what do you think?
Printable View
what do you think?
other.
Nuclear.
Maybe in the distant, distant future we can simply convert waste products back into energy directly. Until then, there's a few planets no one seems to be doing anything with to store waste products.
Nuclear fusion (Nuclear power is an ambigious term and can refer to Nuclear Fission as well)
teats
Nuclear and/or geothermal
You need to be more specific. Are you talking about energy for fuel or energy for electricity generation?
Personally I think it's perfectly possible we could see civilisational collapse if we don't pull the proverbial finger out before oil starts declining - which it most likely will very soon.
Nuclear fusion is really the only sustainable alternative we have for electricity, and the amount of funding going into that is so pitiful that it probably won't be possible for at least 50 years... politicians are extremely ignorant and stupid when it comes to these matters. They'd rather just wait for a blatant crisis that their tiny minds can comprehend - oil wars or financial meltdown, for example.
For fuel... I just don't know. I'm yet to hear a viable alternative.
I think part of that is simply a lack of public awareness and education. In the UK media (and politics) at least, you hear about solar power and so on these days, but fusion power doesn't get discussed much at all. Well, to be honest, I suppose physics these days is a joke (along with the other sciences), but that's kind of outside the scope of this thread.Quote:
and the amount of funding going into that is so pitiful that it probably won't be possible for at least 50 years
It's also probably fair to say that the general public upon hearing the word "fusion" would probably associate it with "cold fusion" and all the nonsense involved with that.
Greenpeace aren't exactly a shining example of knowledge and wisdom either, judging by their ignorant reaction to the building of ITER.
Recently I find it bizarre that politicians have such a poor background in science. Aside from learning the values of logic and reason, they'd also be in a better position to make informed comments and discussion on alternate energy sources, and less of the ignorant ones like the following:Quote:
politicians are extremely ignorant and stupid when it comes to these matters.
Really does show how closed-minded and ill-informed some people are eh?Quote:
In the next 50 years nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply.
- Rebecca Harms, MEP
even though we dont have cost effective technology at the moment, i personally believe Solar will lead the way.
Probably nuclear fission as baseload, if not fusion gets in the way.
The energy supply will be heavy supported from all kind of different energy sources: Geothermal, wind power, hydropower, solar power. Biomass might be used, but mostly electricity will most likely propel vehicles.
Nuclear for home, bio-fuel for automobiles.
Probably something up on a distant planet, if we can get up there. We may find a new renewable resource, or possibly even something like oil that causes war and depression. Yay space.
the sun. still.
A better question: when do you think that humanity will be (for the most part) independent of petroleum as an energy source?
When energy storage for the various forms of transport catches up with the performance and convenience provided by petroleum. Though even then fossil fuels would still be needed to generate electricity, unless there were massive investments and improvements in solar power.
ok, Follow up question.
do you believe the government should encourage development of a specific alternative energy or should petroleum just roll onward until the free market demands something different?
what concerns you more?
cost and convenience
or environmental impact?
If the government encourages power companies (read: pays bonuses to power companies), they will do almost anything the government says. My opinion? Get the companies working on electric cars. If we can run everything on electricity, we can consolidate power generation, ideally to nuclear. Replace oil drills with radioactive waste containment sites and more reactors, and we might be better off than if we tried to pursue multiple outlets(pun definitely intended).Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt5678
Also, I'm typically more concerned with cost and convenience than impact on the environment(no one buys it if they can't afford it), but even in the case of nuclear, environment isn't as much of an issue as you would expect. The waste produced by current nuclear plants is much, much less than you get from fossil plants, and more research will help us learn to properly dispose of waste products.
I find the general public extremely frustrating when it comes to issues like power generation.. they don't seem to understand how far developed technologies are, and the life-cycle costs associated with them.
Understanding the difference between baseload and non-baseload power would be a start; the only things that can provide that so far are gas/coal, geothermal and nuclear. Solar is out, unless a method is found to store that energy. Politics usually push investment towards non-baseload technologies that are seen as 'greener', and in doing this hinder the development of baseload technologies that would provide clean power where it matters and will be used most.
I'd like to think nuclear fusion would be the future baseload technology, as it's super-clean, though as others have said, funding for even fission is way off the mark. There are a lot of technological and political issues that need to be overcome, but I'd love to see an operational fusion plant with positive output in my lifetime.
Biomass is an excellent choice - I was just researching methanol production, and the gases from landfills can already be used to produce it, giving a viable electrical/automotive energy source. Research is underway into producing a method of converting biomass directly into methanol. Very clean, useful technology - landfill gas is fairly dangerous if not properly contained.
Coal, oil and gas may be running out where we've conventionally looked for them, though deep-sea deposits may exist and would be great to utilise. I'd prefer that polital pressure doesn't force old technologies out of use, or we'll have a huge energy crisis on our hands.
Geothermal is very promising. Enough said.
within 50 years we will have tapped into the latent potential of the space time continuum and will have no need for any specific energy source. Zero point energy ftw.:banana:
Sunlight... It's everywhere. With the rise of new electrical power storage technology (see: the supercapacitor), I can easily see a new generation of electric cars that can store a great deal more energy without the drawback of the weight of our current petrol-based automobiles. The costs of solar tech will drop over time as the use and development of solar cells becomes much more widespread. New companies will open up, manufacturing components will be more common, and competition will drive the pricerange of our future, more efficient solar cells down to an affordable level for the general public.
That's what I'd like to see, anyways.
I throw my money behind this. Seems the best option at least. Nuclear energy.... no thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
I don't want a nuclear reactor in my basement, to Maniac Mansion for me... thanks anyway..
(It creates tons of waste, and is extremely dangerous even if they are way safer today.)
How much and what kind of waste is created by nuclear, and what are the storage issues associated with it?
..and how is it dangerous?
fussioonn
Nuclear. I think that if we could safely dispose of it, then we're good to go. Maybe we can send it to Mercury. Nobody gives a flying f*** about that place.
Bad idea... Dumping shit on planets.... what a bunch of slobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Invisible Man
It's actually not a bad idea. Unless we get some terraforming technology operational soon, an uninhabited planet is a fine place for putting hazardous waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I disagree that dumping our shit on another planet as if we have free terrain of the universe.. as a solution. I'm all for exploring, and possibly settling many years past my death on another planet.. but to simply call this planet our dump.. is nothing but showing the humans inability to take full accountability of what we create.. Figure out how to destroy it or find a better source of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
It's not a bad idea, it's a terrible idea.
But how are you going to get it up there in the first place..? I wouldn't be surprised if it took more energy to get the waste into space than the waste generates in the first place!Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
And why smash it into a planet instead of launching it above terminal velocity out of the solar system?
I listened to a NPR program about a month ago that said West Virginia (where I live) only has about 43 years of minable coal left if we continue at the same pace we're currently at.
That's scarey to me.
And I was half asleep last night when hubby was listening to Jim ROGERS and the "Trend Setter" guy (?) so perhaps I misheard but I seem to think they said there's only 17 (??!!) years of oil left unless we find some easily accessible and large deposits.
We're going to have to find some alternative sources and fast and, to me (with my very limited knowledge of such things) it seems Solar energy would be the easiest, fastest and one of the cleaning sources to turn to.
Radioactive materials stop being dangerous after a time. Doesn't it make sense to put it away until it's safe to handle? Also, we appear to be the only intelligent life in our solar system. I think that makes all of the objects in orbit our territory. Or is there something inherently wrong with dropping waste as a solution? Is it bad that I am tossing my garbage in a landfill, calling a perfectly acceptable patch of land my dump? Maybe I should find a way to break down the plastic or find a better source of tortilla chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The energy thing is the main problem with this theory, assuming that we still rely on current methods of travel when nuclear is widespread. Solar sails anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
A planet is an ideal location for two reasons: recycling potential and encapsulation. Though the timescales for some of the elements in question are beyond the scope of this discussion, I remember reading in a textbook that a percentage of uranium in a fuel rod is recoverable for use again. Uranium supplies will deplete eventually, so once we run out we will need to fission smaller elements... and when we run out of those, then what?
Secondly, although the chances are ridiculously low, how would you like first alien contact to be in the form of a hunk of Tc-99 courtesy of Earth?
I do like the space idea though. There's certainly enough room for a few cubic meters per reactor per year.
Of course, the waste problem only exists with fission and all this controversy can be averted if we could just fuse atoms into nonradioactive products and still gain energy from it.
Probably you'll expend more energy sending the waste to Mercury than you gain from the reactor. At least it won't be efficient enough to justify.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Invisible Man
The problem isn't making an electric care, it's the batteries. Personally I think we'll see fuel cells in cars, running on hydrogen and oxygen. But that'll only move the pollution problem from the roads to the production of hydrogen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
I think thorium-reactors (that is fission, nuclear) will take over for uranium, and that it'll be the main source of energy. All the same, we'll most likely stick to the other technologies too, like off-shore windgenerators and solar power. Hopefully, though, we'll get off the fossile fuel-sources.
Plastic and radio actives are first off two very different monsters.. I don't see how concentrating tons of nuclear waste on one wayward planet would solve the problem of ever increasing nuclear waste. What dangers are associated with dumping it on a planet, could it possibly cause some unforeseen consequence? The atmosphere and places are quite different how do we know how the planet will react to this waste.. I don't care if we are the only life in the galaxy we need a real solution to this waste, not just dumping it in space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
We'd be better off trying to minimize waste or find a way to eliminate it..
Different monsters? They both pose a danger to life, and both are increasing steadily.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The only known danger of dumping waste onto a planet is the fact that it is hazardous to life on that planet. Nothing lives on Mercury. There isn't enough atmosphere to support life due to Mercury's weak gravity.
Waste eliminates itself over time. Radioactive substances decay into a stable state over time.
Again, what are the problems with just flinging it off into space where nothing is hurt by it?
Their are glaringly obvious differences between nuclear waste and plastic. I won't even go on to explain them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Licity
You are assuming nothing will be hurt by it.
You don't know what large amounts of nuclear substances could do combined with certain planets different atmospheres and structures.
And I don't care if life is their or not, the galaxy is not our personal dumping grounds. We shouldn't go affecting nearby planets with substances that came from something that can destroy whole masses of land, not wanting to see Mercury explode for instance..(Doesn't mean I think it will) Figure out a way to negate the waste or find a new method of energy.
That shows a fundamenal lack of understanding of fission power. The stuff won't explode because it can't undergo fission; it's already done that in the reactor, it's what we use to generate power. It's like saying a completely depleted battery could give you an electric shock; it can't because it has no charge stored.Quote:
We shouldn't go affecting nearby planets with substances that came from something that can destroy whole masses of land, not wanting to see Mercury explode for instance..(Doesn't mean I think it will) Figure out a way to negate the waste or find a new method of energy.
The best way to dispose of this stuff would be to fire it in to the sun anyway. Gets rid of it very neatly, and wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the sun.
Chemically, they're not going to do much. Physically? The same. The only thing to worry about when it comes to nuclear material disposal is their toxic effects on life. You remove that factor and there's nothing to worry about, in terms of causing problems.Quote:
You don't know what large amounts of nuclear substances could do combined with certain planets different atmospheres and structures.
As for the ethics of dumping stuff elsewhere, I'll stay away from that.
It's a tremendous waste of energy to boost the stuff out of the earth's gravitational pull (at least until the space elevator has been made), and it's a tremendous waste of work to calculate the trajectory needed to make sure that's where it ends up. It would be much better to use other technologies, like thorium fission (which byproducts are only radioactive for a few hundered years), and store it in securely on earth. Ideally we'd use some technology which doesn't create any hazards, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
They wouldn't be able to charge you for it - hence probable reluctance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Invader
Well, when I say "best way" I mean "in an ideal world". Obviously it'd be very dangerous to do it with current technology; a lot of nuclear waste on a rocket being boosted out of the atmosphere is an accident waiting to happen. Maybe if we do get a space elevator constructed, then it'd be a different matter.Quote:
It's a tremendous waste of energy to boost the stuff out of the earth's gravitational pull (at least until the space elevator has been made), and it's a tremendous waste of work to calculate the trajectory needed to make sure that's where it ends up. It would be much better to use other technologies, like thorium fission (which byproducts are only radioactive for a few hundered years), and store it in securely on earth. Ideally we'd use some technology which doesn't create any hazards, but...
Using thorium would be a good step in the meantime however.
No because if you read I said specifically that I didn't think it would happen.. just making up a hypothetical situation. It's still dangerous, otherwise go swimming in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
PerhapsQuote:
The best way to dispose of this stuff would be to fire it in to the sun anyway. Gets rid of it very neatly, and wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to the sun.
I'm unsure how you know for certain the chemical effects of Nuclear waste on Mercury or any other planet that is far different from ours.. I'm unsure how you can be 100% certain of what exactly would happen..Quote:
Chemically, they're not going to do much. Physically? The same. The only thing to worry about when it comes to nuclear material disposal is their toxic effects on life. You remove that factor and there's nothing to worry about, in terms of causing problems.
How come you are so sure when I doubt anyone here has much experience working with nuclear energy and their waste.
It seems that everyone just assumes.
Dirty and typical of a throw away human race that respects nothing but themselves and feels the whole "galaxy" is their personal dump.Quote:
As for the ethics of dumping stuff elsewhere, I'll stay away from that.
Because we know how Uranium (for example) reacts chemically. The fact that it decays has no effect on this. You're betraying a lack of understanding of chemistry here too.Quote:
I'm unsure how you know for certain the chemical effects of Nuclear waste on Mercury or any other planet that is far different from ours.. I'm unsure how you can be 100% certain of what exactly would happen..
Chemistry is chemistry. It changes due to conditions, not location.
We also know how it'll react physically because we know the melting/boiling points of the various things we'd be throwing away, and we know the temperatures/pressures we'd be dealing with. And basically, all this stuff would sit there as a solid.
I did read what you said, but it doesn't change the fact that the only danger is the toxic effect on life. Of course you don't go swimming in it, but there's a world of difference between "this stuff is toxic" and "this stuff could blow up".Quote:
No because if you read I said specifically that I didn't think it would happen.. just making up a hypothetical situation. It's still dangerous, otherwise go swimming in it.
Way to put your words in my mouth? I don't have an opinion on the subject either way, because it's not something I've thought about much. As I didn't have an opinion, I didn't express one.Quote:
Dirty and typical of a throw away human race that respects nothing but themselves and feels the whole "galaxy" is their personal dump.
We know how uranium reacts chemically. How do we know the temperatures and pressures exactly on Mercury? I was unaware we've sent that many missions there, I believe the last one that landed their was in 1974... Which gave us the details of the environment and atmosphere(none) and surface...Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
How do we know for sure that nothing unexpected will happen on this planet? If I'm betraying and understanding of Chemistry then you are betraying mans ability to be wrong. I'm not too keen on dumping based on a study of the planets composition from 1974. Even than I will still never support a dump it and leave it plan, find a real solution.. because the waste will just keep piling up and for some reason I doubt covering Mercury in Nuclear waste will be good.
I don't even doubt it will sit their as a solid, but their is always the what if factor for me.
(I never claimed that Chemistry was going to change, just making observations of man thinking they understand)
We could be poisoning the land of a planet that may someday be habitable.. Either by our own methods of changing the makeup of the planet of the future, or whatever could happen over millions of years... I never will support a method of dumping something that is dangerous, regardless of it blowing up. Not only that but the dangers associated with flying that into space and all the way over, I'd rather not have that floating above our atmosphere and have the rocket blow up.Quote:
I did read what you said, but it doesn't change the fact that the only danger is the toxic effect on life. Of course you don't go swimming in it, but there's a world of difference between "this stuff is toxic" and "this stuff could blow up".
What are you talking about?Quote:
Way to put your words in my mouth? I don't have an opinion on the subject either way, because it's not something I've thought about much. As I didn't have an opinion, I didn't express one.
That was never addressed at you. A statement in general.Quote:
Dirty and typical of a throw away human race that respects nothing but themselves and feels the whole "galaxy" is their personal dump.
Those are valid points, but you should have made them more clearly; just saying "it could be dangerous" is too vague.Quote:
We could be poisoning the land of a planet that may someday be habitable.. Either by our own methods of changing the makeup of the planet of the future, or whatever could happen over millions of years... I never will support a method of dumping something that is dangerous, regardless of it blowing up. Not only that but the dangers associated with flying that into space and all the way over, I'd rather not have that floating above our atmosphere and have the rocket blow up.
Sorry, but the way you quoted me made it seem like it was a direct response to me.Quote:
What are you talking about?
Basically the same way we know all kinds of temperatures in the solar system: the measurement of EM radiation.Quote:
How do we know the temperatures and pressures exactly on Mercury?
Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
Sorry was more of answering your question in why I think people would dump on other planets. (Slobs) Just walk outside I'm sure you see plenty of trash on sides of roads.Quote:
Sorry, but the way you quoted me made it seem like it was a direct response to me.
Thanks will do some research on that.Quote:
Basically the same way we know all kinds of temperatures in the solar system: the measurement of EM radiation.
Solar... Even because soon we'll be able to acess stars very far from Earth and get new maaterials that can absorb more energy from the light (right now we absorb just 7% (not really sure (I think I saw this on Discovery channel)) of the energy), that could absorb almost 80% of it.
Assuming that nuclear fusion doesn't happen, hybrid fusion-fission reactors would be cool. But in all reality, fusion is a much better and safer option then a hybrid reactor.