Grid power discussion (solar, wind, nuclear, etc.)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

MAD certainly did work, I'm not denying that. If each nation did consider that as the response to hitting a nuclear power plant, that would at least keep the war panic scenario a rare chance.

Wind is the safest, all in all.

It's not. Nuclear is actually the safest.

[Imperial Joseon]

Wind is the safest, all in all.

It's not. Nuclear is actually the safest.

What happens if meltdowns occur?

[Valentine Z]

A bit of banter and off-topic so... Do you guys remember that comic panel where a school (or some other facility) managed to obtain power from a person's stress... Maybe we could use that.

Either that, or the Water-fueled car, which would work if we can find exactly 27 unicorns.

[Imperial Joseon]

A bit of banter and off-topic so... Do you guys remember that comic panel where a school (or some other facility) managed to obtain power from a person's stress... Maybe we could use that.

Either that, or the Water-fueled car, which would work if we can find exactly 27 unicorns.

Hydrogen-fueled car is effective.

[Valentine Z]

Based on my limited knowledge, Chernobyl happened because someone thought that it would be a great idea to run a test with all the safety measures turned off. The Fukushima Disaster was due to the tsunami. So.... without the gross human error factor, and the natural disaster factor, I think nuclear meltdowns don't usually happen. If they do happen, they are usually smaller; while they pose threats and they are still disasters, it's extremely rare to have a disaster on a catastrophic scale on a very frequent basis.

Once again, please do take what I said here with a bit of salt; I have some knowledge and read a few sources, but I am not an expert in the matter. ^^;

A bit of banter and off-topic so... Do you guys remember that comic panel where a school (or some other facility) managed to obtain power from a person's stress... Maybe we could use that.

Either that, or the Water-fueled car, which would work if we can find exactly 27 unicorns.

Hydrogen-fueled car is effective.

Oh, that I am aware. I mean the hypothetical and could-not-possibly-work water-fuel car, which... burns on water or something to that effect. A lot of investment frauds as a result of them (just like the Gasoline / Magic Pill which claims to be able to convert water into gasoline).

[Imperial Joseon]

Oh, that I am aware. I mean the hypothetical and could-not-possibly-work water-fuel car, which... burns on water or something to that effect. A lot of investment frauds as a result of them (just like the Gasoline / Magic Pill which claims to be able to convert water into gasoline).

Yeah, don't trust those. Obviously, they are a scam.

[Valentine Z]

Oh, that I am aware. I mean the hypothetical and could-not-possibly-work water-fuel car, which... burns on water or something to that effect. A lot of investment frauds as a result of them (just like the Gasoline / Magic Pill which claims to be able to convert water into gasoline).

Yeah, don't trust those. Obviously, they are a scam.

I don't trust them, but they are a blast to read. Well... blast to read, but they don't blast out energy.

[Imperial Joseon]

Yeah, don't trust those. Obviously, they are a scam.

I don't trust them, but they are a blast to read. Well... blast to read, but they don't blast out energy.

Good one.

[Novus America]

It's not. Nuclear is actually the safest.

What happens if meltdowns occur?

And? Even those still result in fewer deaths. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... -paid/amp/

Also you can just have a containment structure like Three Mile Island which contains the meltdown or a negative void coefficient which makes meltdown literally impossible.

Meltdowns are not really an issue in new designs.

[Immoren]

MAD certainly did work, I'm not denying that. If each nation did consider that as the response to hitting a nuclear power plant, that would at least keep the war panic scenario a rare chance.

Wind is the safest, all in all.

What if 100% wind power causes also changing climates, because we rob too much energy from wind currents?
Checkmate atheists.

[Imperial Joseon]

Wind is the safest, all in all.

What if 100% wind power causes also changing climates, because we rob too much energy from wind currents?
Checkmate atheists.

I'm not an atheist, but it should counter climate change, somehow.

[UniversalCommons]

With big batteries and flywheels, it does not particularly matter where the electricity comes from. You don't need to use only one source of energy.

[Imperial Joseon]

With big batteries and flywheels, it does not particularly matter where the electricity comes from. You don't need to use only one source of energy.

Batteries cause environmental harm, you know. Batteries require alkali metals to function, and alkali metals come via strip mining.

[Novus America]

With big batteries and flywheels, it does not particularly matter where the electricity comes from. You don't need to use only one source of energy.

Although true you can have multiple energy sources, that does not make all energy sources equally good in all cases. It absolutely does matter where the energy came from, because where it came from had an impact on the environment.

Also mass energy storage has issues as well. Storing the energy requires vast amount of resources and causes losses.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Wind is the safest, all in all.

What if 100% wind power causes also changing climates, because we rob too much energy from wind currents?
Checkmate atheists.

Funny you should mention that. Wind, thanks to the very nature of convection, tends to bring warm air to colder regions and cold air to warmer regions. If you reduce wind, you keep the polar regions cold, and cut down on arctic ice melt.

That said, you'd need a LOT of wind power to do that. Like, "turbines throughout the ocean" lot. Perhaps they could mass-manufacture wind turbines as a make-work project for ex-convicts and other less-than-employable people. Is this idea worth a separate thread?

[Novus America]

What if 100% wind power causes also changing climates, because we rob too much energy from wind currents?
Checkmate atheists.

Funny you should mention that. Wind, thanks to the very nature of convection, tends to bring warm air to colder regions and cold air to warmer regions. If you reduce wind, you keep the polar regions cold, and cut down on arctic ice melt.

That said, you'd need a LOT of wind power to do that. Like, "turbines throughout the ocean" lot. Perhaps they could mass-manufacture wind turbines as a make-work project for ex-convicts and other less-than-employable people. Is this idea worth a separate thread?

Where would we get the materials and money required and what would the impact be?
Mining that much stuff, spending that much money that could be used elsewhere, impact on migratory birds, etc.?

Although it is fair to note the wind turbines can and do have an adverse impact on many species.

Regardless it is not a practical idea, and yeah I think geo climate engineering while related is probably beyond the subject of this thread.

[Grenartia]

It's not. Nuclear is actually the safest.

What happens if meltdowns occur?

Use reactors that can't meltdown.

Funny you should mention that. Wind, thanks to the very nature of convection, tends to bring warm air to colder regions and cold air to warmer regions. If you reduce wind, you keep the polar regions cold, and cut down on arctic ice melt.

That said, you'd need a LOT of wind power to do that. Like, "turbines throughout the ocean" lot. Perhaps they could mass-manufacture wind turbines as a make-work project for ex-convicts and other less-than-employable people. Is this idea worth a separate thread?

Where would we get the materials and money required and what would the impact be?
Mining that much stuff, spending that much money that could be used elsewhere, impact on migratory birds, etc.?

Although it is fair to note the wind turbines can and do have an adverse impact on many species.

Regardless it is not a practical idea, and yeah I think geo climate engineering while related is probably beyond the subject of this thread.

Really, its a testament to the effectiveness of fearmongering and anti-nuclear propaganda that bird burninators and bird choppinators occupy space as serious large-scale energy production methods in the public consciousness.

[Senkaku]

Where would we get the materials and money required and what would the impact be?
Mining that much stuff, spending that much money that could be used elsewhere, impact on migratory birds, etc.?

Although it is fair to note the wind turbines can and do have an adverse impact on many species.

Regardless it is not a practical idea, and yeah I think geo climate engineering while related is probably beyond the subject of this thread.

Really, its a testament to the effectiveness of fearmongering and anti-nuclear propaganda that bird burninators and bird choppinators occupy space as serious large-scale energy production methods in the public consciousness.

do you know how many birds are killed by domestic cats in the united states alone every year

if the birds die it won't be bc of the windmills lol

[Novus America]

Really, its a testament to the effectiveness of fearmongering and anti-nuclear propaganda that bird burninators and bird choppinators occupy space as serious large-scale energy production methods in the public consciousness.

do you know how many birds are killed by domestic cats in the united states alone every year

if the birds die it won't be bc of the windmills lol

Do you know how many people die in car crashes? Therefore we should not care about how many die by murder!

That is the relative privation fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

Besides it is different types of birds and all.

The fact the wind turbines can seriously disrupt bird and bat migrations is still a problem, even if they are not the only threat to birds and bats.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

do you know how many birds are killed by domestic cats in the united states alone every year

if the birds die it won't be bc of the windmills lol

Do you know how many people die in car crashes? Therefore we should not care about how many die by murder!

That is the relative privation fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

Besides it is different types of birds and all.

The fact the wind turbines can seriously disrupt bird and bat migrations is still a problem, even if they are not the only threat to birds and bats.

I never liked whataboutism. But perhaps a more relevant point would be to compare bird deaths from wind to bird deaths from nuclear.

[UniversalCommons]

I rather like the idea of improved turbines. There are room temperature superconductors and better superconductor cables. If you can improve turbines across the board as a base source of power, you can improve hydro, nuclear, wind, wave, and many other sources of power. I like to think that our future for energy will be determined by improved energy storage and better turbines.

[Novus America]

Do you know how many people die in car crashes? Therefore we should not care about how many die by murder!

That is the relative privation fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

Besides it is different types of birds and all.

The fact the wind turbines can seriously disrupt bird and bat migrations is still a problem, even if they are not the only threat to birds and bats.

I never liked whataboutism. But perhaps a more relevant point would be to compare bird deaths from wind to bird deaths from nuclear.

Well that is a fair point. It is not whataboutism to compare the environmental impact from two different power sources to compare them.
Whataboutism is comparing wind to cats.

Where comparing wind and nuclear is a valid comparison.

Although the bird death thing nuclear is not always better than wind (although it is thousands times better than coal for both) nuclear still has the lowest environmental impact overall in material and land usage.

[Grenartia]

I rather like the idea of improved turbines. There are room temperature superconductors

Last I checked (pretty recently), no, there fucking aren't. Certainly nothing at TRL 4 or higher.

and better superconductor cables. If you can improve turbines across the board as a base source of power, you can improve hydro, nuclear, wind, wave, and many other sources of power. I like to think that our future for energy will be determined by improved energy storage and better turbines.

Except, you cannot squeeze an arbitrary amount more energy out of generators with "room temperature superconductors" and "improving turbines". Also, the turbines used in hydro/wind are vastly different from the ones used in nuclear (and fossil fuel), namely because hydro and wind turbines are not heat engines, whereas nuclear and fossil fuel turbines are. And the most significant way to improve heat engine output is to increase the temperature difference (see: Carnot). Functionally, this means increasing the temperature of the steam going into the turbine. Fossil fuels are essentially at the limit. The combustion of hydrocarbons produces generally the same temperature no matter what, and we've been using it for power for so long that we've certainly hit the limit. However, with nuclear power, you can more or less arbitrarily increase the temperature as high as you want (which we have yet to really take advantage of).

[UniversalCommons]

I rather like the idea of improved turbines. There are room temperature superconductors

Last I checked (pretty recently), no, there fucking aren't. Certainly nothing at TRL 4 or higher.

and better superconductor cables. If you can improve turbines across the board as a base source of power, you can improve hydro, nuclear, wind, wave, and many other sources of power. I like to think that our future for energy will be determined by improved energy storage and better turbines.

Except, you cannot squeeze an arbitrary amount more energy out of generators with "room temperature superconductors" and "improving turbines". Also, the turbines used in hydro/wind are vastly different from the ones used in nuclear (and fossil fuel), namely because hydro and wind turbines are not heat engines, whereas nuclear and fossil fuel turbines are. And the most significant way to improve heat engine output is to increase the temperature difference (see: Carnot). Functionally, this means increasing the temperature of the steam going into the turbine. Fossil fuels are essentially at the limit. The combustion of hydrocarbons produces generally the same temperature no matter what, and we've been using it for power for so long that we've certainly hit the limit. However, with nuclear power, you can more or less arbitrarily increase the temperature as high as you want (which we have yet to really take advantage of).

I was thinking about General Electric and the new high temperature superconductors that are being developed for wind power.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/supercond ... irst-test/

Room Temperature Superconductors Could Be Possible
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-room-temp ... ctors.html

General Electric Superconducting Generator
https://www.ge.com/research/project/hig ... -generator

[Window Land]

Last I checked (pretty recently), no, there fucking aren't. Certainly nothing at TRL 4 or higher.



Except, you cannot squeeze an arbitrary amount more energy out of generators with "room temperature superconductors" and "improving turbines". Also, the turbines used in hydro/wind are vastly different from the ones used in nuclear (and fossil fuel), namely because hydro and wind turbines are not heat engines, whereas nuclear and fossil fuel turbines are. And the most significant way to improve heat engine output is to increase the temperature difference (see: Carnot). Functionally, this means increasing the temperature of the steam going into the turbine. Fossil fuels are essentially at the limit. The combustion of hydrocarbons produces generally the same temperature no matter what, and we've been using it for power for so long that we've certainly hit the limit. However, with nuclear power, you can more or less arbitrarily increase the temperature as high as you want (which we have yet to really take advantage of).

I was thinking about General Electric and the new high temperature superconductors that are being developed for wind power.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/supercond ... irst-test/

Room Temperature Superconductors Could Be Possible
https://phys.org/news/2016-09-room-temp ... ctors.html

General Electric Superconducting Generator
https://www.ge.com/research/project/hig ... -generator

"High temperature" superconductors are any superconductor that liquid nitrogen can force to become superconductors. Room temperature superconductors do exist, but they require pressures in the hundreds of gigapascals (for reference, atmospheric pressure is around 101.3 kilopascals). technology that can efficiently take advantage of superconductivity is a long way off.