1 Step Closer to the Cleanest form of Energy

cyric1983 · February 24th, 2010, 07:32

Nuclear Fusion (ie. the chemical reaction that occurs in stars)

The key phrase in this video is: "The resulting nuclear fusion reaction would create more energy than the laser pulses delivered."

DarkSamus · February 24th, 2010, 08:05

We are likely to get wireless electricity before this comes along

__________________

Do you play PC RE5, RE6 or SSF4AE but hate that the button mappings uses XBOX360 buttons?
Try my Resident Evil 5, Resident Evil 6 or Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition Playstation button mods!
As far as handhelds go, well, I get the Nintendo one.
Because I'm not an idiot.

Dennemark · February 24th, 2010, 10:59

When i hear the term 'nuclear fusion', i think of the leftovers. It sounds like there are none.

But by then, i would already enjoying my retirement funds, which would be around 2055-2060

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirby

one time I wasted my master ball on one

then I let mewtwo get away....I was suck a dumbass

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Linktothepast · February 24th, 2010, 11:10

No matter when it comes it is the only viable enviromentally friendly solution to our energy needs imo. I really hope it succeeds.

__________________

System Specifications: Core i -7 860 @ 3.2 Ghz, 4GB DDR -3 1600MHZ RAM, GTX 560 Ti 1GB, 64 GB SSD + 1,5 + 1 TB HD Drives, Windows 7 64 bit Pro

StriderVM · February 28th, 2010, 06:44

By technicality, nuclear fusion is the cleanest, cleanest by definition is "doesn't pollute".

Of course besides the people screaming "NUCULAR". But in an optimistic world, nuclear is the best path. Environmentally and best short term solution, everything else is bound to either kill us, the planet or run out in due time.

Back to topic, it's theorhetically sound but.... I don't think this will be mainstream even when I'm dead......

__________________

Spyhop · February 28th, 2010, 07:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by StriderVM

By technicality, nuclear fusion is the cleanest, cleanest by definition is "doesn't pollute".

Solar and wind would be the cleanest.

StriderVM · February 28th, 2010, 15:04

Whoops, sorry incomplete post. But you're right.

Their main problems are they cant just be put anywhere and very expensive startup, even compared to Nuclear.

__________________

gamefreak94 · February 28th, 2010, 15:14

I reckon fusion is cleaner cuz it doesn't involve heavy isotopes like Uranium etc(?). Main elements involved would be Hydrogen and Helium.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyric1983

The key phrase in this video is: "The resulting nuclear fusion reaction would create more energy than the laser pulses delivered."

Same is the case with nuclear fission (what NPPs use right now)......some of the mass gets destroyed and is converted into pure energy.

__________________

"Don't worry about what people think. They don't do it very often." - Anonymous

Squall-Leonhart · February 28th, 2010, 21:42

note to mention the byproduct of fusion is actually recyclable.

Fadingz · March 1st, 2010, 06:34

Interesting idea, it's worth developing and see.
However,
- It looks rather high cost, the laser source is not the only cost.
- How do you harvest the energy?
- What is the cycle time?
- What is the net energy yield per volume?
- Hydrogen is high cost to harvest even though it's the most abundant element on earth.

__________________

IronRaven · March 6th, 2010, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

I reckon fusion is cleaner cuz it doesn't involve heavy isotopes like Uranium etc(?). Main elements involved would be Hydrogen and Helium.

Same is the case with nuclear fission (what NPPs use right now)......some of the mass gets destroyed and is converted into pure energy.

You hit the nail on the head

(with a hammer, how else?). Hydrogen would produce less harmful by products than heavy metals, heavy metals are the ones you have to look out for.

__________________

Fadingz · March 6th, 2010, 19:16

Again, currently there isn't any efficient way to harvest hydrogen without the need of fossil fuel or nuclear power plant (electrolysis)... which makes the whole processes pointless.
One of the ways to harvest hydrogen without the need of power plant is through solar power. However, solar power efficiency to electricity is still around 17%, and the efficiently directly from solar to hydrogen is around 7%. Citations maybe needed, but I did some reviews in this area, and I don't really feel like digging up papers xD

__________________

Rockshmo · March 6th, 2010, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadingz

Interesting idea, it's worth developing and see.
However,
- It looks rather high cost, the laser source is not the only cost.
- How do you harvest the energy?
- What is the cycle time?
- What is the net energy yield per volume?
- Hydrogen is high cost to harvest even though it's the most abundant element on earth.

That's what I was wondering.. Even if they succeed it would probably take more time to figure out how to harvest, store, and distribute said energy. It is an awesome idea though lasers pwn.

Linktothepast · March 7th, 2010, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadingz

Again, currently there isn't any efficient way to harvest hydrogen without the need of fossil fuel or nuclear power plant (electrolysis)... which makes the whole processes pointless.
One of the ways to harvest hydrogen without the need of power plant is through solar power. However, solar power efficiency to electricity is still around 17%, and the efficiently directly from solar to hydrogen is around 7%. Citations maybe needed, but I did some reviews in this area, and I don't really feel like digging up papers xD

Scientists are not amateurs guys... Do you know how much energy is spent in order to just harvest => purify => deliver oil or uranium to the place where it will be used? Never mind the environmental issues when those things are released to the environment, and that both will vanish sooner than later (there won't be any oil left in 70 - 100 years from now). Water (and therefore hydrogen) can be found anywhere. And don't forget that the chemical energy is way below the scale of nuclear fission energy, never mind fusion which is 10 times larger than fission.

__________________

System Specifications: Core i -7 860 @ 3.2 Ghz, 4GB DDR -3 1600MHZ RAM, GTX 560 Ti 1GB, 64 GB SSD + 1,5 + 1 TB HD Drives, Windows 7 64 bit Pro

LensLarque · March 7th, 2010, 16:05

Fusion is still a dream, we won't see an operational reactor until 50 or even 100 years.
It will be far too late, and the monstrous amounts of money the research costs would be better used in the development of the alternative energies we need now.

The reality right now is that the standard nightmare fission reactor technology is again meeting high demand.
A new era of dramaticly future-threatening 'low-cost nuclear energy' begins, pushed by the recent financial fiasco.

Tomorrow (march 8) 65 countries will meet in Paris, France, to do their 'low-cost reactors' shopping.
Many new power plants are already in construction all around the world, and of course definitely not the costly 'newer' types.
(And as today, the EPR, meant to be 'safer' have been found to be a total lie and probably even more dangerous than the previous generation.)

Low cost reactors on their side, are the same as 2nd generation reactors.
There's even a company developing 'portable' small reactors (1 reactor for 1 city) and the Russians are developing 'floating' reactors that can travel by sea, easy to deliver.

In about 40/50 years, the number of fission reactors on the planet will have doubled, as well as the 'we still don't know what do do with' radioactive waste.

(Well at least my country found a way: we're just giving our radioacive thrash to the Russians who have a long experience in just leaving it be in the Siberian nature.)

The 'nuclear energy is the solution to counter global warming' propaganda is total bull****.
It's the most dangerous way to make energy, on the short and long term.

Reducing our consumption and developing all of the alternative energies, solar, wind, tide, biomass, etc... is the only, safe, way out.
And it needs to be done massively. Now.

__________________

Last edited by LensLarque; March 7th, 2010 at 16:15..

IronRaven · March 7th, 2010, 16:09

If we don't get safer, cleaner energy, the entire ecosystem is in a lot of trouble. Renewable energy is the answer.

__________________

Dennemark · March 7th, 2010, 16:39

Nuclear all the way, for solar and wind is'nt even nearly enough to power the world. Till we find a way, nuclear i say.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirby

one time I wasted my master ball on one

then I let mewtwo get away....I was suck a dumbass

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

LensLarque · March 7th, 2010, 16:42

__________________

IronRaven · March 7th, 2010, 17:00

Nuclear energy is clean, IF it can be disposed of properly. The products are radioactive and have to be buried or something. And a nuclear meltdown or some other type of disaster caused by man made error, could lead to a loss of many lives. It happened at Chernobyl.

__________________

Rockshmo · March 7th, 2010, 17:09

True, they're already doing some type of microbial water treatment in places where the waste got into the ground so as long as they keep up with that technology we should be good on the waste side.

__________________
Currently Playing:
God of War III & COD (psn:Rockshmo)
Ultima Online - ColdFire
AoC - Wiccana (waiting on time card)

February 24th, 2010, 07:32	#1
cyric1983 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 261	1 Step Closer to the Cleanest form of Energy Nuclear Fusion (ie. the chemical reaction that occurs in stars) The key phrase in this video is: "The resulting nuclear fusion reaction would create more energy than the laser pulses delivered."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 24th, 2010, 08:05	#2
DarkSamus PC game modder Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brisbane Australia Posts: Mail You Dummy _______________________ Posts: 5,891	We are likely to get wireless electricity before this comes along __________________ Do you play PC RE5, RE6 or SSF4AE but hate that the button mappings uses XBOX360 buttons? Try my Resident Evil 5, Resident Evil 6 or Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition Playstation button mods! As far as handhelds go, well, I get the Nintendo one. Because I'm not an idiot.

February 24th, 2010, 11:10	#4
Linktothepast Deus ex machina Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Greece Posts: 949	No matter when it comes it is the only viable enviromentally friendly solution to our energy needs imo. I really hope it succeeds. __________________ System Specifications: Core i -7 860 @ 3.2 Ghz, 4GB DDR -3 1600MHZ RAM, GTX 560 Ti 1GB, 64 GB SSD + 1,5 + 1 TB HD Drives, Windows 7 64 bit Pro

February 28th, 2010, 06:44	#5
StriderVM Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Philippines Posts: 2,849	By technicality, nuclear fusion is the cleanest, cleanest by definition is "doesn't pollute". Of course besides the people screaming "NUCULAR". But in an optimistic world, nuclear is the best path. Environmentally and best short term solution, everything else is bound to either kill us, the planet or run out in due time. Back to topic, it's theorhetically sound but.... I don't think this will be mainstream even when I'm dead...... __________________

February 28th, 2010, 15:04	#7
StriderVM Registered User Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Philippines Posts: 2,849	Whoops, sorry incomplete post. But you're right. Their main problems are they cant just be put anywhere and very expensive startup, even compared to Nuclear. __________________

February 28th, 2010, 21:42	#9
Squall-Leonhart Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 23,270	note to mention the byproduct of fusion is actually recyclable.

March 1st, 2010, 06:34	#10
Fadingz 代言人 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: 應許之地 Posts: 7,056	Interesting idea, it's worth developing and see. However, - It looks rather high cost, the laser source is not the only cost. - How do you harvest the energy? - What is the cycle time? - What is the net energy yield per volume? - Hydrogen is high cost to harvest even though it's the most abundant element on earth. __________________

March 6th, 2010, 19:16	#12
Fadingz 代言人 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: 應許之地 Posts: 7,056	Again, currently there isn't any efficient way to harvest hydrogen without the need of fossil fuel or nuclear power plant (electrolysis)... which makes the whole processes pointless. One of the ways to harvest hydrogen without the need of power plant is through solar power. However, solar power efficiency to electricity is still around 17%, and the efficiently directly from solar to hydrogen is around 7%. Citations maybe needed, but I did some reviews in this area, and I don't really feel like digging up papers xD __________________

March 7th, 2010, 16:05	#15
LensLarque lazy shmupper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 897	Fusion is still a dream, we won't see an operational reactor until 50 or even 100 years. It will be far too late, and the monstrous amounts of money the research costs would be better used in the development of the alternative energies we need now. The reality right now is that the standard nightmare fission reactor technology is again meeting high demand. A new era of dramaticly future-threatening 'low-cost nuclear energy' begins, pushed by the recent financial fiasco. Tomorrow (march 8) 65 countries will meet in Paris, France, to do their 'low-cost reactors' shopping. Many new power plants are already in construction all around the world, and of course definitely not the costly 'newer' types. (And as today, the EPR, meant to be 'safer' have been found to be a total lie and probably even more dangerous than the previous generation.) Low cost reactors on their side, are the same as 2nd generation reactors. There's even a company developing 'portable' small reactors (1 reactor for 1 city) and the Russians are developing 'floating' reactors that can travel by sea, easy to deliver. In about 40/50 years, the number of fission reactors on the planet will have doubled, as well as the 'we still don't know what do do with' radioactive waste. (Well at least my country found a way: we're just giving our radioacive thrash to the Russians who have a long experience in just leaving it be in the Siberian nature.) The 'nuclear energy is the solution to counter global warming' propaganda is total bull***. It's the most dangerous way to make energy, on the short and long term. Reducing our consumption and developing all of the alternative energies, solar, wind, tide, biomass, etc... is the only, safe, way out. And it needs to be done massively. Now. __________________ Last edited by LensLarque; March 7th, 2010 at 16:15..*

March 7th, 2010, 16:09	#16
IronRaven Bird of Prey Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Cyberspace, destroying viruses. Posts: 495	If we don't get safer, cleaner energy, the entire ecosystem is in a lot of trouble. Renewable energy is the answer. __________________

March 7th, 2010, 16:42	#18
LensLarque lazy shmupper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Europe Posts: 897	__________________

March 7th, 2010, 17:00	#19
IronRaven Bird of Prey Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Cyberspace, destroying viruses. Posts: 495	Nuclear energy is clean, IF it can be disposed of properly. The products are radioactive and have to be buried or something. And a nuclear meltdown or some other type of disaster caused by man made error, could lead to a loss of many lives. It happened at Chernobyl. __________________

March 7th, 2010, 17:09	#20
Rockshmo Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: U.S. of Agriculture Posts: 35	True, they're already doing some type of microbial water treatment in places where the waste got into the ground so as long as they keep up with that technology we should be good on the waste side. __________________ Currently Playing: God of War III & COD (psn:Rockshmo) Ultima Online - ColdFire AoC - Wiccana (waiting on time card)