Arthur Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 The only sustainable way in the long term is to use less power than the sun sends to us. ALL the energy on the planet comes from the sun be it in the form of wind, wave, photo-electric, fuel crops of timber or fermentable starches! Currently the problem is that we like electricity because it is convertable to motion, light, and used for electronics. Photovoltaic cells are currently pricey and fragile. France is a net exporter of electricity and is about 90% nuclear.
flying fish Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 (edited) Well, there is always Geothermal energy which is not from the sun...But if by "on the earth" you mean on the surface, then I suppose your argument is correct (apart from maybe the energy we produce from artificial fission). Edited August 4, 2008 by flying fish
FrankRizzo Posted August 4, 2008 Posted August 4, 2008 If you've got an extra hr to spare, watch this Google Talks video about inertial confinement fusion. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...OKoSC4wLy35GnBQ
LGM Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 There was a special on the science channel a month or two ago about a fusion reactor in (I think) England. It said that fusion would be a viable energy source in 30 to 40 years I believe.
Swede Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 There was a special on the science channel a month or two ago about a fusion reactor in (I think) England. It said that fusion would be a viable energy source in 30 to 40 years I believe. The thought of fusion solving all our energy woes is compelling, but when I was a kid, they were saying fusion is only 25 years away. It keeps getting pushed back! Remember when those chemists announced "Cold Fusion is a reality"? I remember telling my family (I was the only chemist/science type) "If true, this is the most important achievement of our lifetime. This will change everything. But I don't believe it is true. I HOPE it is, but I'll bet it won't pan out." Sure enough... Fusion may be one of those things we simply cannot tame. It may happen eventually, but I don't think it'll be in our lifetime.
tentacles Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Swede: Some of the experimental fusion reactors are capable of self-sustaining now. I believe there are some plants being built with the goal of producing slightly more than operating power in the next five or so ears. I guess we'll see how that goes.
Richtee Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 If you've got an extra hr to spare, watch this Google Talks video about inertial confinement fusion. Nothing QUITE as amusing as a physicist's sense of humor is there? heh!
crazyboy25 Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 The thought of fusion solving all our energy woes is compelling, but when I was a kid, they were saying fusion is only 25 years away. It keeps getting pushed back! Remember when those chemists announced "Cold Fusion is a reality"? I remember telling my family (I was the only chemist/science type) "If true, this is the most important achievement of our lifetime. This will change everything. But I don't believe it is true. I HOPE it is, but I'll bet it won't pan out." Sure enough... Fusion may be one of those things we simply cannot tame. It may happen eventually, but I don't think it'll be in our lifetime. Even the largest and most powerful fusion reactors only sustain fusion for 2-3 seconds and draw enormous amounts of power to feed the magnetic containment field. I think I'm in agreement with swede on this one maybe one day but not as soon as they say. Really look in old popsci magazines. how many magazines from the 80's said by now we would have fling cars and robomaids? However they didn't anticipate flat screen TV's the internet as we know it super computers etc.
TheSidewinder Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 There was a program on our local PBS station the last few weeks that addressed our "Energy Future". There's a book out called "Fossil Fools", in which the author details a particular type of fission reactor that if adopted WILL solve our current problems with the spent fuel from today's fission reactors. Damned if I can remember the name for the type of reactor, though. Basically, it burns spent fuel with a small amount of some other type of fissionable material, and the result is: 1) the byproducts have a MUCH MUCH shorter half-life than current spent fuels, on the order of a couple hundred years versus ten thousand years, and 2) the reactor produces much LESS total quantity of spent fuel. It actually DOES "burn" current spent fuels during the process. As to Fusion Reactors? Like Swede, I've been hearing about fusion reactors since I was a teenager. But I suspect I'll be long gone before we see one actually in use.
tentacles Posted February 26, 2009 Posted February 26, 2009 TS: Sounds like a 'breeder' reactor. From what I understand, it's "US" that won't allow them, because they could be used to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Some kind of BS like that - France uses them extensively, and they work very well. Most nuclear waste is nothing more than contaminated clothes, equipment. The actual spent fuel doesn't take up much mass or space in comparison to all the junk they seal up in those boxes/drums.
Recommended Posts