared to pay for those vaccum systems, superconducting magnets etc. - I bet elecrtic power by fusion will cost at lest three times coal generation, but with more emphase on efficient use etc. we can probably pay for it without collapse of the economy, but free fusion fuel / pwoer will not be cheap.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what if fusion reactors were operated in space? eliminate the need for a vacuum pump.

make them pretty large too, if that being a limiting factor in the future

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agee nuclear is best if we can trust our leaders to take reasonable precautions. As Cherinoble illustrates sloppy work has very severe downside.
At present solar and wind power costs two or three times electric from foscil fuels, even more in less than perfect conditions. With large Government subsidies, and special needs of the user (such as independence from the Power Co) make either practical to supply perhaps 1/10% of the world's power needs. If we can find 999 technologies about as good as solar and wind, we can stop using focil fuel. Most of the other possibilities, become impractical at a few millionth part of the world's energy needs such as turkey waste to make oil, and powering your car on waste fat from fast food resturants. There isn't enough available to put more than a tiny dent in the world's energy needs. Neil

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with the last three sentences. We likely can get a few gigawatt hours daily from Yellowstone and vicinity with only moderate reduction as a tourest attraction.
This energy can fill in the gaps in solar wind and water power, so we should begin quickly before the Super Volcano blows. Neil

 

You got to be kidding! Just putting their mass of bricks there would be much more expensive than gold plated pumps on earth. How would you get the power down to where it is needed?

 

yeah, even if you could put a weight of about twice that of a fully loaded 747 into space, there is no good way of getting fuel back to earth... and absolutely no way to make it economical.

so maybe we should be asking "how can we make coal safer/healthier, without making the price of energy go up too much." what do they currently use to filter coal smoke? maybe they could use a magnetic field to filter out some of the more dangerous particles (like a mass spectrometer).

 

Cover the moon in solar panels , then transmit the collected energy in the form of Infra red , or some other type of radiation , which is picked up on earth at receiver stations and transformed back into electrical energy, with the accuracy of modern transmiters we wont need to worry about a huge ray of infra red going off target and burning a ditch through a neer by neighbourhood.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would not take the risk, besides, it seems like some of the energy would be lost in the atmosphere. Moreover, like has been said before, the capital cost of a power production system adds more to the cost of energy than anything else. Putting huge solar arrays on the moon would be far more expensive than investing in terrestrial power systems (nuclear).

 

Thats true but the moon idea makes us look cool to aliens. Besides so much energy would be absorbed that losses in the atmosphere would not matter. as for price of energy , it would be expensive at the start but once set up it would rock... since its a world wide project , we have plenty of money to make it.

I would generaly agree about noclear energy , but there is too much waste created with that energy source.

We can always agree on hamster power though?

 

I disagree; I think that the waste of fission reactors is well worth the benefits they give. It takes so little effort to get rid of it, that it is not really a problem.

my idea is, although it would take a huge investment, is to build many gigantic fission facilities where the fuel can safely, and permanently be stored. from these huge facilities produce hydrogen (or some other liquid fuel) and have it piped throughout to the distant parts of the country, for both electricity and automobiles. On a local scale, the plant would produce the electricity directly.

 

Dig stuff out of a uranium mine and jam back your waste when you are done.

 

what is the difference between a hole in one part of that ground and a hole in another? the problem is that myopic "greens" don’t want the stuff around at all. that’s why I propose a permanent disposal site on the same grounds as the reactor. since it has to be stored somewhere, just avoid transporting it.

 

The ecowackies would have a tizzy fit, but there's value in your suggestion. "The Solution to Polution is Dilution" We got the uranium by concentrating natural levels from the environment until they were useful to us. If we returned the spent nuclear waste to the same place that we mined it from, it would have a lower radiation level than it originally had because we had used some of it for power generation.

 

I assume you are talking about bouncing the suns's radiation on the moon and somehow directing the reflection towards Earth. Hope we always have a full moon. Good idea though.

 

"fusion power may not commpete economically with coal for about 300 years"
----------
Why 300 years?
Are you considering that the advancement of technology is telescopic?

 

Humans hoping for fusion to work in the near future is absolutely stupid. Expecially cold fusion. So we should choose nuclear or renewable source of energy. Burning coal is no good.

 

Not especially. Just recall having read that mankind has about 300 years left of cheap coal under some set of assumption about population growth, economics of extraction etc. Pick any number you like beyond your life expectancy.

 

How will you ward of life in the distant future from diging up the remains of all that waste? since it will stay radioactive for another 50 000 years...

 

Someone knows nothing about radioactive materials I take it.. the uranium you take from the ground is activated and then used in reactors, what you put back is purer and more active than what you took. (im not talking about DU) , the uranium ore if defused by natural effects will have almost no effect on people , however activated metals from reactors if diffused into a living environment have a much greater effect.

 

What do you mean by activating uranium?