Nuclear vs Renewable

[supermik]

Incoming thicko questions here.

Given that we have loads of nuclear weapons, I would guess that they have all been paid for in some way or other. If we ever got round to disarmament would it be possible to, for want of a better phrase, be able to plug the weapons into a reactor and supply power from them until they become more or less depleted?

[Cream Cheese]

2 minutes ago, supermik said:

Incoming thicko questions here.

Given that we have loads of nuclear weapons, I would guess that they have all been paid for in some way or other. If we ever got round to disarmament would it be possible to, for want of a better phrase, be able to plug the weapons into a reactor and supply power from them until they become more or less depleted?

No. They can't be used that way. Nuclear warheads generate the force they do through a combination of fission and fusion. An energy which couldn't be maintained or regulated within a reactor.

[supermik]

Thanks for that. I often wondered if they could be used for power but guess not then.

[dorlomin]

On 28/07/2016 at 21:36, Granny Danger said:

Big business can't make the same amount of money out of nuclear.  

Source please. 

[dorlomin]

44 minutes ago, supermik said:

Incoming thicko questions here.

Given that we have loads of nuclear weapons, I would guess that they have all been paid for in some way or other. If we ever got round to disarmament would it be possible to, for want of a better phrase, be able to plug the weapons into a reactor and supply power from them until they become more or less depleted?

You are correct, decomissioned weapons are a major source of uranium at the moment. 

 

Russia’s Decommissioned Nuclear Bombs Provide 10% of U.S. Electricity

Quote

 

For the last two decades, the United States has been drawing about a tenth of its electrical power from an unlikely source: the uranium from 20,000 decommissioned Russian nuclear bombs. But today marks the end of this energy exchange era.

The arrangement with a former adversary may seem strange, especially since these are the very bombs that Americans once feared would be used against them. But on a practical level, the program, called Megatons to Megawatts, actually makes a lot of sense.

 

Weapon grade uranium is about 90% U235 while reactor grade uranium is from about 2-20% U235, this means the warheads uranium is blended down to form reactor fuel. This was done with the mass decommissioning from the 80s and 90s weapons stocks. 

From memory but I dont think you can use plutonium from decommissioned weapons as there are few plants that can burn it, but it could be done in theory (and in practice). 

[dorlomin]

On 29/07/2016 at 20:16, sophia said:

 

On 29/07/2016 at 11:01, thisal said:

I might be a bit naive here. But, why isn't there combined Hydro and wind farm. The problem they both have is they don't provide a reliable constant source. So why can't the excess energy produced when it's windy be used to pump water to high level reservoirs. 

The downside to this is that you lose a lot through the inefficiency of pumped storage and its expensive. Somewhat ironically the UKs first pump storage was to deal with the indeterminacy of nuclear. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

 

The friction of the water moving, the engines moving and the transmission lines lose energy when you are pumping up and releasing the water so its pretty inefficient. 

 

Its expensive because it takes huge amounts of concrete, transmission lines and and labour to produce, you are in effect building two power stations to do the job of one (the wind turbines and the pumped storage reservoir). However the economics work well in the longer term. Once an onshore wind farm in built, it can be run to recover construction costs, when they have been recovered it is pretty cheap. Fossil fuel power stations are cheaper to build to begin with but require relatively higher running costs. The economics are that you get a low rate of return on putting money into a wind farm without subsidies, if you stuck the money into a decent share portfolio it would pay back quicker. Given the extremely low borrowing costs of long dated government bonds it seems to me to be madness that we are not borrowing at the crazy rates of something like 0.78% pa for 10 year gilts and using the money to build long term infrastructure projects that will continue to benefit us for decades like wind farms. 

[dorlomin]

On 29/07/2016 at 00:35, hellbhoy said:

Cold Fusion & free energy. Might look like a pipe dream at the moment but might grow some legs in the future. Both have the potential to produce plenty of cheap energy.

[welshbairn]

13 hours ago, dorlomin said:

The downside to this is that you lose a lot through the inefficiency of pumped storage and its expensive. Somewhat ironically the UKs first pump storage was to deal with the indeterminacy of nuclear. 

 

 

It was to deal with the constant rate of supply rather than indeterminacy. Store the energy produced during off peak times to boost supply in peak times. 

[thisal]

13 hours ago, dorlomin said:

The downside to this is that you lose a lot through the inefficiency of pumped storage and its expensive. Somewhat ironically the UKs first pump storage was to deal with the indeterminacy of nuclear. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

 

The friction of the water moving, the engines moving and the transmission lines lose energy when you are pumping up and releasing the water so its pretty inefficient. 

 

Its expensive because it takes huge amounts of concrete, transmission lines and and labour to produce, you are in effect building two power stations to do the job of one (the wind turbines and the pumped storage reservoir). However the economics work well in the longer term. Once an onshore wind farm in built, it can be run to recover construction costs, when they have been recovered it is pretty cheap. Fossil fuel power stations are cheaper to build to begin with but require relatively higher running costs. The economics are that you get a low rate of return on putting money into a wind farm without subsidies, if you stuck the money into a decent share portfolio it would pay back quicker. Given the extremely low borrowing costs of long dated government bonds it seems to me to be madness that we are not borrowing at the crazy rates of something like 0.78% pa for 10 year gilts and using the money to build long term infrastructure projects that will continue to benefit us for decades like wind farms. 

As the the energy source is free and the pump would only need to be operational when the wind turbines are producing excess energy, then surely the efficiency of water pumps is less of an issue. And having the 2 side by side or even wind turbines in the reservoir itself would cut down on the environmental impact of 2 separate power stations, plus reduce transmission lines.

[hellbhoy]

19 hours ago, dorlomin said:

Yeah, put a dumb smiley like I'm barking at the wind. It was thought impossible that there could be loads of energy produced by nuclear fusion. I may have posted what you call science fiction but then again so was nuclear fission not that long ago.

As for free energy?, do not rule it out yet as there are generators on the market that produce free energy, expensive but they do produce energy, not as much as needed because there isn't a way to keep up the current. When more power is needed that is where it fails because it can only produce so much energy before power failure is imminent.

[dorlomin]

5 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

Yeah, put a dumb smiley like I'm barking at the wind.

Indeed.

 

Quote

It was thought impossible that there could be loads of energy produced by nuclear fusion.

I seem to have skipped this chapter in my physics text books. In the 20s Eddington identified the proposed fusion as a source for the energy of the stars, fusion was in effect invented to explain the energy of the stars. Nutrons were only discovered in 1932 thereby showing in part how fusion happened. We were thinking about the energy release before we really understood fusion was a thing. 

 

Quote

I may have posted what you call science fiction but then again so was nuclear fission not that long ago.

Fission was only vaguely hinted at from about 1911, the process was not really imagined as we had not discovered the neutron. Chadwick discovered the neutron in 32, the same year Oliphant induced the first deliberate artificial fission, in 38 Mienter, Strassman and Hahn were able to produce the basics of a self sustaining fission reaction and it was a couple of years till the first reactor pile in 42, bomb in 45 and the first "for energy" reactor was up and running in 1951. There was very little time between the discovery of fission and its application for science fiction. 

Quote

As for free energy?, do not rule it out yet as there are generators on the market that produce free energy, expensive but they do produce energy,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

No such thing. 

[hellbhoy]

3 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

I seem to have skipped this chapter in my physics text books. In the 20s Eddington identified the proposed fusion as a source for the energy of the stars, fusion was in effect invented to explain the energy of the stars. Nutrons were only discovered in 1932 thereby showing in part how fusion happened. We were thinking about the energy release before we really understood fusion was a thing. 

 

Fission was only vaguely hinted at from about 1911, the process was not really imagined as we had not discovered the neutron. Chadwick discovered the neutron in 32, the same year Oliphant induced the first deliberate artificial fission, in 38 Mienter, Strassman and Hahn were able to produce the basics of a self sustaining fission reaction and it was a couple of years till the first reactor pile in 42, bomb in 45 and the first "for energy" reactor was up and running in 1951. There was very little time between the discovery of fission and its application for science fiction. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

 

No such thing. 

Done your homework. And there are free energy generators out there by the way powered by cobalt magnets if you search the web properly. They just aren't powerful enough yet and cannot produce that perfect sine wave.

The plan is to have every home with a generator producing free energy and giving it's surplus back to the grid to power hospitals, police stations etc. That's not science fiction it's robbing the big industries grip on us to fleece us for our hard earned.

 

 

[dorlomin]

1 minute ago, hellbhoy said:

And there are free energy generators out there by the way powered by cobalt magnets if you search the web properly. They just aren't powerful enough yet and cannot produce that perfect sine wave.

[hellbhoy]

2 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

http://venusproject.org/new-energy/omega-tk-rf5000.html

[dorlomin]

 

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

 

Of for f*cks sakes they are 911 troofers as well.....

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism

 

Do yourself a favour hellbhoy, stay clear of those quacks. Try this....

 

Richard Mullers (famous) introduction to physics for non science majors. 

 

 

[AUFC90]

Done your homework. [emoji14] And there are free energy generators out there by the way powered by cobalt magnets if you search the web properly. They just aren't powerful enough yet and cannot produce that perfect sine wave.

The plan is to have every home with a generator producing free energy and giving it's surplus back to the grid to power hospitals, police stations etc. That's not science fiction it's robbing the big industries grip on us to fleece us for our hard earned.

 

 

You can't create energy. Merely convert it. Something has to power a generator.

[Cream Cheese]

7 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

 

You can't create energy. Merely convert it. Something has to power a generator.

 

You can create energy through fusion. It requires a fuel source, however the fusion process itself allows for far greater energy to be produced.

[hellbhoy]

47 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

 

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Venus_Project

 

Of for f*cks sakes they are 911 troofers as well.....

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism

 

Do yourself a favour hellbhoy, stay clear of those quacks. Try this....

 

Richard Mullers (famous) introduction to physics for non science majors. 

 

 

Erm?, OK. 911 truthers & conspiracy theories are us ffs?

I'm all for alternative energy sources and put two of them forward. One is but near complete science fiction "cold fusion" and if mastered will render all other power generation obsolete. I'm all for it if possible, don't say it isn't because it produces a specific isotope that is only found in nuclear fusion but they just do not understand properly why it produces said isotope.

The Chinese have invested hundreds of millions into the other power generation I quoted, so they are taking it very seriously as a viable option, whether or not they succeed is another matter.

If only we had ZPM's Doctor MacKay.

 

 

[DublinMagyar]

You can create energy through fusion. It requires a fuel source, however the fusion process itself allows for far greater energy to be produced.

Nope, fusion merely converts 1 form of energy to another. Namely mass to heat/light. It's why the sun is hot and bright.

[hellbhoy]

17 minutes ago, AUFC90 said:

 

You can't create energy. Merely convert it. Something has to power a generator.

 

Yeah I know the free energy argument, there has to be a power source to tap into.

4 minutes ago, Cream Cheese said:

You can create energy through fusion. It requires a fuel source, however the fusion process itself allows for far greater energy to be produced.

I could argue with that a little as the energy was already contained within the atom in the first place, it just needed the boost to release it.