Recycling Russian Nukes into US Electricity - Stewart Brand

[Fordi]

@justonemorename

"i don't see any diffrence from Geo-Thermic or HydroElectric ..or a wind power..any other label that is used to confuse."

You're obviously not in a position to implement these things, then. Those labels aren't meant to confuse; they're there to describe. A perpetual motion is one that moves, perpetually, without energy loss or input. Renewable energy is energy whose source is continuously renewed by action of nature - that action of nature being energy input.

[Fordi]

@justonemorename

How does the water return to the top of the hill? Sunlight heats it, evaporates it, and it rains. There's energy input. Therefore, not perpetual motion.

[Fordi]

@justonemorename

"Uranium is finite"

Addressed in the video. There is roughly 10,000 years' worth of uranium and thorium in cheap mining veins.

[Fordi]

@justonemorename

"because they take water and soak Uranium in it?"

Ah. Yeah, they don't do that. Look up the "Light Water Reactor" design, and you'll see that the small amount of very pure water that they allow in the neutron flux (isolated by zircaloy cladding from the uranium) never leaves the plant. What goes in and comes out is in a tertiary cooling loop.

[mrdashes1]

Its not going to work. Where will the U.S. get the money?

[TheAlexagius]

russia would not give you all thier nukes! the US is so thick they don't get that the US nor the Russians will get rid of thier power, also a lack of a nuclear threat would encorage wars between major countires

[pieface1726]

@justonemorename. in an ideal world we would need something like 100 square miles of a hydro plant in strategic places to power our planet... but its not that easy or full proof/cost effective to do. If people weren't so PRO nuclear power and acually gave a bit more time into its reasearch, I think it could be a very viable technology.

still if were gonna go with ideals...im rooting on the fusion side of things.

[pieface1726]

@pieface1726 ANTI*

[pieface1726]

@justonemorename matter doesnt make energy when it moves lol... it may transfer its kinetic energy/momentum that it has because its moving...but consequently it will decelerate for as long as energy is being transferred from it.

[pieface1726]

@justonemorename

that cycle isn't perpetual...energy is taken from the heat of the sun...who coincidentally has a definite life span and end point....something like 4.5 billion years from now it will die i.perpetual motion really doesn't exist. the universe has and always will have the same level of energy(lets just for the sake of argument treat mass as a form of energy)... it doesn't create any more and it doesn't lose any, it just transfers and transforms it. that's all were saying.

[ytmugwump]

Yeah, unfortunately - what this guy doesn't say is that Mixed Oxide (plutonium + uranium) fuel is far more unpredictable when fissioned (uranium emits energy in one burst, plutonium - two, and the second can be minutes later - which cuts into the margin of safety when lowering control rods to emergency shutdown). The by product of MOX reactors is - surprise, surprise - plutonium with greater enrichment. Co-incidentally, bomb-makers prefer this, because it is more predictable.

[Fordi]

@ytmugwump

"...plutonium with greater enrichment..."

Greater than what? First run spent fuel contains about 0.6% Pu (~50% 239, ~24% 240, ~26% 241). Second run, 0.9%, with a similar mix. You can't make bombs from these concentrations, and even if you PUREX to get a stream of pure Pu, it's still got too much of the spontaneously fissioning and gamma emitting stuff to be practical for bomb making.

[McArrowni]

No, I'm telling you you don't even know what those words means.

The word you are looking for is renewable.

[McArrowni]

You don't even seem to know what perpetual means. It implies a closed system. No inputs of matter or energy.

[McArrowni]

Sorry dude, but you need to read a book on the stuff.

The Hoover dam is not a perpetual motion machine. It takes energy from an outside source (new water pouring in the turbines). It's what we call renewable energy, which I agree is awesome. However I still prefer wind energy or geothermal as hydro power causes problems for the preservation of river wildlife, in addition to a plethora of other one-time environmental effects.

Still I'm proud to live in a place that's mostly powered by dams.

[McArrowni]

justonemorename, there were so many things wrong with that post I don't have enough characters in this post to go over it, but I'll try. Geothermal is thermal energy, only instead of burning stuff you take advantage of the fact that the depths of the earth are naturaly warmer than the surface.

Perpetual motions machines are impossible, unless you have outside input (like new water pushing on your turbine), in which case it no longer qualifies as a perpetual motion machine in the first place.

[purplecharger88]

Well if you look at it everything is finite. Solar power is finite. The amount of usable water is for hydro power is finite.

Also you misunderstand the fundamentals of how hydrogen power works. First the Hydrogen atom is not burned. That would violate the first law of thermodynamics. Hydrogen power is created by electrolysis of water H2O + O = H2 O2. This process requires and electronic current to begin with. So even still you are going to need a original fuel source for it to work.

[purplecharger88]

Another problem is that the two chief elements in this reaction are both gasses most of the time and are hard to handle, capture, and use in a operational setting.

Despite what you say Hydrogen is also not freely available. Hydrogen on its own doesn't occur naturally in nature. The only two processes of obtaining it for use is electrolysis as explained above or from Fossil fuel reforming.

Lastly hydrogen is a volatile substance that isn't very safe and would require high amounts of upkeep.

[welkinator]

Go Stewart!!

Another lifetime example that if you are young and not a liberal you have no heart. And if you are old and not a conservative you have no brain.

Stewart has been a golden boy example of both. He has been fun to grow old with.

...welkinator

[Fordi]

@welkinator

Stewart is not a conservative. Support for nuclear power is not a conservative value. It's a sane choice, once you get past all the fearmongering that Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the like do around it.

They're worried about nuclear weapons proliferation, and the ignorantly associate weapons proliferation with the only solution for climate change - at all of our peril. Were it not for these groups spreading bollocks, we'd probably be recycling our spent fuel by now.

[GuppyPal]

I'm very interested in fuel.

[razorflown2]

lol, dude, you just need to stop talking and open up a physics book for a change. Your comments are so stupid that I'm copying them and posting them on a forum so that more people can share in my laughter.

This must be the biggest collection of made up bullshit, conspiracy theories and pure crap that I have come across in a long while.

[MysteryManoLove]

You make a perpetual motion machine that works to power the entire US and you would be a billionaire. It still doesn't produce alot of energy at all. Say we all used only "clean energy" in the US? Oh man, we are in trouble, might as well go back to the dark ages or hell, North Korea.

[MysteryManoLove]

You know that geothermal is steam powered right? Nuclear power the most efficient form of energy in the world. Chernobyl can't happen because of the reactor type, they are illegal in the United States for obvious reasons. The rod pellets become non-radioactive lead in a matter of weeks and the hard water can be reused when we figure out a way to use it. Wind power really sucks, they are high maintnance, they get knocked down in really high winds, they have a large safety zone, they kill birds...

[razorflown2]

Not to mention they look like shit. There's nothing like taking a pristine area like where I lived in Montana, and installing 3000 towers with 200 foot spinning blades on them. Awesome if you like spinning blades...not so great if you like the mountains better...

Eco faggots...

[Mastikator]

Awesome.

[freesk8]

It is DEFINITELY time we got over our fear of nuclear power.

Converting nuclear bombs to nuclear power? WONDERFUL!!!

[1RadicalOne]

This is a novel way to get rid of these weapons.

[planetdarwin]

How much material is available for nuclear power, anyway? Is there plenty of it, or is it rare enough that we'd just run out in a few hundred years or so?

[purplecharger88]

As far as Uranium is concerned it is as abundant as tin and can be recycled and reused in the plant a second time. So our there is plenty of materials for long term nuclear power.

[Fordi]

@planetdarwin

About 10,000 years worth, by which point we'll have hopefully wrangled gravity well enough to have portable fusion.

[planetdarwin]

I recommend we move ahead with nuclear power, since the only downside seems to be "Where do we put the leftovers?" Salt mines will work for now. In a hundred years or so when our space program is well-oiled and we've perfected rocketry, we'll be able to safely launch it off the planet and into the sun. No problem!

[planetdarwin]

I loved this guy as "Brooks" in The Shawshank Redemption.

[chunkybutt420]

easy peasie japaneseie