I agree with you on nuclear power. It is a good, cheap, clean and reliable alternative to burning fossil fuels. The waste would be a small problem, but my guess is that oceanic troughs are deep enough so that we can dump almost anything we like in there without it bothering surface bound or oceanic life ever again.
However, if it were up to me, I'd construct huge orbital solar collectors, beaming energy down to ground stations. Move as much heavy industry as possible up to NEO, and robot mine asteroids remoted into NEO for resources. You know, the whole Stephen Baxter routine, but without the universe blowing up or something.
Well, you know, the 10+ km deep subduction zones are damned near lifeless as it is. Coupla tons of radioactive waste would hardly be noticed down there. It's bloody cold, and there's no currents to speak of, so radiation stays nice and local.
But all in all, I think that - apart from switching from coal to nuclear power - we should also be looking into ways of drastically reducing our usage of power.
Self-sufficient homes, for instance: homes that generate power from solar panels and thermal taps. Or perhaps a system in which each community has its own power reserve, generated from solar parks, geotaps and other stuff, and the output of the national grid - fueled by nukes - is reserved for industry and emergencies.
Then: miniaturisation. Making household appliances smaller and more energy efficient. Better isolation and less heating. Storing heat until its needed, and improved battery technology. These are all things that are going to help us manage our energy better.
I agree with evrything but the switching of coal to nuclear, it exist coal plant that put zero carbonmonoxide in the air(think it comes out in solid form or somthing). So i think a big part of it is to share tech as well as devople it and considering that china pretty much is one big coal mine this "clean" coal tech will be extremly usefull, but i dunno if it will reach the chines
Dunno what you mean but i really dont think out of sight out of mind is very helpfull when your fish are all filled with cancer and glows green when you turn off the light.
Like I said: very little life down there, cold and no currents. After a couple of 1000 years the oceans would start glowing, of course, but my hope is that we won't have to resort to such crude methods for that long.
I understand what you are getting at but i still dont think it is the way to go, water shields radioactivity really good but we've dont know that much about the oeacen flora and fishes, so i think that storing them in mountains is a better option
Could be. But it's also more expensive and less safe to surface life. Surface tectonics, landslides, earthquakes and such would expose the waste however deep we buried it sooner or later, and atmospheric convection, sedimentation and life would bring the toxics right back into our system sooner or later.
I understand that you are refferning to the deepest of all the oeacens but the great tsumani sweept upp alot off envorimental toxings that had been dumpt on the ocean floar outside the westcoast of africa, the reson i want to keep them in out mountian is becouse i dont think there is a prefect solution and if we "just" dump it on the ocean floar then we'll just forget about it and go on as we done in the past
Mabye not but the Earthquakes that cause them do, even if it dont wash upp on land it might end upp in water that is being used by humans e.x. deep sea industrial fishing
Nuclear power aint safe, accidents still happen, just look at japan and their "recent" accidents, I dont have a solution to the car power but we dont need a perfect system we need a much better one and stop listing to what Exeon mobil think is possible. Not to sound like a hippy but wave power has proven to be pretty effecent also there are pure coal power plants in pruduction
Nuclear power is vastly dependant of fossil fuels for its production, therefore can hardly be thought of as a clean energy source. Processes such as mining the ore, transporting, refining, converting, re-converting, plant construction, and waste disposal all require burning copious amounts fossil fuels.
I just watched it. He has MANY good ideas. I especially like having an "X-Prize" model for innovative ideas. I think that should be in other areas of science.
What about the oil "plastics", stuff that consumers buy to keep the world economy running ? Do we have an alternative for plastics ?
Lacktardo 3 years ago
how is hydrogen not environmentally safe!?!?!? The only product is water vapor!
stinksause 3 years ago
1. It takes a lot of energy to create enough hydrogen to make it a viable fuel source.
2. You meant "byproduct."
SnerdWilliams 3 years ago
I agree with you on nuclear power. It is a good, cheap, clean and reliable alternative to burning fossil fuels. The waste would be a small problem, but my guess is that oceanic troughs are deep enough so that we can dump almost anything we like in there without it bothering surface bound or oceanic life ever again.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
However, if it were up to me, I'd construct huge orbital solar collectors, beaming energy down to ground stations. Move as much heavy industry as possible up to NEO, and robot mine asteroids remoted into NEO for resources. You know, the whole Stephen Baxter routine, but without the universe blowing up or something.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
Rafen? I'm sorry. This is:
"oceanic troughs are deep enough so that we can dump almost anything we like in there without it bothering surface bound or oceanic life ever again."
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
Well, you know, the 10+ km deep subduction zones are damned near lifeless as it is. Coupla tons of radioactive waste would hardly be noticed down there. It's bloody cold, and there's no currents to speak of, so radiation stays nice and local.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
But all in all, I think that - apart from switching from coal to nuclear power - we should also be looking into ways of drastically reducing our usage of power.
Self-sufficient homes, for instance: homes that generate power from solar panels and thermal taps. Or perhaps a system in which each community has its own power reserve, generated from solar parks, geotaps and other stuff, and the output of the national grid - fueled by nukes - is reserved for industry and emergencies.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
Then: miniaturisation. Making household appliances smaller and more energy efficient. Better isolation and less heating. Storing heat until its needed, and improved battery technology. These are all things that are going to help us manage our energy better.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
I agree with evrything but the switching of coal to nuclear, it exist coal plant that put zero carbonmonoxide in the air(think it comes out in solid form or somthing). So i think a big part of it is to share tech as well as devople it and considering that china pretty much is one big coal mine this "clean" coal tech will be extremly usefull, but i dunno if it will reach the chines
rafen8705 4 years ago
Could be. Mining coal is not much more dirty than mining uranium, I guess.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
Uranium mining is supposed to be some of the worst kind of mining around.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
Dunno what you mean but i really dont think out of sight out of mind is very helpfull when your fish are all filled with cancer and glows green when you turn off the light.
rafen8705 4 years ago
Like I said: very little life down there, cold and no currents. After a couple of 1000 years the oceans would start glowing, of course, but my hope is that we won't have to resort to such crude methods for that long.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
I understand what you are getting at but i still dont think it is the way to go, water shields radioactivity really good but we've dont know that much about the oeacen flora and fishes, so i think that storing them in mountains is a better option
rafen8705 4 years ago
Could be. But it's also more expensive and less safe to surface life. Surface tectonics, landslides, earthquakes and such would expose the waste however deep we buried it sooner or later, and atmospheric convection, sedimentation and life would bring the toxics right back into our system sooner or later.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
I understand that you are refferning to the deepest of all the oeacens but the great tsumani sweept upp alot off envorimental toxings that had been dumpt on the ocean floar outside the westcoast of africa, the reson i want to keep them in out mountian is becouse i dont think there is a prefect solution and if we "just" dump it on the ocean floar then we'll just forget about it and go on as we done in the past
rafen8705 4 years ago
Tsunami's don't touch the deeper oceans, let alone the oceanic trenches at the subduction zones.
XGralgrathor 4 years ago
Mabye not but the Earthquakes that cause them do, even if it dont wash upp on land it might end upp in water that is being used by humans e.x. deep sea industrial fishing
rafen8705 4 years ago
Nuclear power aint safe, accidents still happen, just look at japan and their "recent" accidents, I dont have a solution to the car power but we dont need a perfect system we need a much better one and stop listing to what Exeon mobil think is possible. Not to sound like a hippy but wave power has proven to be pretty effecent also there are pure coal power plants in pruduction
rafen8705 4 years ago
"we dont need a perfect system we need a much better one"
I know you're a subscriber, but I'm not gonna kiss your ass. That is the stupidest fucking statement I've ever heard.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
lol, "we dont need a perfect system we need a much better one" i meant better then we have not better then perfect
rafen8705 4 years ago
Nuclear power is vastly dependant of fossil fuels for its production, therefore can hardly be thought of as a clean energy source. Processes such as mining the ore, transporting, refining, converting, re-converting, plant construction, and waste disposal all require burning copious amounts fossil fuels.
Check out my waste to fuel playlist
Voice0fEnergy 4 years ago
I would think, with other types of energy sources, that the energy needed to heat the reactors could be provided by other means.
As far a mining uranium ore, it is said to be the most dangerous mining around.
As I've said, this plan has many flaws. I'm not in any way a scientist. I'm just piecing together parts of different energy strategies.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
Of course. You might want to see the video
Nuclear Power: Promoting a Myth
v=bbe5p_UGqHg
and some of the other videos in my Nuclear Power Playlist
Regards,
VoE
Voice0fEnergy 4 years ago
another good one my friend
pypermarru1 4 years ago
Nice.
I watched a dvd called
"Who Killed the Electric Car"
It was made in the US, If ya haven't seen it then watch it....it's right up your ally.
Just one question for nuclear,
"What do you do with the waist product" (yellow Cake)
tucker1040 4 years ago
I have seen "Who Killed the Electric Car."
That's a great question about the waste. It can be reused many times.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
did you watch the tedtalk on overcoming the oil crisis?
I have a national geographic with a detailed plan of how we could function off of alternative energy in america. august 2005.
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
Could you send the link or post it here or something? I'd like to see it.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago
v=kMTCNOlozTA
I really love the tedtalks channel. All the videos are fantastic. So don't forget to sub to them!
nadiaTeeze 4 years ago
I just watched it. He has MANY good ideas. I especially like having an "X-Prize" model for innovative ideas. I think that should be in other areas of science.
SnerdWilliams 4 years ago