Technology Green Energy - your thoughts?

[kiely]

Transfiguration Jesus.

This is worth posting as a point of view and maybe even posting twice.

Or for those who believe in tuning into other energies.

~~~~~

Anyway

Everyone probably Exited quickly after the Ted Talk video ....

however this is equally intriguing. I can't get enough.

I could watch this like 10 times easily.

Only God knows why. The Pyramids were ancient energies certainly.

 

[Working_Class]

Without a doubt, we will need nuclear powerplants to go modular.

It's the only 24 hr reliable source of energy almost no matter which way you slice it.

And aside from the AI soaking up vast quantities of the available electricity, it takes many many hours to recharge an electric tractor or combine, while it takes a few mins to fill it up with diesel. I don't think there's a clear way to electrify everything and the environmental damage caused by electrifying all vehicles is never seen when the vehicle operates as it should, but the production of the batteries and the recycling of the batteries can also contribute to environmental load. Not too long ago there was a battery recycling facility that went up in the US and it blew more toxic shit into the air than 20 coal burning power plants running 24 hrs a day for a year.

That being said, maybe there will be a real breakthrough soon, I mean you'd hope with all this AI stuff going on that there should be leaps in technology that would help make the current state of electric vehicles seem neolithic with most of (ok, a great proportion of) the car's weight being battery.

I remain torn on the topic. Half of me is optimistic and the other half doesn't see a clear path without a complete overhaul of the grid and a lot of nuclear plants being installed. And leaps in battery tech.

But who wants to live next to a mini nuclear reactor hey this would not appeal to me much either, and for that reason, I remain somewhat torn. Hopefully it gets better

 

[kiely]

^^ I agree with the above comment. But I don't think nuclear energy is going to ' save us. '

Very nice comment. Winner winner .... you get the Dinner.


~~~~~

But Fusion or Fission can both be possibilities as well. As two separate ideas, of course.

Everything is possible, I suppose. And Fission and Fusion are on the horizon too.

But there isn't anything that seems to be clean is there !!! And people then laugh at cow dung.

Who knows but ..... I'm not sure if this is really ' green ' or not.


Fission:

~ In fission, a heavy nucleus, like uranium or plutonium, is bombarded with a neutron, causing it to split into two smaller nuclei, along with the release of more neutrons and energy.

~ This process is used in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

~ The energy released is used to heat water, producing steam that drives turbines to generate electricity.

~ Fission produces radioactive waste that requires careful management.

Fusion:

~ In fusion, light nuclei, such as hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium), fuse together at extremely high temperatures and pressures to form a heavier nucleus (helium), releasing a large amount of energy.

~ This is the process that powers the sun and stars.

~ Fusion has the potential to be a cleaner and more sustainable energy source than fission, as it produces less radioactive waste.

~ However, achieving and controlling fusion reactions on Earth is extremely challenging due to the high temperatures and pressures required.

~ Currently, fusion is not used for commercial energy production.

 

[kiely]

 

[Cheshire_Kat]

Molten Salt Thorium Reactors

Relatively cheap (compared to fusion), very safe and extremely efficient

 

[kiely]

..... Until the day that we may have to all retreat back into our own geographical locations .... because of depleted resources of course,



stay green.

 

[kiely]

I love Thorium. Sorry but I do !!

 

[Working_Class]

^^ I agree with the above comment. But I don't think nuclear energy is going to ' save us. '

Very nice comment. Winner winner .... you get the Dinner.


~~~~~

But Fusion or Fission can both be possibilities as well. As two separate ideas, of course.

Everything is possible, I suppose. And Fission and Fusion are on the horizon too.

But there isn't anything that seems to be clean is there !!! And people then laugh at cow dung.

Who knows but ..... I'm not sure if this is really ' green ' or not.


Fission:

~ In fission, a heavy nucleus, like uranium or plutonium, is bombarded with a neutron, causing it to split into two smaller nuclei, along with the release of more neutrons and energy.

~ This process is used in nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.

~ The energy released is used to heat water, producing steam that drives turbines to generate electricity.

~ Fission produces radioactive waste that requires careful management.

Fusion:

~ In fusion, light nuclei, such as hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium), fuse together at extremely high temperatures and pressures to form a heavier nucleus (helium), releasing a large amount of energy.

~ This is the process that powers the sun and stars.

~ Fusion has the potential to be a cleaner and more sustainable energy source than fission, as it produces less radioactive waste.

~ However, achieving and controlling fusion reactions on Earth is extremely challenging due to the high temperatures and pressures required.

~ Currently, fusion is not used for commercial energy production.

We still have the issue of the grid being incapable of delivering enough electricity for everyone to charge their electric cars. If the autonomous Uber subscription was a thing that might actually be a decent step in the right direction.

But the grid is a huge limiter if we want to go electric. And that'll take a legitimate catastrophe to have any sense of urgency to bring up to date, there has been very few revisions since it's been built. You can harness the power of the sun, sure, but can your Infrastructure handle the JOOSE . Surely it should happen, but the need for a catastrophic problem will likely be the catalyst.

 

[kiely]

^ So True !

 

[kiely]

Nikola Tesla - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Throughout the 1890s, Tesla pursued his ideas for wireless lighting and worldwide wireless electric power distribution in his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs. In 1893, he made pronouncements on the possibility of wireless communication with his devices. Tesla tried to put these ideas to practical use in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project, an intercontinental wireless communication and power transmitter, but ran out of funding before he could complete it.

Tesla's demonstration of his induction motor and Westinghouse's subsequent licensing of the patent, both in 1888, came at the time of extreme competition between electric companies.

~~

It would be kind of interesting to have had a Tesla Energy option instead of an Edison world.

Tesla had a lot of energy ideas as alternative options.

 

[kiely]

Dude. We're gonna Sink !

 

[Derschieber]

Aye, I think this is the real path forward. The safety and technology for building nuclear plants is about 50y more advanced than those that showed issues such as 3-mile Island (built 1979), Fukashima (built 1971), or Chernobyl (1972). We can build much safer and efficient nuclear plants these days, if they can get permits. Which, to me is wild, given how green they are. I meanGermany shut down their last 3 active plants in 2023, the US has been decomissioning since 2013 but still has ~100 up and running.

More interesting to me is SMRs (Small Modular Reactors).

Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Information on advanced small modular reactors and the Department of Energy's Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support (SMR-LTS) Program.

www.energy.gov

They put out 10-100s of mWh (standard nuclear plant is 500-1k mWh). But the SMRs are smaller (footprint), cheaper, easier to place in locations where traditional nuclear plant is infeasible, and you an daisy chain them for more power. You can place them at existing power (coal, nuclear, lng) plants that already are connected to the grid and have the SMR take over, or place some near cities and towns to get the power much closer to the demand.

Over in the AI discussion, I may have stated that I had heard the demand for power for the AI industry is growing so fast that it will outstrip available power very soon. For current power production in the US today, by 2028 the AI industry will need 98% of that. So yeah, we are gonna have to make more power, and soon.

Greetings old friend.
Please just let me point out one of several reasons for why Germany decided to wash their hands of nuclear energy.
If the spent fuel-rods from a nuclear reactor remain lethal for 400 years, that would certainly be a considerable burden for those we leave behind. Indeed, there are enormous warehouses full of these nasty rods all over Europe and elsewhere, no doubt.
Now what would we say if these rods remain lethal to all life on earth for 4000 years? The selfishness is incomprehensible. That is one hell of a narcissistic footprint to be sure.
Spent fuel-rods are estimated to remain absolutely lethal for at least 40,000 years.
It is not by accident that this information is always missing from these conversations, unless you speak German.

Sincerely.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Spent fuel-rods are estimated to remain absolutely lethal for at least 40,000 years.

Part of me thinks technology will progress as we go forward, and likely find a productive use for those rods. The rest of me just wants to shoot them into the sun.


just kidding....kinda

 

[kiely]

Part of me thinks technology will progress as we go forward,

DUH. But they don't.

Maybe they scerd of something. ( scared )



They fuggin shoot everything else up !!

Why are they scared of the Sun all of a sudden !

double DUH.

Sincerely, respectably.

hOW sad for the children who inherit the earth.

from thee toxic soulless puppet master.


okay bye.

Too Deep. Right now.

 

[4DQSAR]

'I Have Never Seen A Wind Farm In China': Donald Trump

Offshore wind turbine with the largest rotor diameter in the world unveiled in coastal Fujian, East China - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

I assert no veracity for the above source but China is investing HUGELY in renewables. Off-shore wind farms are just about the best solution I know of because the designs usually support far more than the initial size so they can go on adding to them. Thus the initial investment can be quite low and how fast a given farm expands is based on usage.

I guess it's no surprise to learn that the UK has a low of off-shore wind farms with it being an island surrounded by shallow waters with dwindling supplies of gas and oil.

But the thing is, China is also a decade ahead technically so it's also ensuring it will have a huge foreign sales for it's systems. Now how would the US compete? It's always going to be cheaper from China because one of the few advantages of their system of government is that decisions can be made that will take decades to see results - no politicians alternately supporting and decrying renewables.