Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[shynung]

Is already elaborated. In the question I said that this "being" knows. It does not matter how it "knows".. Just give the answer XD

No, you haven't elaborated it. We're not Gods. We humans obtain knowledge by observation, experimentation, deduction, and calculation. Even when asked by such a 'being', I would never recommend simply guessing a random large number and be done with it. That's just a sick joke.

Well people, returning to the topic objective.

What technology in development you think that it has potential?

MHD Generators.

[PakledHostage]

PD: What is fracking?

"Fracking" is hydraulic fracturing. It is a process whereby natural gas trapped underground can be extracted. Basically, the hydraulic pressures crack the underground rock to release the gas (mostly methane) so that it can be collected. New ship and liquification plant technologies allow it to be transported around the world.

Its negative consequences include contaminating ground water and pollution of surface water that is drawn out of rivers and streams to be pumped underground. Google "Sacred Headwaters" and "Shell Canada" for more about the types of controversies that fracking causes.

[lajoswinkler]

Re: Nuclear waste.

It comes from the ground, right?

So after reprocessing the heck out of whatever you can, you dilute whatever can't be used down to the level of ore again, and put it back where you got it from.

Or am I being completely thick?

No, the elements in the processed waste do not exist on Earth. They're completely manmade. They do exist after a supernova explosion, though.

You don't want to dilute those compounds. What you want is to vitrify them (make a solid solution of those compounds in glass) and place such matrix in a steel and concrete container, then bury it in a concrete tub deep in a geologically stable layer.

The glassy matrix ensures that they can't leak out. Certain minor problems exist with this (glass degradation), but nothing huge.

[magnemoe]

"Fracking" is hydraulic fracturing. It is a process whereby natural gas trapped underground can be extracted. Basically, the hydraulic pressures crack the underground rock to release the gas (mostly methane) so that it can be collected. New ship and liquification plant technologies allow it to be transported around the world.

Its negative consequences include contaminating ground water and pollution of surface water that is drawn out of rivers and streams to be pumped underground. Google "Sacred Headwaters" and "Shell Canada" for more about the types of controversies that fracking causes.

As you only do fracking on deep deposit anything exiting is caused because leaks on ground level or at the top of the pipe.

Remember you are using very high pressure: around 8000 bar, not the 2-300 they normally uses

[xcorps]

There's a whole lot of hype about fracking. A large majority of it is speculation and myth.

[phoenix_ca]

Japan isn't some backwater country, is a great power. It doesn't give great confidence to how the rest of the world is managing their nuclear plants.

I didn't suggest that they were, and if there is one salient point to be made is that when it comes to public policy, democratic nations are practically schizophrenic and bipolar. Whether or not the country is technologically advanced is not absolutely related to how good their policy is regarding nuclear reactors. Japan is pretty much the case-in-point of that. I've pointed-out before, their entire culture surrounding nuclear power was toxic from the beginning; this kind of wake-up call was bound to happen to them eventually by carrying on the way they were.

So then you are saying that sellers dont really care what they are selling, why it would be different with nuclear plants?

Canana is the only one selling nuclear plants?

What can you do if your client dont care much about the wastes or their nuclear plant security? What if your client need it for make nuclear weapons?

So if someone is selling, they would not care to who are they selling. It can be also taken as discrimination if you denied to sell a country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Read it. All of it. And then look at your statements again. You've completely missed the point.

I found it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NPWWch6.pdf

It took me about twenty seconds to dig-up this:

The French and German governments have also required Areva to enable the reactor’s safety systems and spent fuel building to withstand the crash of a military aircraft. And in the event of an accident or sabotage, the EPR’s double-walled containment structure would hold up better than the standard single-walled one. The EPR is also designed with a core catcher to prevent the core from melting through the reactor vessel during a severe accident. (As noted, the core catcher is a novel feature, and may not have much better than a 50 percent chance of working.) However, the design for the EPR at Olkiluoto, Finland, had to be upgraded to comply with a post-9/11 requirement that the plant be able to withstand the impact of a commercial aircraft. 131 Without a similar NRC requirement, the U.S. EPR could, and most likely would, be based on the initial, less robust design.

So, yeah. Reactors. Being built to withstand aircraft smashing into them even better than the current design. I'll read the rest later, but I'd rather like a full citation (not just a link to the document). And if those safeties are removed to compete in the US market? Guess what, that's not a design problem, it's a policy problem. It's certainly possible to design a safer reactor; whether or not you do it is the problem.

Well people, returning to the topic objective.

What technology in development you think that it has potential?

LFTR, dense plasma fusion, and polywell fusion (using p+b11). Polywells can be used to retrofit existing thermal power plants, DPF could be used for small distributed loads (which would be great for countries like Canada with various areas of very low population density), and thorium fission might provide piles of clean power on the cheap.

[Aghanim]

Thorium fission if you desperately need for clean power, like now. And when fusion is available, spam it everywhere. In substations across countries. In ships. In train, trucks, bus or even car if you could make it smaller and lighter. In airplanes. In homes. Aluminium smelter. With large enough fusion fuel tank, refuelling will be as rare as fission reactor, with the benefit of easy shutdown. Fusion is the most overpowered energy source, if it's in a game everyone will scream to nerf it.

The only problem? We doesn't have a energy generating fusion reactor. But we are close to that

[phoenix_ca]

Tantalizingly close, in fact. :3

[m4v]

I didn't suggest that they were, and if there is one salient point to be made is that when it comes to public policy, democratic nations are practically schizophrenic and bipolar. Whether or not the country is technologically advanced is not absolutely related to how good their policy is regarding nuclear reactors. Japan is pretty much the case-in-point of that. I've pointed-out before, their entire culture surrounding nuclear power was toxic from the beginning; this kind of wake-up call was bound to happen to them eventually by carrying on the way they were.

That link feels very biased to me, kinda like the mistake of Japan was not buying Canadian reactors.

[phoenix_ca]

That link feels very biased to me, kinda like the mistake of Japan was not buying Canadian reactors.

It was a mistake. They chose the less efficient PWR and BWR designs which had terrible capacity by comparison. They had options, and they chose the objectively worse one. O.o

[m4v]

It was a mistake. They chose the less efficient PWR and BWR designs which had terrible capacity by comparison. They had options, and they chose the objectively worse one. O.o

Light water reactors are the most used type of reactor, sounds like everyone is making that mistake.

[phoenix_ca]

Light water reactors are the most used type of reactor, sounds like everyone is making that mistake.

LWR designs have come a long way since then. They actually have capacity factors that are quite reasonable now; they've even eclipsed CANDU. But at the time Japan was making the choice, the American PWRs on offer were terrible by comparison, with capacity factors around 50%, which the CANDU had around 80-90%.

As with everything else, it's just not that simple. :/

[MK3424]

Still i'm gonna put my money on the new fusion reactor being build in France.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[Dedjal]

I am in favour of dressing the moon in solar panels and beam the power down through lasers and/or microwave transmitters.

Infact, I think an asian company has suggested the same thing

[phoenix_ca]

Still i'm gonna put my money on the new fusion reactor being build in France.

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Tokamaks show no sign of working at all, let alone any time soon.

[theend3r]

I am in favour of dressing the moon in solar panels and beam the power down through lasers and/or microwave transmitters.

Infact, I think an asian company has suggested the same thing

That's a terrible idea. As energy consumtion increases so does technology allowing for better energy sources. Those panels would become obsolete quite quickly and would still require maintenance. The cost would be great and so would be the energy loss during transfer.

[lajoswinkler]

I don't understand these people that say "yeah, fusion".

We don't have a working fusion reactor. Period.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't understand these people that say "yeah, fusion".

We don't have a working fusion reactor. Period.

I think people are considering alternatives as a stop gap measure until fusion arrives.

I'm not sure that's a good perspective, we are not sure when or even if practical fusion power generation will become a reality (though some great strides have been made in the field). Count me in the camp that says we need a mix of nuclear fission and renewables to replace the fossil fuel power infrastructure.

One thing I find amusing about some of the more extreme anti-nuclear/green groups is that they have no trouble believing a plastic bottle in a landfill will last thousands of years but cannot believe we are able to make a container for nuclear waste that has a similar lifespan.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Now tarring with a smaller brush.

[PakledHostage]

One thing I find amusing about the anti-nuclear/green groups is that they have no trouble believing a plastic bottle in a landfill will last thousands of years but cannot believe we are able to make a container for nuclear waste that has a similar lifespan.

I think you are over generalizing.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think you are over generalizing.

You're right, corrected.

[SargeRho]

Tokamaks show no sign of working at all, let alone any time soon.

I don't think ITER would be built if that was the case.

[lajoswinkler]

I think people are considering alternatives as a stop gap measure until fusion arrives.

I'm not sure that's a good perspective, we are not sure when or even if practical fusion power generation will become a reality (though some great strides have been made in the field). Count me in the camp that says we need a mix of nuclear fission and renewables to replace the fossil fuel power infrastructure.

One thing I find amusing about some of the more extreme anti-nuclear/green groups is that they have no trouble believing a plastic bottle in a landfill will last thousands of years but cannot believe we are able to make a container for nuclear waste that has a similar lifespan.

There isn't much I can add to this post. I agree with you completely on this one.

[PakledHostage]

There isn't much I can add to this post. I agree with you completely on this one.

Funny that 32 pages into this debate, we seem to be coming to the realization many of us actually agree with each other, even though we could be characterized as being on opposite sides of the pro/anti nuclear fence. Next thing you know we'll all be singing kumbaya...

[MC.STEEL]

Nuclear is all good but there is a Huge packet of energy right under your seat...

Yes people i am talking about geothermal and why no one seems to give a damn about it.

[lajoswinkler]

Nuclear is all good but there is a Huge packet of energy right under your seat...

Yes people i am talking about geothermal and why no one seems to give a damn about it.

So what? If you can't reach it efficiently, it's good as grassfield to a lion.

Geothermal is good in few places on Earth and that's it. It can not solve energy problems of 99% of people on the planet.