Nuclear Energy Density

[mrm]

Originally Posted by Sailon

I think [...]
Electric boats and cars, solar and wind energy are all
Much, much safer than nuke power plants.[...]

Sailon, the motto of this forum is "be nice", so I'll politely remark, that I believe you appear to have some catching up to do in the areas of physics, math and chemistry. Electricity itself is a clean form of energy, that for sure. However, you appear to disregard a simple fact, that electricity does not grow on trees and somehow must be produced and distributed to all utilities using it. Sadly, none of mass production methods known to man are all clean. What engineers can do is only choose between known ways of producing electricity, carefully weighting all pros and cons.

Surely, conservation is the right thing to do, but there is a limit to how far people are willing to downsize their needs. What needs remain should be somehow catered to..

To stay on topic, I believe there is a major problem with electric powered boats. Extension cords can be only this long to be practical and they tangle in propellers anyway...

Wait... the topic was energy density... Nuclear is as 'dense' as it gets, still not for boats though...

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Sailon

I think that reality is here already. nuclear energy is not the solution. Chernobyl 3 mile island love canal et al should give us all pause at the least.

Umm, Love Canal was a chemical waste dump. Nothing to do with nuclear energy.

Originally Posted by Sailon

You sound as if you wish to threaten those opposed with the idea of chernobyl being a sweet rusky state park . . .

Chernobyl, by the way, is not "rusky". It's in Ukraine.

Originally Posted by Sailon

Electric boats and cars . . are all
Much, much safer than nuke power plants.

Electric boats and cars don't produce energy. The energy has to come from the electrical grid. Is it produced with hydro or wind? Then it's clean and safe. Is it produced with coal? Then it is dirty and dangerous.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by mrm

To stay on topic, I believe there is a major problem with electric powered boats. Extension cords can be only this long to be practical and they tangle in propellers anyway...
.

That's why we need tiny nuclear reactors on board to power our electric boats

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by mrm

To stay on topic, I believe there is a major problem with electric powered boats. Extension cords can be only this long to be practical and they tangle in propellers anyway...

Now THAT's funny!

[Sailon]

So to sum it up, you're saying you'd vote for me for Congress if i put a nuke plant in your neck o' the woods and shut down all the others?

You're Monte Burns aren't you.

[Sailon]

I'm all for back to the future cold fusion running a car in the future, the end of fossil fuel dependence, Mideast Oil conflagrations, price gouging tax raising ridiculously costly personal auto fuel petrol pricing and the like.


None of it is going to make Me think going nuclear Now with more Electricity producing plants in our current state Nuclear plant technology is safe, or that Chernobyl already an idyllic wildlife preserve. you can attack me all you want. Be as snide as you like. Nuclear power is not cheaper when the catastrophic costs of accidents are a consideration. Drilling oil in the Gulf did not make Oil cheaper in the long run either. responsibility to the environment, and the life (including ours) which depends upon it Must be our first and only consideration.

Don't whine to me that current costs of gas because of the middle east facebook revolution mean we need to go nuclear. It means we need to reduce costs and change the methods of oroduction.
preservation of the environment must come first in any energy agenda.

[gwmort]

For a small American reactor that would fit in a good sized cruising boat google NR-1

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Sailon

I'm all for back to the future cold fusion running a car in the future, the end of fossil fuel dependence, Mideast Oil conflagrations, price gouging tax raising ridiculously costly personal auto fuel petrol pricing and the like.


None of it is going to make Me think going nuclear Now with more Electricity producing plants in our current state Nuclear plant technology is safe, or that Chernobyl already an idyllic wildlife preserve. you can attack me all you want. Be as snide as you like. Nuclear power is not cheaper when the catastrophic costs of accidents are a consideration. Drilling oil in the Gulf did not make Oil cheaper in the long run either. responsibility to the environment, and the life (including ours) which depends upon it Must be our first and only consideration.

Don't whine to me that current costs of gas because of the middle east facebook revolution mean we need to go nuclear. It means we need to reduce costs and change the methods of oroduction.
preservation of the environment must come first in any energy agenda.

I'm not whining...I just agree with drill baby drill and build baby build.

I tried the eco thing back in the 60's...didn't work then...doesn't work now. Progress needs to keep plodding along..as does our ability to find solutions to the problems associated with progress. Stall the process...and who knows what will happen...if the hippies of the 60's were everyone on the planet.....we probably would not have this forum to debate the question.

[Lancerbye]

The up side of the nuclear issue is that once we get to the point of all glowing in the dark it will make night time sailing easier. TIC

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Lancerbye

The up side of the nuclear issue is that once we get to the point of all glowing in the dark it will make night time sailing easier. TIC

Finally something to do with SAILING!

[Juniper]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The problem with using the design of the nuclear power on Satelites, on your boat is they have no shielding. They are basically a pure ball of plutonium, or equivalent, allowed to react uncontrollably on a long boom arm to keep them from cooking the electronics, which are already radiation shielded because space is also full of radiation. a thermocouple array generates electricity, one downside - needs a continuos supply of cold, (space or arctic only).

There are scalable designs that use nuclear power.

1. A watch battery sized cell that is two high efficiancy solar cells sandwiched with a thin layer of radium, or polonium. Think of it as a D-cell that can power a flashlight for 1000 years continuosly.



2. A battery the size of a water heater that has several plates, one coated with an Alpha emmiter, (plus), the second coated with a beta emmiter, (minus). inside a lead and steel case. 1000watts for hundreds of years.


One of these sounds cool, put one in every house and no more power lines. well some may need two.
Now how much material is needed to make such?



3. ???

There are millions of ways to generate electricity from nuclear power. We have concentrated on the biggest, most clumsy, and most inefficient way. Basically a big steam engine that burns uranium instead of coal.

The core reaction of breaking a heavier element into a lighter element, changing the energy states of a few subatomic particles, and rearranging the electron shells of a few atoms create changes that can be converted into any of the 4 forces.

Heat is a waste product that is only a small percentage of the energy generated, and the only one we use in the big commercial reactors. The "waste" is even more radioactive than the original fuel!

It is true building a huge radiactive steam engine in your sailboat is a bad idea, but a solar cell array coated with a thin sheet of a phosphorescing element that gives you electricity 24 hours a day powering an electric drive is not only doable, but practical...almost

A small self recharging battery, I want one

[Lancerbye]

And many here complained about the price of 8D gel batteries. lol

[Event_Horizon]

Personally, I'm holding out for a proper anti-matter reactor for my yacht. No waste.

I did some pretty interesting studies as an undergrad on power plants and "alternative" power generation methods. As an American, it'd be ideal if we could find a nice way to use all this coal we have. If we were to count in BTUs, there are more BTUs of coal under the state of Illinois than all the BTUs of oil in the entire middle east. We have developed tricky ways to burn coal that are quite clean (see coal gasification; specifically, check out the plant in the wabash valley). Not bad, for coal.

Another idea that I think has MAJOR sex appeal are large solar satellites. They sit up there in geosynchronous orbit and beam down the power using an extremely low density microwave beam. Some of the conceptual designs I've seen necessitate an 8-mile diameter dish to collect all the energy being transmitted. Scientists suspect that the internal temperature of birds flying over this region would only raise 1-2 degrees I just can't help but get a little giddy at the idea that someone could hijack that satellite, refocus the microwave transmitter array, and actually control a real live satellite death ray!

[Sailon]

Nothing wrong with nuclear powered sea going vessels. If you'd like an eye opening primer on the dangers of land bases nuclear plant energy production facilities, just turn on the news, & pray for the people of Japan.

Might want to stick your finger in the air too, just to see if the radiation's blowing in the wind in your direction. The stupidity of chants like drill baby drill, put an end to the repubs chances last time out, and propelled BHO right into office.

[Sailon]

Nuclear Power for Commercial Ships