LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 07-03-2021, 04:01 PM   #31
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,697

Rep: Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Nuclear? 100 years? How many Chernobyls, Fukishimas, & 3 mile islands will you have in 1000 years? Aren't we in enough trouble already?
Look it up. Even though Molten Salt has none of those issues, and even given the negative results of Chernobyl, Fukishima, and 3-Mile Island (which BTW I visited on a Physics Class trip while under construction the day JFK was assassinated) the negative impact of nuclear of those 3 was almost nil, especially compared to ANY alternative, and especially coal.

Few died in Chernobyl from any cause... 60 total during and including the decade after, roughly twice the number who died constructing the Brooklyn Bridge, though that reported number may be a low estimate considering the long term effects of "Caisson Disease".

Few died from anything nuclear at Fukishama... most drowned in the tsunmami or were crushed by falling debris from the earthquake. Nobody, not one person, was even made ill at 3 Mile Island. Even within the first mile of radius around 3 Mile radiation exposure was less than a third of a single chest Xray.

FYI "The China Syndrome" was utterly fake propaganda. It's Madagascar that's roughly opposite the US, not China, but "The Madagascar Syndrome" wouldn't have sold as well Nobody seemed to notice that an actual meltdown (which did not even occur in the movie, just the imagined threat) does not "burn through the Earth and out the other side". It is physically impossible for many reasons... literally laughably absurd.
 
Old 07-03-2021, 04:50 PM   #32
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,064

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soadyheid View Post
Note I haven't mentioned renewable energy in this post yet, I'd been hoping that there may have been some off-the-wall ideas for removing the heat stored in the oceans primarily to mitigate Climate Change with a source of energy as a bi-product.
The problem is, that's just not physically possible.

First, removing heat from the oceans would in itself require energy (see Hazel's post earlier in this thread). Second, where do you put that energy? Into the ground somehow? Or into the atmosphere, negating the heat sink effect the ocean is currently providing?

All energy we "use" just change state, and it all ends up as heat. Every last bit of it.

We have one source of energy we can safely use: The sun, and by extension wind and ocean waves. The earth absorbs a certain amount of the sun's rays on the side pointing towards it, and fortunately radiates a similar amount of energy on the opposite side. Well, except recently it's started absorbing more, which means we're slowly heating up. Which is probably very bad.

I believe the worst thing that could possibly happen to us, is if cheap fusion power were to become available. We'd probably cook ourselves within a few decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Look it up. Even though Molten Salt has none of those issues, and even given the negative results of Chernobyl, Fukishima, and 3-Mile Island (which BTW I visited on a Physics Class trip while under construction the day JFK was assassinated) the negative impact of nuclear of those 3 was almost nil, especially compared to ANY alternative, and especially coal.
Not too sure about Fukushima (I don't have all the facts), but the worst of those three is easily Chernobyl/Prypyat, and that particular incident should teach us a very important lesson: There's no system so safe and secure that human incompetence and idiocy can't turn it into a horrible disaster.

The Chernobyl reactor was incredibly well-made, and even ran on low-grade fuel. Unlike the Three Mile Island reactor (on/off indicator wired to a switch rather than a valve sensor) or Fukushima (backup systems in a basement that would easily be flooded by a tsunami), the failure didn't occur because of moronic design mistakes, but because all procedures and security precautions were ignored for political reasons.

And that's precisely how humans in power tend to behave, so we should expect that to happen again. And again. And again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
Nobody seemed to notice that an actual meltdown (which did not even occur in the movie, just the imagined threat) does not "burn through the Earth and out the other side". It is physically impossible for many reasons... literally laughably absurd.
Absolutely. After all, there's such a thing as gravity. The whole "China syndrome" idea is unbelievably stupid, and does not in any way reflect the real security issues with nuclear reactors.

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 07-03-2021 at 04:58 PM. Reason: quote error
 
Old 07-03-2021, 05:07 PM   #33
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,697

Rep: Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529
Ser Olmy please look up Thorium Molten Salt Reactor or try this.... there are many more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak

Better still look up the actual operation design of Molten Salt Reactors. They don't need to be monitored! If controls power gives out, the sealed molten salts simply solidify back to a solid where no reaction takes place. Once again - they can't explode. They can't meltdown. They can't release radiation into the ground or the atmosphere and they don't need water.

Chernobyl was still of the design meant for submarines that required constant monitoring by humans and machines to keep the process from overheating and running away. Molten Salt does not work that way. It can't run away. Please do check around. There are obstacles but from what I see they do not include serious safety issues.

BTW you do recognize how much safer cars are today than even just a few decades ago, right? How often do you worry about being electrocuted in your home? At one time it was a major problem and a common cause of damage and death. Progress happens.

Last edited by enorbet; 07-03-2021 at 05:13 PM.
 
Old 07-03-2021, 05:27 PM   #34
fido_dogstoyevsky
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Victoria, Australia
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 437
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 512Reputation: 512Reputation: 512Reputation: 512Reputation: 512Reputation: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
...the negative impact of nuclear of those 3 was almost nil, especially compared to ANY alternative, and especially coal...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...red_generation for a brief comparison.

Having said that, I still feel uncomfortable with the thought of relying on fission power in the long term; the biggest problems are associated with people's mismanagement rather than the actual hardware - shortcuts will eventually make the safest of sytems unsafe.
 
Old 07-03-2021, 05:28 PM   #35
igadoter
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: wroclaw, poland
Distribution: many, primary Slackware
Posts: 2,463
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
There is a chance. Because laws of energy conservation are only approximately true. In real world portion of energy always disperse. I think that solution is just restore life in oceans. To rebuild huge biomass of living in oceans creatures. All energy transformation and energy consumption processes should be enough to cool down oceans. And rescue ice. So we need total prohibition of fish fishing - in general no industry level harvesting of oceans, seas. And of course life restoration. Approximately 20-30 years should be enough for this if we will start today. Because still ocean resources are enough.

Last edited by igadoter; 07-03-2021 at 05:30 PM.
 
Old 07-04-2021, 02:18 AM   #36
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,569
Blog Entries: 16

Rep: Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304
I don't like the idea of relying on fission for another reason. Even if the reactors are safe, they still generate long lasting radioactive waste, which we will be essentially handing on to our children as a problem for them to solve. How is that ethically acceptable? I don't see how it is any different from handing them an atmosphere full of carbon dioxide. Either way, they will be paying the bill for our lifestyle.

Last edited by hazel; 07-04-2021 at 02:19 AM.
 
Old 07-04-2021, 01:20 PM   #37
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys
Posts: 3,697

Rep: Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529Reputation: 3529
Hello hazel
You are of course correct that waste products are a serious issue but as you also noted such waste is from all means of generating power. The byproducts of fossil fuels often never degrade with time and are far more difficult to just collect and store. One of my brothers-in-law works for a company selling "scrubbers" and they do accomplish some good but they also have their own problems.

Thorium Salt Reactors have one advantage in that they can burn up existing fuel rods whose half life is many human lifetimes and the resulting next level waste lasts orders of magnitude less time and has substantially less mass - easier and safer to store. Another advantage of course is they don't need continual flowing water. There are a few more advantages.

Bottom line - given the track record of France's nuclear program with older, less safe, more polluting reactors that STILL compare extremely favorably with fossil fuels (major net gain actually) I think we should at the very least have a few dozen Molten Salt Reactors in actual use to become intimately familiar with what modifications/adaptions will be even more beneficial.

The US was one of the first countries to explore nuclear power generation and the first to incite severe backlash. The Sierra Club, a potent political force with a largely beneficial environmental agenda, at first championed nuclear power. The story of how one person gathered support and altered that agenda by equating nuclear power with nuclear bombs for an extremely potent negative emotional reaction is actually quite fascinating.

It's very hard if not impossible to measure the huge and global impact of the movie "The China Syndrome" but he, Jerry Brown, Jane Fonda and others most definitely accomplished their aims. The advertising poster for the movie has a background of a nuclear mushroom cloud! They completely lied about (or simply had no clue) about the danger of Meltdown. The Sierra Club did a 180 and came out strongly against nuclear and backed the "No Nukes" movement. At best they had their priorities misguided. They should have come out against nuclear weapons and fossil fuels. Those are seriously threatening. If we are forced into a condition of "Crisis Management", itself not a good policy, the whole premise is to put out the fires already tall enough to burn one's ass. These so-called but misinformed environmentalists were actually "on fire" while they squirted water on tiny embers.

It's like stepping on a fiver to pick up a penny.

BTW isn't it amazing and a bit insane that we as a species still to this day accept that a single mistake with atomic weapons, say between Pakistan and India, even if it never escalated beyond a first exchange, would have global effects, murdering many hundreds of millions? Yes, nuclear bombs are clear and present danger in the extreme, but that does not conflate to all nuclear processes.

Fear is a potent motivator but to actually deal with what we fear we must move past fear into management mode and that requires verifiable information which usually means education. I urge all to educate themselves on these issues. It's rather important.

Last edited by enorbet; 07-04-2021 at 01:28 PM.
 
Old 07-04-2021, 02:59 PM   #38
Soadyheid
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Near Edinburgh, Scotland
Distribution: Cinnamon Mint 20.1 (Laptop) and 18.3 (Desktop)
Posts: 1,560

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436
@ Ser Olmy
Quote:
First, removing heat from the oceans would in itself require energy (see Hazel's post earlier in this thread). Second, where do you put that energy? Into the ground somehow? Or into the atmosphere, negating the heat sink effect the ocean is currently providing?
But this was one of the points I was trying to make! Apart from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) or perhaps some form of heat pump device, is there no way to convert the heat energy into electrical energy?

If you want to go nuclear for energy, I'd go got the Thorium molten salt reactors but they seem to be in the same stages of development as OTEC power; still in their infancy. Regarding the waste products?
Quote:
Hans Blix, the disarmament specialist who found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has said "Thorium fuel gives rise to waste that is smaller in volume, less toxic and much less long lived than the wastes that result from uranium fuel"
From Wikipedia:
Quote:
There is much less nuclear waste when thorium is used as a fuel in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor — up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[7] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[18]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[27] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.
Seems a lot better bet than current reactors though fusion seems to be more in the headlines now. I'd find them more worrying, you need shed loads of energy to generate the magnetic fields to contain the plasma before you get any payback.

I found Michael Shellenberger's TED talk in enorbet's post #33 very interesting, renewables, which are getting huge investments to "Save the Planet," generate only a small amount of the power needed plus use rare earths and toxic heavy metals in their construction. No real plans for recycling yet as far as I can tell.

Play Bonny!

 
Old 07-04-2021, 03:24 PM   #39
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 3,064

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soadyheid View Post
@ Ser Olmy
But this was one of the points I was trying to make! Apart from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) or perhaps some form of heat pump device, is there no way to convert the heat energy into electrical energy?
The reason we can say there's "usable energy" stored as heat in the oceans, is that there's less heat somewhere else.

We can indeed siphon off some of that differential by letting the heat power something as it flows from one place to another, say, with something as simple as a Stirling engine. The result: The temperature difference between the oceans and whatever we choose as the recipient of that energy, lessens over time. And the energy we collect will be used to power various devices, which eventually converts it all to heat.

As long as we utilise energy from solar or wind or waves, that's not an issue. That's heat we'd be receiving from the sun anyway. Even burning wood is basically using stored solar energy. But use anything else, and we're adding heat to the equation, heat that would otherwise not be there. The question is just how much, and what effect it will have over time.
 
Old 07-04-2021, 07:42 PM   #40
Soadyheid
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Near Edinburgh, Scotland
Distribution: Cinnamon Mint 20.1 (Laptop) and 18.3 (Desktop)
Posts: 1,560

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436
Quote:
As long as we utilise energy from solar or wind or waves, that's not an issue. That's heat we'd be receiving from the sun anyway. Even burning wood is basically using stored solar energy. But use anything else, and we're adding heat to the equation, heat that would otherwise not be there. The question is just how much, and what effect it will have over time.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. I think you'll find the sun is the thing which is heating the oceans. Being able to convert this energy to electrical energy would be useful (especially with the growing demand for electric vehicles and air conditioners!) with the cooling of the oceans a bonus. However, I don't see any solution to this at present which would scale to anything viable.

Play Bonny!

 
Old 07-05-2021, 07:01 AM   #41
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,604

Rep: Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soadyheid View Post
is there no way to convert the heat energy into electrical energy?
No, you can only convert heat flow (i.e., move it from a hotter to a colder volume) into electric energy.
 
Old 07-05-2021, 08:16 AM   #42
EdGr
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2010
Location: California, USA
Distribution: I run my own OS
Posts: 648

Rep: Reputation: 314Reputation: 314Reputation: 314Reputation: 314
Yes, and the temperature difference needs to be large to extract energy efficiently. The ocean is the cold side for some power plants.

Since electricity is all the same, for better or for worse, the cheapest method of extracting energy wins. Having to compete on cost eliminates a lot of potential sources of energy.

Note that some sources of energy are "cheating" by externalizing their costs, or by pushing cost into the future.
Ed
 
Old 07-05-2021, 08:23 AM   #43
Soadyheid
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Location: Near Edinburgh, Scotland
Distribution: Cinnamon Mint 20.1 (Laptop) and 18.3 (Desktop)
Posts: 1,560

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436Reputation: 436
Ah... I seem to have my terminology mixed up, perhaps I should have said:
Quote:
is there no way to convert the thermal energy into electrical energy?
I agree that heat flows from hot to cold in general. However, the surface of the oceans are much hotter than the depths. Water isn't that good a conductor of heat. (I remember doing an experiment in a physics class waaaay back in the 1960s where we sunk an ice cube to the bottom of a test tube and boiled the water at the top with a bunsen flame.) This temperature differential is what OTEC uses to generate electricity with quite a few useful by-products.
Quote:
Among ocean energy sources, OTEC is one of the continuously available renewable energy resources that could contribute to base-load power supply.[1] The resource potential for OTEC is considered to be much larger than for other ocean energy forms.[2] Up to 88,000 TWh/yr of power could be generated from OTEC without affecting the ocean's thermal structure.
Play Bonny!

 
Old 07-05-2021, 08:58 AM   #44
business_kid
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware, RPi OS, Mint & Android
Posts: 12,999

Rep: Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714Reputation: 1714
Post deleted

Last edited by business_kid; 07-05-2021 at 09:00 AM.
 
Old 07-05-2021, 09:37 AM   #45
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,569
Blog Entries: 16

Rep: Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304Reputation: 3304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soadyheid View Post
is there no way to convert the thermal energy into electrical energy?
Yes, of course there is. You use a steam-powered dynamo. It's how most power stations work at the moment. The steam is produced either by burning carbon fuels or by cooling a nuclear pile. And it's very inefficient.

Or you can use an internal combustion engine, which is even more inefficient.

Last edited by hazel; 07-05-2021 at 09:39 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Energy infrastructure platform uses open source to fight climate change LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 04-22-2021 04:52 PM
Digital Ocean API, and an IdeDigital Ocean API hunterjoz1996 Programming 0 09-30-2015 01:45 AM
LXer: Linux-based home energy gateway supports ZigBee Smart Energy 2.0 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-31-2012 07:00 PM
LXer: Solutions for the Energy Crises -- Part 1: Alternate Energy and Conservation LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 02-03-2006 10:16 AM
Help, energy crisis kt_leohart Linux - Laptop and Netbook 0 11-17-2004 05:35 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration