Kuribo64
Views: 7,911,118 Home | Forums | Uploader | Wiki | Object databases | IRC
Rules/FAQ | Memberlist | Calendar | Stats | Online users | Last posts | Search
01-20-18 02:05 PM
Guest:

0 users reading Alternative Energy | 1 bot

Main - Serious discussion - Alternative Energy New reply

Pages: 1 2
Baby Luigi
Posted on 09-21-17 05:02 PM Link | #89379
You have to be in a really convenient location for that to happen, but if there's ample enough wind energy and a good water stream, it's possible. Studies have shown that it's completely feasible to switch to only alternate energies to power up all places in the world.

poudink
Posted on 09-21-17 05:16 PM Link | #89381
Yeah, Québec is powered using pretty much only hydroelectricity.

____________________
Nothing to say, so jadnjkfmnjamnfjkldnajfnjkanfjdksan jsdnvj m.

[insert quote here]

LeftyGreenMario
Posted on 09-21-17 05:21 PM Link | #89382
"studies have shown" is a bit of a weasel wording. Care to provide a specific source for that claim?

Baby Luigi
Posted on 09-21-17 06:18 PM Link | #89385

GalacticPirate
Posted on 09-22-17 09:09 AM (rev. 2 of 09-22-17 09:11 AM) Link | #89404
I hate anti-nuclear people, they really bmake me mad. I am pro-nuclear asx long as it permits us not to use fossil energies. But in France for example, we should soon start to lower the proportion of nuclear in our energy production and replace it with sustaiunable energies while wating for nuclear fusion. I nwas entirely pro-nuclear before, until I read an article in Science&Vie that essentially showed that we are keeping alive plants that are now old, unsecure.
tl;dr Nuclear Fission --> Sustainable --> Fusion.


@LeftyGreenMario I read an article in Science&Vie (don't question them, their agenda is basically "All hail science, and fuck all those who dare use their crap named 'opinion' against facts") that essentially shoed 100% renewable energy was feasible in France as soon as in 2050.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-22-17 09:12 AM Link | #89405
nuclear fusion would have the same set of problems as fission, plus the problem that you need absurd amounts of energy to get fusion going on Earth


the Sun isn't a clean reactor, it emits all kinds of radiation and we're only protected from those because Earth has a magnetic field

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

GalacticPirate
Posted on 09-22-17 09:20 AM Link | #89408
Actually no, an artificial reactor would have nothing to do with the Sun since the energy ported by the neutrons would directly be used for electricity. Plus, even if gamma rays were emitted, they are emitted only when the reaction happens. Even if some random guy blew up a workinf fusion plant with 40 tons of explosives, there wouldn't be anything left. Tritium, the only radioactive thing involved, is in small quantities and far less dangerous than things involved in fission. Deuterium is basically hydrogen and would be stocked as heavy water D2O, and the byporoducts of fission are clean water and helium. So no radiation would be produced after since Fusion is endothermic, meaning if you perturbate a thing, it stops instead of going nuts.
Only two problems remain for fusion: managing to initiate the reaction (energy) which is a problem that's only present at the start, and finding fucking tritium aka radioactive hydrogen. Rumors say China actually wants to go on the Moon to find that shit.

StapleButter
Posted on 09-22-17 09:28 AM Link | #89409
oh. learning shit everyday are we.


I still question why modern civilization should need that much energy tho.

____________________
NSMBHD - Kafuka - Jul

what do you use to measure bolts? a boltmeter

Baby Luigi
Posted on 09-22-17 03:11 PM Link | #89414
Posted by GalacticPirate
@LeftyGreenMario I read an article in Science&Vie (don't question them, their agenda is basically "All hail science, and fuck all those who dare use their crap named 'opinion' against facts") that essentially shoed 100% renewable energy was feasible in France as soon as in 2050.


The hell?

Belsaw
Posted on 09-22-17 03:16 PM (rev. 2 of 09-22-17 03:17 PM) Link | #89415
I think you mean helium-3, a nonradioactive isotope of helium that is extremely rare on Earth but present in large quantities on the Moon and gas giants like Jupiter.

Nuclear fusion does create tritium, radioactive helium, and radioactive lithium but the amounts are so small that it would become diluted very quickly if it were to leak into the environment. You would probably receive more radiation from coal plants or flying on an airplane. As for radiation, the shielding of tokamaks (fusion reactors) is apparently excellent enough to keep radiation from escaping. But remember nuclear plant buildings have shielding too so in theory you should be safe.

GalacticPirate
Posted on 09-23-17 12:59 PM Link | #89456
Actually, a fairly recent project uses a stellarator instead of a tokamak, so... :P
And the easiest and studied reaction is the following one:
[image]
Pages: 1 2

Main - Serious discussion - Alternative Energy New reply

Page rendered in 0.024 seconds. (2048KB of memory used)
MySQL - queries: 27, rows: 217/217, time: 0.014 seconds.
[powered by Acmlm] Acmlmboard 2.064 (2017-11-20)
© 2005-2008 Acmlm, Xkeeper, blackhole89 et al.